PDA

View Full Version : 9/11 - time for another look?


Pages : [1] 2

BOAC
14th Jan 2009, 11:02
I know the howls of protest will arise, but I happened to stumble across this (believe it or not!) while Googling around computer programming help pages.

It appears to be a serious effort by a professional group to call for a review of the 9/11 commission findings on the collapse of the twin towers, and, more interestingly on Tower 7. One piece of interest is the clip of BBC News 24 'announcing' the collapse of Tower 7 20 minutes early, to camera with a shot of the tower still standing behind the presenter.

It is a long video, just under 700mb, runs for well over an hour and originates from ae911truth.org. formed by a group of professional engineers and architects.

I would urge you to at least have a look at it - it is thought provoking, and as the guy says at the end, do not just dismiss it for reasons of "It's too horrible to contemplate" or "They wouldn't do that, would they?".

There are several ways to challenge the suggestions, but I found 'back-tracking' on the logic of the presentation led me to a rather alarming root.

911bft.avi at Index of /pub/911/911.Blueprint.for.Truth.2008.Edition.DVDRip.XviD (http://sector.ynet.sk/pub/911/911.Blueprint.for.Truth.2008.Edition.DVDRip.XviD/)

Now, over to the wolves.

Captain Stable
14th Jan 2009, 11:21
One piece of interest is the clip of BBC News 24 'announcing' the collapse of Tower 7 20 minutes early, to camera with a shot of the tower still standing behind the presenter.Any thought that it could just have been a mistake? If it was conspiracy rather than cockup, I think a reporter would have been the very last person to have been let in on the secret in advance. "Blimey - can't wait to tell the blokes down the pub how I got this scoop..."

Sorry, BOAC - just (yet) another load of hysterical spotty conspiracy theorists who wear aluminium foil inside their unwashed beanies. Surprised you appear to go for it.

Wader2
14th Jan 2009, 11:57
In my position of authority I received a letter from this bloke in, IIRC, the Sheffield area. He claimed a number of academic qualifications and that he worked with the OU. He cited an 'eminent' femal US scientist withwhom he worked.

His exposition was written and printed on A5 paper and small font to cram as much as he could on the written page. It was an essay in conspiracy theory and disconnected events that, to him, created a complelling theory.

His main observation was that the time of fall of the top of the tower was the same as an object in freefall and not of one that he expected should have been slowed by underlying collapse.

He had sent it to all chief constables, commanders of military bases, the dear ole beeb, etc.

I gave it my endorsement and passed it on to the appropriate authorities, waste management as I recall.

Desert Diner
14th Jan 2009, 12:34
One piece of interest is the clip of BBC News 24 'announcing' the collapse of Tower 7 20 minutes early, to camera with a shot of the tower still standing behind the presenter.


Back drop perhaps? Or a "doctored" clip?

Amazing how you can find such a BBC clip on a conspiracy site yet never on the venerable site itself.:rolleyes:

maliyahsdad
14th Jan 2009, 13:18
BBC NEWS | The Editors (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/07/controversy_conspiracies_iii.html)

BOAC
14th Jan 2009, 13:21
another load of hysterical spotty conspiracy theorists - except not quite so 'spotty' if you look at the qualifications.

Wader - the towers (according to the video) took 1.5 seconds longer than the 'freefall time' to collapse, which is surprising..

Now, I'm not saying I have 'gone for it', but it is worth viewing, if only to stimulate thought in turgid brains

Captain Stable
14th Jan 2009, 13:25
I think if my brains ever get THAT turgid I shall probably (if not already dead) get them moving with a crossword. :ugh:

Is there any chance that along with Religion and Politics, PPRuNe could also adopt a policy of banning effing brainless conspiracy theories? Pretty please, Danny?

bnt
14th Jan 2009, 13:25
Why do you anticipate "howls of protest"? Do you think your fellow ppruners are all on the "other side"? It's hardly the first time we've heard about the "truthers" here, and they may have a point - I don't know. So? The Bush regime was re-elected in 2004, despite all that, and is now in its last days.

What is your objection to the official explanation, that thermal expansion of unprotected girders was a major (but not the only) factor in the building's collapse?

As for me: it's over, the buildings are long gone, and if I was really bothered about the history, I would dig in to it more deeply. The fact that investigators (NIST etc.) revised their previous conclusions is neither here nor there - they've done it before, and will do it again: it happens. Since I'm currently studying structural engineering, I'm far more interested in their recommendations for avoiding thermal expansion problems in future buildings - and I don't have to "buy in" to their explanation to accept their recommendations. (Even so: inadequate design for thermal expansion, combined with inadequate insulation of structural members, is hardly conspiracy fodder, is it?)

PS: I give this thread 2-3 hours before closure.No particular reason.

The SSK
14th Jan 2009, 13:56
Each time I see one of these diversions, I am struck by the same thought.

If there really was a ‘conspiracy’, it would not have been that difficult for a well-funded, well-connected and well-organised covert group to plant explosives in one, both or indeed all three towers, blow them up and blame it on Al Qaeeda. Job done - no need for complicated, costly and risky adventures with aeroplanes, etc.

As for the wilder assertions about remote-controlled B767s, cruise missile strikes against the Pentagon, etc, a moment’s pause and you would realise that this would take a cast of thousands and a budget running into hundreds of millions while a simple kaboom in Manhattan would suffice.

I’ve done TV interviews in a studio but on the screen I appear to be standing on a city street.

BOAC
14th Jan 2009, 14:03
In the remaining time:) What is your objection to the official explanation, - whoa! I don't 'have an objection' - I just don't know.

bnt - "Since I'm currently studying structural engineering" - you may find some of the analysis interesting, in that case.

airfoilmod
14th Jan 2009, 14:06
I'm with you. Listening to the "Debate is over" types is tiresome. There is little in creation more worthless than a "Gummint" investigation. 9/11 is no exception. A former investigator myself (criminal defense), I never lapse into immediate dismissal of objective debate.

"Free Fall"?- Mostly, (my conclusion) due to the way each floor was "clipped" to the exterior shear not due to molten Steel (there was none.).

#7- This is a puzzler; w/o external insult, why did it collapse at all?

Pilotage- As a pilot, I will never be completely convinced that Hatta could fly that well, or any of them, actually. Especially the Pentagon. To impact in that area at an airspeed of ~400 knots? Just at the point where lawn meets wall? Incredible.

My training commands me to be sceptical of all evidence, let alone net/chat

Sceptical, not dismissive.

AF

Wader2
14th Jan 2009, 14:36
- the towers (according to the video) took 1.5 seconds longer than the 'freefall time' to collapse, which is surprising..

Not if you do the maths.

An object in vaccuum, from 1368 feet will take about 9.25 seconds to travel the distance assuming g=32 fps.

An object that takes 10.75 seconds to reach the ground will have been dropped from a height of about 1848 feet. A significant difference.

Doing it the other way, an object in free fall is accelerated at 32 fps. Given the extra 1.5 seconds for the WTC collapse the acceleration is only 23.69 fps.

Visually it seems pretty fast - 1.5 seconds. Apply Newton's formula we can see that the story is quite different.

Captain Stable
14th Jan 2009, 14:41
No - objects do not continuously accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 (or 32 f/s^2). ALL objects have a terminal velocity, so to assume constant acceleration is to underestimate the time they should take to hit the ground.

So, basically, the conspiracy theory is based upon an error that a GCSE maths pupil would lose marks for, let alone a qualified engineer.

Don't you just love the ways the conspiracies are always presented with "I don't say this is the truth - I just think it's worth looking at" :ugh:

airfoilmod
14th Jan 2009, 14:44
The debris at the top is similar to a piston as it descends down and through the bldg. (cylinder). Friction plays an important role here, this is not a void.

seanbean
14th Jan 2009, 14:48
I just love the (now typical) furore that erupts every time someone posts on one of these old chestnuts. Hamas, Princes William & Harry and a few others are pretty guaranteed the same effect!

Now, let me get comfy... In your own time - Go on!

airfoilmod
14th Jan 2009, 15:00
Where are you on AGW? Is the debate over? You may want to get less comfortable with some "official" material. The 9/11 commission was a technically challenged and politically charged exercise, besides, the science is always interesting, to some. If not to you, I wonder at your ease. Why are you wasting your time on something you seem to deplore?

Just askin'

AF

I get that you endorse the official explanation. No Poll asking the American public if they accept the Warren commision's findings results in less than 70 % disagreement. You are in the minority here, also, if it matters.

Light Westerly
14th Jan 2009, 15:03
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1)

Wader2
14th Jan 2009, 15:04
No - objects do not continuously accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 (or 32 f/s^2). ALL objects have a terminal velocity, so to assume constant acceleration is to underestimate the time they should take to hit the ground.

Who are you sniping at? I did say in a vaccuum.

The letter I received from the CT said the times for free-fall and the collapsing top floor were the same - the collapsing building had no retarding effect.

BOAC says the time was 1.5 seconds longer. This of course could, as you say, be due to the building reaching its TV, but this is wholly unlikely was even a low TV is not reached until dropped from a much greater height. What you do have is retardation through drag or through resistance from the building.

This retardation is equivalent to the difference between 23.65 fps and 32 fps. I contend it is not attributable soley to aerodynamic drag.

Beer_n_Tabs
14th Jan 2009, 15:23
Hey.....and the other week as well one of them pesky UFO's hit one of them there wind generator type thingys.

The truth is out there !!

BOAC
14th Jan 2009, 16:07
"I don't say this is the truth - I just think it's worth looking at" :ugh: - you've got it:ok: I have doubts about some of the content, other content is significant food for thought. I do not have a closed mind so that I cannot LOOK at something like this. I bring it to the attention of all those with enquiring minds and they can make those minds up themselves.

Apparently the BBC have accidentally 'lost' the footage of the Tower 7 news item to which the programme referred - "cock-up and not conspiracy" is their reply.

By the way, Beer_n - it was a flying cow.

seanbean
14th Jan 2009, 16:31
Where are you on AGW? Is the debate over? You may want to get less comfortable with some "official" material. The 9/11 commission was a technically challenged and politically charged exercise, besides, the science is always interesting, to some. If not to you, I wonder at your ease. Why are you wasting your time on something you seem to deplore?

Just askin'

AF

I get that you endorse the official explanation. No Poll asking the American public if they accept the Warren commision's findings results in less than 70 % disagreement. You are in the minority here, also, if it matters.

...and of course you are always guaranteed a bite from the tinfoil hat brigade!

lomapaseo
14th Jan 2009, 16:46
I heard that terrorists from Gaza were involved at that time.

Desert Diner
14th Jan 2009, 17:38
BOAC says the time was 1.5 seconds longer. This of course could, as you say, be due to the building reaching its TV, but this is wholly unlikely was even a low TV is not reached until dropped from a much greater height. What you do have is retardation through drag or through resistance from the building.

Terminal Velocity applies to free fall objects. Buildings on the other hand tend to be supported and they tend to fall when said support begins to buckel and then fails. The failing support needs to be accounted in the calculation, which in this case came out to 1.5 seconds.

As for BBC misplacing the clip; Did they have it in the first place? That would be difficult if it was a fabrication.

BOAC
14th Jan 2009, 17:44
Did they have it in the first place? - well, unless their 'admission' was also a fabrication/conspiracy, flying cow, yes, I would expect so. There are clips of it on t'internet.

chuks
14th Jan 2009, 18:00
You expect a collapsing building to hit the same velocity as a dropped object? Why would that be, given that you have to take into account the time it takes the building to, err, collapse? If it collapses instantaneously then, yes, the time to drop would be the same. If it collapses slowly then it might take considerably longer. That reads as if someone wasn't paying attention in Physics 101.

I am sure there are all sorts of loose ends to 9/11 but I really haven't seen anything much that points to one of these vast conspiracies. It seems like the same sort of tenuous argument used by those who see conspiracies behind TWA 800, KAL 007, the Moon landings and even the Holocaust that faked them and fooled almost everyone except some tiny, far-seeing group who are able to see through all this to find the truth which is, after all, "out there." We normal folks just don't have what it takes to see the truth, I guess.

It might interest you 9/11 truth-seekers to know that I am using an anti-gravity device as I write this. Two anti-gravity devices, in fact. Meanwhile I am also doing some time travel. With a bit of luck I shall end up in the future to use a dynamic anti-gravity device there to be found ("desk, chair, trip scheduled for tomorrow morning in a light aircraft").

I think that reality can be just as much fun as idle speculation so that no, I do not plan to download this stuff but just to laugh it off. So, sue me.

Captain Stable
14th Jan 2009, 18:24
The paranoia is all over Youtube. There's footage of the reportage on Tower7, but I see nothing to say that it was reported 20 mins before the tower collapsed.

What I do see is loads and loads of total crap, from missiles being fired at the WTC, extra "equipment" under the fuselage of one aircraft, strange logos on them, UFO's attacking the North Tower, etc. etc. etc.

Sorry, but I cannot take any of this remotely seriously. If any of it was a conspiracy, the sheer numbers of people that would have to be involved would make it impossible to keep quiet. Anyone who believes it could is living in La-La Land.

airfoilmod
14th Jan 2009, 18:55
What most folks as yourself miss in your adamant assent to the official line is that the report was dumbed down to satisfy the masses. You are essentially saying that because what you read is good enough for you it has to be sufficient for everyone. Such is not the case. You are easy. You depend on most others to accept your conclusion because it's yours, not because it is exquisitely crafted, (it is not, trust me,).

Both sides do the same, don't feel silly. For every "missile aimed at the WTC" there is a sufficiently stupid counter argument by the truthers. What 98% of the public miss, is that there is data (evidence) missing from both bastions. The report is a weak distillation of what sounds good to the most people.

Case in point: On the commission was a pol from the Clinton administration whose bonehead decisions in the late 90's can arguably be said to have potentiated the attack on the towers. Name this person.

AF

Captain Stable
14th Jan 2009, 19:03
Would you like to try again? Preferably in English? e.g. Do you have any idea what "potentiated" might mean? I assume "pol" is a politician. Do you mean a senator, a congressman, a parish councillor, or a political appointee?

Sorry, but the deliberate obfuscations, the insinuations without any scientific proof, the vague assertions, the fudged videos, the unfounded bollocks just turn me off. There is ample evidence for the generally accepted tale to be true. There is bugger all evidence for UFO's, missile strikes, remotely-piloted aircraft, or little green men from Mars.

So what's your conspiracy theory?

I just love the magic bullet...

seanbean
14th Jan 2009, 19:18
You are easy. You depend on most others to accept your conclusion because it's yours, not because it is exquisitely crafted, (it is not, trust me,)
AF

Don't you just love it when they say "trust me"...?

airfoilmod
14th Jan 2009, 19:23
"To make possible". I have no conspiracy theory. I think you make abundantly clear that you too are without one. My example stands, and I use it to create doubt about the motives and resources of the 9/11 commission. If such as you were to spend one percent of your energy underpinning the question or bolstering the evidence, instead of looking for ways to make others look stupid, a dialogue could ensue. Your attitude is presumptious. That is a mild insult of my own, understand it or don't, it is English.

chuks
14th Jan 2009, 19:44
I would argue that "most people" can read, think and draw reasonable conclusions. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, you can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

We, most of us, have been presented with a mass of stuff, data, evidence, whatever, about 9/11 that led to the conclusion, surprising enough in itself, that terrorists hatched a plot to hijack four airliners that succeeded in destroying two major buildings and seriously damaging another.

There isn't much missionary zeal in thinking this, no real "howls of protest" or "adamant assent" (whatever that means in standard English) but just a sort of sad acceptance of the official version of what happened plus some ideas about what we haven't been told about some of Bush's funny friends in Saudi Arabia too. The zeal is coming from the other side, the ones shouting from the balcony of Castle Moonbat about this one and a lot of other things too.

Those of you with children, if you heard a crash from the kitchen and went there to find the cookie jar in pieces on the floor and your 5 year-old stood there with crumbs and a guilty expression on his face, would you rather think that the demise of the cookie jar was caused by him or by, oh, I don't know, the CIA, Mossad or agents in the pay of those stuck with stocks of unsold cookie jars?

Was 9/11 faked? That seems so unlikely that I just have no interest in believing that. This is, on the face of it, much more reasonable than thinking it was faked, same as I know the conclusion I would jump to in the case of my cookie jar and my 5 year-old.

Are the Royal Family really giant, shape-shifting lizards? I guess not but then I have not read deeply in David Icke's works to examine his arguments for this. Perhaps I am influenced in this by having had Phil the Greek in the back of the aerial conveyance once when I did not notice any gross shifts in CG that might suggest he really was a giant lizard and not a rather small human being.

Faking the Moon landings? Not really do-able, old bean! Waay too many people would have to be involved, plus there are just so many documented occurrences that cannot be made to fit this mad thesis. Not least, we burned three astronauts to death just to fool everyone? Umm, I don't think so!

KAL 007, well, "Just look at the flight number: A spy mission!" or so the arguments ran until it finally turned out that, yes, it wuz the Russians wot done it after some common or garden variety inattention on the part of the Korean crew. That was the cue for the conspiracy nuts to chase some other whacky theory, of which there are plenty, of course.

Most of us have lives, so that we just cannot put in the time it takes to dream up and propagate weird nonsense. Now and then I tune in to this or that notion, think, "Uh-oh," and then move on. Does that make me a patsy for the CIA, Mossad or the Trilateral Commission? It might, actually but this is a risk I am fully prepared to take. Reality throws up enough surprises that I don't need fantastic theories to enhance that.

Another reason for being so dismissive of these various theories is the obvious mendacity of so many who posit them. Often, as here, you find very obvious attempts to ignore basic realities (the speed of a dropped object versus that of a collapsing one) to rope in the gullible.

If anyone really wants something strange then I can demonstrate time travel and anti-gravity, just for starters. Get past those two and then we can re-consider 9/11.

I cannot resist, even though I know this is extremely naughty: "Presumptious" is a word in English? Umm, I really do not think so!

You obviously meant to write "presumptuous" unless there is some alternate form of English I am unaware of but is it, for instance, presumptuous of me to think the sun is coming up tomorrow morning? No, not really, because that is something that it is quite reasonable to presume!

This is just a value judgement, when presumptions one might find unreasonable are called presumptuous, plus they are the same presumptions about presumptuousness, being presumptuous, being in a state of presumptivity or whatever you want to call it that Adolf Hitler made.

I believe you shall find that bringing in the first reference to Adolf Hitler means that no further discussion is possible. So there!

Captain Stable
14th Jan 2009, 19:55
airfoilmod - no, not presumptious.

My attitude is scepticism of a load of tinfoil-wearing nutters who, for want of better things to do, cannot but spend their time inventing fantasies. These fantasies always involve supposition, innuendo, non-scientific examination of minimal evidence and drawing fantastic conclusions all the while ignoring the blindlingly obvious.

chuks put quite admirably clearly.

BTW, I don't think you got my reference to the magic bullet. Why not spend a little time examining that interesting phenomenon?

airfoilmod
14th Jan 2009, 20:14
And you missed my direct reference to it in a post, above.

Mr Chips
14th Jan 2009, 20:43
Just so I understand it, "they" faked the whole thing, planned that tower 7 would be blown up and it was all blown by a reporter reporting something that hadn't happened yet? So all that planning ruined by a reporter who couldn't stick to a script, and nobody said "hang on, not yet"?

yeah, I can see that happening.............

AJMortimer
14th Jan 2009, 21:45
Since I'm currently studying structural engineering, I'm far more interested in their recommendations for avoiding thermal expansion problems in future buildings

If a jet hits a high-rise building at 250kts plus, I would respectfully suggest that thermal expansion will be the least of a structural engineer's problems!

Possibly a more pertinent question for your studies would be: is it possble to design against a high-velocity, high-energy impact - and if so, can the client afford it?!

Answer: NO! (in my humble - but professionally qualified - opinion).

AJ

Desert Diner
14th Jan 2009, 21:55
If a jet hits a high-rise building at 250kts plus, I would respectfully suggest that thermal expansion will be the least of a structural engineer's problems!

I thought they said it was the high heat from the Jet Fuel fire that caused the buckling and ultimate failure of the girders.

BlueWolf
14th Jan 2009, 22:08
Well I say we should put it to Mythbusters. Take an old curtain-wall high rise building, prang a remote-controlled surplus aeroplane into it, and watch what happens.

My bet: the building will fall down.

John Marsh
14th Jan 2009, 22:10
Theories? No thanks. Questions? Yes.

How were asymmetrical physical damage and hydrocarbon fires able to bring about the sudden, symmetrical destruction of the Twin Towers? Such sudden destruction, without toppling, is only normally possible in a carefully planned demolition. That's not a theory, it's a fact.

How did hydrocarbon fires produce molten metal in the ruins?

How did hydrocarbon fires fatally weaken all the intact and stable steel structure below the damaged areas? Most of the Towers were not on fire. Steel conducts and dissipates heat.

What force(s) pulverised virtually all the Twin Towers' contents bar the steel skeleton - concrete, glass, desks etc?

Why were no stacks of damaged but recognisable floors found at Ground Zero? What happened to the 'blocks' of structure above the planes' impact areas?

Why did the NIST report on the Towers halt at the point where they were 'poised for collapse'?

How did asymmetrical office fires cause the sudden, symmetrical destruction of WTC 7?

What produced the molten metal in WTC 7's ruins?

Why do NIST not find the speed of WTC 7's destruction worthy of investigation? They admit that freefall occurred. See here: Info Item (http://www.ae911truth.org/info/44)

I don't know. I am not an expert. But I see that experts worry; therefore so do I.

Desert Diner
14th Jan 2009, 22:42
My bet: the building will fall down.

Save your money. That's a sucker bet you would lose. If you were correct then why were the towers still up for so long after the impact?

What force(s) pulverised virtually all the Twin Towers' contents bar the steel skeleton - concrete, glass, desks etc?

Have you ever heard of a blast furnace? It operates on the principle of forcing more oxygen to generate more fire and much more heat. The winds up there are strong, I had a friend who worked on one of the top floors of one of the towers, he told me the amount of swinging he would see of the other tower up there was incredible, the generated heat must have been incredible.

airfoilmod
14th Jan 2009, 22:58
Overstressed perimeter clips at each floor. The towers were constructed pursuant to the architects theory that light weight flooring supported by horizontal trusses would sustain all imaginable injury. Including the direct hit of an aircraft flying at great speed. (It had happened before, to Empire State.)With the angled, rolled impact of AA and UAL, several floors were severed from their attachments at one time. When the "next floor below" was asked to bear the weight of the flooring and contents of five floors at once,catastrophic vertical collapse ensued, molten metal had little to do with it. As the floors severed, they "lensed", reducing their perimeter dimension, "pulling inside all the debris within the footprint of the original intact structure." That is my understanding of the forensic engineering results by the experts so employed.

AF

Beer_n_Tabs
15th Jan 2009, 10:51
By the way, Beer_n - it was a flying cow.

BOAC... aliens have flying cows now? :eek:

My god, what with this new revelation and the global credit crunch, then thats it I'm outta here.

I'm going to find myself some 3 breasted martian type girl and bugger off to Krypton

AntiCrash
15th Jan 2009, 14:23
As the towers fell the superheated fuel and debris were compressed downward into the common lobby that connected all the buildings. I'm making a big assumption here but all that fuel and heat has to go somewhere. Why would you not think that would have the catastophic effect of destroying building seven anter having been blown in to the plenum?

No conspiracy here, more of a Bessemer convertor, thinks I.

bnt
15th Jan 2009, 17:10
If a jet hits a high-rise building at 250kts plus, I would respectfully suggest that thermal expansion will be the least of a structural engineer's problems!
The original question I was responding to was specifically about WTC 7, and the official report on that, not WTC 1 & 2 - so pardon me for staying on topic. :D

The most readable examination of WTC 1 & 2 is in Structures: From Theory to Practice (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Structures-Theory-Practice-Alan-Jennings/dp/0415268435/ref=sr_1_2) by Dr. Alan Jennings of Queen's University, Belfast. He refers to the twin towers as "vertical cantilevers", which (if you know what a cantilever is) is helpful in understanding how the towers resisted lateral forces, natural or unnatural. He also includes an explanation of the interdependence of the columns and the floors in a modern skyscraper.

These steel columns do not simply stand alone, all the way up to the top: they depend on cross-bracing, and on the floor trusses to keep them straight, in shape to withstand the loads of the floors above. Take out some floors - as the planes did - there's susceptibility to buckling, in addition to damage caused by the impact. Add heat - only a few hundred degrees, nowhere near melting point - and there goes the steel's ability to carry the load. Down she goes.

This is why it's mandatory to insulate structural steel in buildings - fire robs it of its strength, and so when you hear a truther go on about how there wasn't enough heat to melt the steel, well, they're right, but they haven't bothered to look in to it any further. :rolleyes:

BOAC
15th Jan 2009, 19:07
chuks in post #31 bounces a brief blow off 'Occams Razor' with his analogy of kids in the kitchen. I find it an interesting thought how Occam might produce the 'logic' as to why, until 11 Sep 01, not one single steelframed high-rise building had been downed by fire, including some that burned fiercely for over 20 hours, but on 11 Sep 3 fell within a few hours of each other, including one undamaged by aircraft impact. As I say, it has triggered an interesting review in my mind of events.

BombayDuck
15th Jan 2009, 19:18
Which fires are these you talk about, and what was the material that was actually burning in them (not Jet A1 or JP4 or JP7 or whatever aviation fuel is called)? Which floors did these fires take place on and how tall were the buildings?

Because unless you knock out a large number of supports in the middle of the building (not the top floor) with an object carry a lot of kinetic energy (say, a 757 with a lot of fuel) and then burn it with flaming avgas you'll be comparing oranges and lemons - sort of related to each other but taste, smell and lend themselves to completely different sets of uses.

BOAC
15th Jan 2009, 19:33
OK - I buy 1 and 2 - what about 7?

chuks
15th Jan 2009, 21:01
Jeez, BOAC, you make it read as if there should be no particular reason for WTC7 to have fallen down. Have you read the same stuff I have about the damage sustained by that building?

Ah yes... No theories, just questions, reasonable doubts about what "they" want us to believe, as if there are reasonable explanations for how these buildings might collapse or sustain serious damage without things having gone down about the way they seem to have done.

"Avoid needlessly positing multiplicity." Well, no! The official version of 9/11 is the simplest. Every other one spirals off into loony theories about remote-control airliners, un-noticed demolition preparations, thousands and thousands of U.S. government functionaries involved in mass murder, a BBC reporter somehow going off-script to show a carefully orchestrated plot rather than a blooper made under stress... To the ordinary person this stuff just seems so... unreasonable, somehow.

This all seems so familiar to me somehow from previous encounters with moonbats, that same approach to reality, the pose of the enquirer after the truth with just a few little questions about something that doesn't quite make sense...

You will have to excuse my being "presumptious" in lumping the 9/11 truthers in with the Holocaust deniers, the doubters about the Mooon landings, those who think that KAL 007 was on a spy mission and a whole lot of other eye-rolling types with only one oar in the water that have crossed my path over the years and taken me for some sort of likely customer for whatever they are peddling.

Not to worry, there really is a sucker born every minute so that if I'm not buying there will be someone else along soon who is.

I would like to know just how many people are out there who really believe this nonsense about 9/11. Ten thousand, one hundred thousand, a million, even? I don't mean in the Third World, of course, but in the First World! It would be interesting to know that for sure, wouldn't it?

Here one hopes some of these posters are just trying it on for a laugh, stupid though that is. No way you are getting me up on that balcony there at Castle Moonbat, even for a joke.

BombayDuck
15th Jan 2009, 21:22
I don't get it - if you accept 1 and 2 were brought down by terrorist attacks what on earth could be the reason why 7 was torn down by someone else and not by falling debris hitting it?

AJMortimer
15th Jan 2009, 21:38
bnt

Thanks for your response.

I think there are a number of issues here:

1. Could the structure withstand the lateral impact?

2. Was the structure designed and constructed in accordance with the relevant specifications and design calculations?

3. If it was designed in accordance with good practice, would you expect the floors to withstand the impact of the loads imposed by the floors collapsing above?

4. Was the failure consistent with dynamic failure of the structure, or would it be expected that the mode of failure would be different to that experienced on 9/11?

Answers:

1. The towers did withstand the lateral impact;

2. I don't know. This is the question which caused so much anguish to the design engineers, in case they were found negligent in this regard;

3. I don't know. The impact of floors collapsing from above is not a design parameter. The question is: if the structure was designed competently, would the structure below have been expected to carry the additional load?;

4. I'm not an expert in demolition and failure modes of buildings. Perhaps a computer model (has) may provide better data in this regard. I don't know.

Yes, I am aware what a cantilever is you cheeky [email protected]£!!!!! and, as I said previously, thermal expansion is the least of the worries of an engineer when catastrophic of the building occurs.

AJ

BOAC
15th Jan 2009, 21:49
I would like to know just how many people are out there who really believe this nonsense about 9/11. - be afraid, Mr C - there is, I believe, a sizeable chunk of the folk of the 'land of the free' who don't even know Tower 7 came down and I suspect a large number of them are not aware of the commission's findings either.

chuks
15th Jan 2009, 21:54
You need to get out more, looking into some of the murkier recesses of the internet! That building was crammed with files relating to court cases, just for one thing, so that you could imagine someone wanting those files to disappear. It is an easy leap of logic for some to make, assuming that, "A-hah!" the whole point of this was to make those files go away.

Another one that dovetails nicely with the anti-Semitic bent many conspiracy nuts exhibit is to posit that the New York Jewish landlord wanted to rid himself of a white elephant by destroying his own building. Of course just backing away a little bit suggests that one is a non-starter, given that he would have to co-ordinate that with the rest of the day's events plus somehow getting Osama bin Laden to chime in with a cover story for a Jewish landlord. Now that would be surprising!

You don't need something coherent and logical, just something that raises a few doubts, so that the usual thing is to just bore in on some relatively small detail, for example, "no damage from an aircraft impact," that can be used to lead the gullible further and further into the deep, dark woods.

I grew up among right-wing nutcases, arguing against their loony theories about all sorts of things, when they were "just trying to get some answers" about stuff that really was pretty well understood by 99% of the general population.

Life does throw up some surprises, such as the reality of 9/11, so that there are many things that "everyone knows" that just are not so. To use that as the springboard for a leap into total illogic, though... what is the point of that?

I think a lot of this can be down to the internet giving such a wide audience to so many weirdoes nowadays, plus enabling them to hook up in cyberspace. There is no accountability to speak of for positing some of the most obscene scenarios, especially given the First Amendment protections afforded to free speech in the U.S.A.

airfoilmod
15th Jan 2009, 22:21
Someone would appear to be on some type of um.. crusade. Rather neurotic, this offendedness at the questions of others. No offense.

John Marsh
16th Jan 2009, 00:42
Desert Diner - Thank you for your comments. The video evidence of the fires in the Towers shows that they existed in inefficient combustion conditions. They produced vast quantities of dark smoke, which is a sign of oxygen starvation.

The South Tower showed virtually no flames at the time of its collapse. I'm afraid I cannot see how these conditions parallel those of a blast furnace. Furthermore, the pulverisation process affected the entire buildings, bar the steel skeletons. As I mentioned, most of the Towers were not on fire. You may find this page and its associated website to be of interest: 9-11 Research: The Fires' Severity (http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/severity.html)

You may also be interested in the work carried out for NIST by Underwriters Laboratories, with regard to the fire endurance properties of trusses like those in the Twin Towers. UL used test furnaces, on four test specimens, for approximately 2 hours. No collapse occurred. NIST comment: "...the [empirical] test results establish that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11." ("Final Report on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, NIST NCSTAR." NIST and the World Trade Center (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/))

NIST offer further comment on the fires: "The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes." "At any given location, the duration of air [NB: not steel] temperatures near 1000 degrees Celsius was about 15 minutes to 20 minutes. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 degrees Celsius or below." (ibid.)

A paper on high temperatures at the WTC is here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf (http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf)

airfoilmod - Thank you for your comments. There are numerous reports of molten metal in the ruins. Firefighters encountered 'rivers of molten steel'
http://www.nypost.com/movies/19574.htm (http://www.nypost.com/movies/19574.htm) .
The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11 reported molten steel: Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine (http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm) . Structural engineer Leslie Robertson, of the firm which designed the Towers, reported fires and running, molten steel 3 weeks after 9/11: http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf (http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf) . More quotes at http://georgewashington.*************/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html (http://georgewashington.*************/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html)

The 'next floor below' failure scenario has met with criticism from independent investigators. The scenario treats the impacted floor as a standalone structure. Critics point out that the next floor below, and indeed all those beneath it, were interconnected and integrated parts of the steel structure. Therefore, any downward force would be transferred onwards through the structure, which would be able to bear it. Mechanical engineer Gordon Ross has produced a paper on this: http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf (http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf) .
A short rejection of the official model is here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Sudden_collapse_initiation_impossible.pdf (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Sudden_collapse_initiation_impossible.pdf) . Further analysis is here: www.journalof911studies.com/letters/c/ColumnsMissLegge9.pdf (http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/c/ColumnsMissLegge9.pdf) .

BombayDuck
16th Jan 2009, 01:01
1) Please use a font size that will not require some of us to stick our eyeballs on the display.

2) You have linked to:

a. An article in the NY Post that does not exist.
b. An opinion by a Mechanical Engineer
c. The site of the Utah Structural Engineers Association that affirms the official study and provides reasonable explanations
d. A Blog.

Pardon me if I do not take your links seriously.

3) You talk about video evidence.... from the outside. What evidence do you have about the fires on the inside?

4) Air temps at 1000 C - you *do* know that steel is a good conductor of heat? And he coating on it is not designed for 1000 C proximity? And that steel starts losing strength at 300 deg C and up?

5) "Therefore, any downward force would be transferred onwards through the structure, which would be able to bear it"

ANY force? Perhaps I put a small planet on the structure. Do you not see that beyond a certain point already weakened steel is bearing the load of falling floors, even if they are falling at a few feet per second?

This is my last post on this topic, I suspect. I know you will not believe any official explanation, conspiracy theorists never do. They just find newer absurd scenarios.

chuks, good luck.

airfoilmod
16th Jan 2009, 01:07
Thank you for your effort. My understanding of the failure (collapse) of towers 1,2 do not include molten metal. Structurally challenged vertical members, and an inward buckling sequentially, after collapse ensued. Please know that it is my conclusion based on the work of others.

The failure to me clearly has to do with the design of the floor sections and their attaching clips at the perimeter of a building whose bearing is independent but supporting of, said flooors. I believe the floors were comprised of horizontal trusses, uninterrupted for their span, wall to exterior wall. A contributing feature was a "post tension" layout that allowed for interior clear span elements. In any case, and more importantly, the collapse came as a result of connectors (floor/wall) failing; the floors, again sequentially, retained sufficient tension to "pull the exterior" into the footprint of the bldg. I am unaware of any reference to explosives, I haven't considered that possibility. The "puffs of smoke at the corners of the building" that "led the debris plug" were caused by massive gas pressure relief as a result of the falling "piston" that created high pressure ahead of its descent through and into the rapidly diminishing vertical structure.

The similarity of the collapses means nothing more than a homogeneous design and construction of two identically insulted structures.

AF

henry crun
16th Jan 2009, 03:59
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7 (http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm)

Loose rivets
16th Jan 2009, 06:20
I've just watched 'Man on a Wire' a film about the French guy who walked between the two towers in 72 ish. He was planning this before they were built, so there was a lot of archive footage of the building in the film.

I can recall feeling uneasy about the structure of these buildings in the mid 70s. I just assumed that the architects knew what they were doing, and thought little more of it...until 9/11.

Tonight, I could see very clearly the steel structures being lifted into position, and it was easy to see how the first 500' might stand the weight, but 450m was just bewildering.

Every pound lifted n-feet is stored energy. Billions of pounds, a lot of them over a 1,000 feet. Gravity is the weakest force, but the building was a vast bomb, with a mild-steel hair trigger.

Once they were on their way, it was essentially a non-linear explosion driven by gravity and inertia. A terminal velocity would be hard to calculate, but I don't think it would have much to do with air.

Molten metal doesn't surprise me, but rivers of molten steel, certainly do. Just knowing about Thermite makes me feel uneasy, but there would have been very clear forensic evidence of a fire of that nature, and no possibility of large numbers of people keeping mum.

I think when something is this important and carries with it so much pain, one shouldn't just forget it and move on. Certainly, keep an open mind; it costs little to keep adding to an hypothesis over the years. You never know, they now think that it was impossible for it to have been Crippen's wife in the cellar.

chuks
16th Jan 2009, 08:04
I had been getting those non-negotiable demands from the German wife to go visit New York again, so that she had booked air tickets for September 2001 for a family holiday there.

One certain destination was the World Trade Center, where one could stand in front of huge glass windows to look down on all of New York City.

I had done this before and, believe me, it was very, very impressive! Not least, you could feel this huge building sway gently in the wind so that it was nothing like the experience of being up on the Empire State Building.

As it happens, we had planned to go around September 15 due to our work/leave schedules so that we simply cancelled the trip post-9/11 but it was a close thing, relatively speaking.

The day before the attacks I had been in a crew bus that had been shot up by robbers in Lagos, Nigeria so that my nerves were already jangling. The next day, in the afternoon due to the time difference between Nigeria and the U.S.A., I came out into the living room to see what I took for one of those low-budget disaster movies on the TV. It took a few minutes to understand that this was CNN and no movie. Even so it took me until next day to think to call a sister who lived just a short distance from the site of the disaster (her husband works on Wall Street) to make sure she and her family were unscathed. It just seemed so unreal, somehow.

Now we have these seeming halfwits creeping around trying to re-work the reality of what happened for a little bit of innocent fun. (Hey, no offense to you social vermin out there, no! We cannot ALL be fully-formed human beings with even a little bit of basic decency.) There is absolutely no call for anyone to have a total sense of humour failure about suggestions that the U.S. government was in any way behind the killing of thousands of its own citizens, no, of course not!

Anyone who bothers to argue against this sort of nonsense must be some sort of crank, absolutely. Anyone who has a halfway balanced take on reality just knows that the U.S. government is always set on a course of lies, deception and murder, right?

No, I never believe anything "the government" tells me, no. Of course this does cause me the odd bit of trouble when I tell that Federal Aviation Administration Tower Controller, after he says, "You are cleared to land," that, yeah, that is just what you WANT me to think! "They" are all in this together, aren't they?

"Freedom of speech" means that one should be able to put up any loony theory at all, supported by pseudo-science and logic with more holes than a slice of Emmenthaler, in some private version of the English language even, and expect to get a very polite hearing, just because...

Not least, 9/11 was an event that really damaged aviation so that PPRuNe just has to be the perfect place to float whacko theories about it.

We all have our little dreams of perfect happiness, whether that is leaving some supermodel panting and disheveled in a welter of high-count Egyptian cotton bedsheets or merely having Chuck Yeager come to us for some tips about how to really fly. Well, I saw mine in a movie, "Unforgiven", when the brutal sheriff, Little Bill, takes English Bob to task. It was something like, "You been talking about the Queen again, on Independence Day?" After that Little Bill teaches English Bob that there really are limits to freedom of speech, that loose talk may bring retribution. Ah, perfect happiness!

BlueWolf
16th Jan 2009, 08:31
I built curtain walling sections as a subbie engineer, whilst in the UK in the late eighties. They were for the then proliferation of quick-build, low-cost high rises being thrown up in the City.

They told us the buildings weren't intended to last more than fifty years. Inside one of the corner sections, some future archaeologist may find a copy of a certain days' edition of The Sun, signed by seven of us on section, with a wee note expressing our collective opinion that they'd be lucky to make twenty-five.

RSJ frame, floors held up by (relatively) tiny clips, all the strength in the walls, and that dubious in itself; and the whole lot put together by a veritable United Nations of variously qualified (or not) artificers, with little or no accountability. Assuming things were similar in the US, then no, I'm not surprised the Towers fell down.

BombayDuck
16th Jan 2009, 10:13
Add to that the US' tendency to construct really tall skyscrapers using steel as the majority ingredient and not concrete (because the prices of steel are so low); steel lends itself very well to tensile forces but badly to compressive ones. Concrete structures would take overloads much better than steel ones. A real case of what-might-have-been.

I had two cousins working there - one was in WTC7 and made it out in time (running full tilt) and the other (who used to be in T2) ended up stuck in traffic having been delayed by a dentist's appointment!

chuks
16th Jan 2009, 10:37
The price of land in the borough of Manhattan, New York City, is so high that you will see relatively new buildings, still perfectly good, being torn down to be replaced with new ones that should bring higher rental incomes since the value of the building is relatively very low compared to the value of the land it is built upon. This commercial fact of life means that the average building there doesn't last very long; I think the figure is about 25 years.

One thing that has fuelled much unfounded speculation is the fact that the World Trade Center never had been a commercial success. I think that most of the space was occupied by various government agencies, particularly the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, rather than the commercial tenants originally planned and hoped for.

Shortly before the 9/11 attacks a (Jewish) real estate man had bought the World Trade Center so that it is fairly easy to see how the connect-the-dots crowd now had something to work with, coming up with a scenario that meant he was going to benefit greatly from having these buildings destroyed.

As it happens, there is a major legal argument going on about whether the World Trade Center buildings were destroyed in one single attack or in two separate attacks. The significance of this is that the insurers must either pay out the maximum amount of the policy for one attack or else that amount times two (!) for two separate ones. Now you would think that some character so clever and unscrupulous would not be caught out by such a mundane detail as that if he really had developed this fiendish plot to destroy his own World Trade Center. That just doesn't fit the usual image of the Jewish masterminds who secretly run the U.S.A. the way these 9/11 truthers often think they do.

bnt
16th Jan 2009, 13:08
To be fair to the designers of the WTC towers, the kind of high-strength concrete they would have needed to build that high was simply not around in the 70s.

The situation was different in the 90s, when the Petronas Towers were built using reinforced high strength concrete, a technology pioneered in Asia. Those buildings weigh about twice what an equivalent steel frame building would weigh, and the foundations are so massive it's scary: solid concrete columns, going down over 320 ft to bedrock. Very different budget.

It's interesting to note that while the new Freedom Tower on the WTC site will be a steel frame building, it will have a concrete core "shear wall" around the services (staircases, elevators etc.). All staircases will have 3-ft thick walls, and emergency staircase will be much larger than in the previous WTC towers. I expect that they will do a much better job on insulating the structural steel, so that the insulation won't fall off if it gets rattled. :=

BombayDuck
16th Jan 2009, 18:56
That is interesting to hear, bnt - I was under the assumption that the west would have the wherewithal to build mega-structures with RCC way back, because my relatively tiny building in Bombay (15 storeys) has an RCC Core, I was just under the assumption that those in the west knew how to build 700+ foot monsters with concrete back then, but steel was cheaper and so was used. Or maybe because steel was so popular, working with concrete never really took off out there....

This thread turned out useful after all. I was feeling rather 'dirty' after visiting one of those 'truther' sites yesterday!

BOAC
16th Jan 2009, 19:21
Oh goody - now we have a new 'conspiracy' theory, chuks - is there a web site 'promoting' that idea? I understood that the insurance was only for the loss of a single tower of the twins. I guess no-one thought two (three) would come down.

chuks
16th Jan 2009, 19:28
It must be quite a problem in itself just getting the concrete up there to the top of an extremely tall building. I know they can pump the stuff but how do you pump it 100 storeys? I was thinking that must be one reason for using steel instead.

You know there must be one hell of lot of concrete left in the pipeline if they pump it or do they have some sort of "pig" they use?

I was interested to read about the way they have built the replacement for WTC7, using the same sort of improvements you mentioned there above.

BOAC: There is nothing new in this, it is a matter of public record. I don't know much more about it than what I read in a brief article but it seems fairly mundane. You know, the sort of stuff that happens with insurance when there appears to be an "out" for an insurance company, as here.

It seems like a fair question, really, whether it was one attack using two aircraft or two separate attacks each using one aircraft, there at the World Trade Center. Further down the road the insurers will sue the (bankrupt) airlines I assume, to recover their costs. 9/11 should keep many lawyers in work for years to come.

My point here is just that this is one more messy detail that would seem to refute any crazy theory that the WTC landlord did it for the payout, given that the payout may come nowhere close to covering his losses if it is ruled a single attack. Who should overlook such a crucial detail in executing such a complex plot, if plot there were?

Have you noticed how the truthers seem to either zoom in ultra-close or else zoom out for a pan-global view, whatever it takes to miss the messy details that tend to upset their theories? Whatever they are up to, it isn't looking for the truth!

bnt
16th Jan 2009, 22:13
That is interesting to hear, bnt - I was under the assumption that the west would have the wherewithal to build mega-structures with RCC way back,
I didn't say RCC - that goes back to the 19th century, and M. Freyssinet was pre-stressing concrete in the 1910s. I meant the new high-strength concretes of the type that went in to the Petronas Towers, that came out of Japan in particular. Up to 150 MPa instead of the usual 50MPa, compressive strength. Plus, the weight becomes a problem, relative to its strength. So the foundations become more critical than usual, as you saw in Kuala Lumpur, and the walls become thicker at the base. Of course money is a factor - though less so for a rich oil company.

As for pumping concrete up 100 stories: indeed they do (http://www.designbuild-network.com/projects/burj/). They add "plasticisers" to the concrete, which make it flow better and make it "self-compacting" so you can just pour it with minimum labour.

BarbiesBoyfriend
16th Jan 2009, 22:42
What I'd like to know is:

'WHY did 9/11 happen?'

Plainly a subject that is NOT to be discussed.

Platitudes like 'they hate our freedom' are just so much rot.

I know we've all got our pet theories but there seems to be little in the press now, and less then.

I'd really like to know why this crime was done.

airfoilmod
16th Jan 2009, 22:51
That's not forensic enough, (except psychologically).

bnt
17th Jan 2009, 01:03
What I'd like to know is:

'WHY did 9/11 happen?'

Plainly a subject that is NOT to be discussed.
"Why?" You can try "discussing" it all you want, but I'll lay odds that everyone's idea of "discussion" consists of telling everyone else that they're wrong, if you don't think the way they do.

Me, I have no trouble believing that a bunch of religious nutters, motivated by hatred of America, were capable of such acts. That does not mean that I dismiss other theories out of hand, but it's a question of "which is more likely?" I don't think the US Govt., or any part thereof, capable of planning and executing such a conspiracy, never mind keeping it a secret for years afterwards. Nor do I see any credible motivation, on their part, for doing so.

chuks
17th Jan 2009, 07:33
There's no barrier to discussing the motives behind 9/11. The States has very strong protection of free speech, stemming from the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution so that this has been discussed at exhaustive length there.

You can start with Osama bin Laden's own words and go on from there if you like but it can all be a bit confusing, being down to what the U.S. either did or didn't do or perhaps both of these conflicting things.

You might find, in fact, that this was just one of those, "It seemed like a good idea at the time," things that history often throws up, a tactical success in that, yes, the terrorists did manage to destroy two targets, damage another and miss one only but a strategic failure in terms of advancing towards reviving a primitive sort of Islam if that was the goal.

When you have such events as an attempted assassination of a U.S. President by a man wishing to prove to a (lesbian) film actress that he loves her... anything is possible in today's world.

There is one school of thought that states the whole thing kicked off with the young Osama bin Laden being mocked by an English girl for his small penis and just spiraled out of control from there, much in the way that Hitler was supposedly bitten by a billy goat as a school boy.

You can find something you like in 9/11 and then hold to that if you really think that is a good idea but it does seems to be something that sends people a bit mad if they spend too long playing with it.

Low Flier
17th Jan 2009, 09:39
There is nothing secret or mysterious about the 'why' of 9/11.

The alleged perpetrators had made their objective abundantly clear. They demanded the complete withdrawal of US troops from "the land of the Holy Places" ie Saudi Arabia.

The Empire and the Kingdom subsequently fell into compliance and the "Crusaders" moved out of Saudi and into Qatar.

BarbiesBoyfriend
17th Jan 2009, 09:41
Hmmm... For clarity, I accept that it was Atta and the others that perpetrated the thing.

It's their motive that I'm after.

For example, if it was because they 'hated America', why?

Most terrorists have a 'valid' grievance. We may not (or we may) agree with it, but it tends to be present.

What was theirs, and how valid was it?

After all, they thought it worth dying for.

BarbiesBoyfriend
17th Jan 2009, 09:43
Low flier

Are you saying that the aim of the 9/11 attack was realised?

Did OBL make the US do what he wanted?

And if the whole thing was over (9/11, Sauidi withdrawl), why the 'War on Terror??

Confused!




Sorry, posted at the same time

twiggs
17th Jan 2009, 11:25
It will never be over unless the Israeli settlements are removed from Palestine, period.
Americas support for, or lack of condemnation of the Israeli occupation is the main motivator for all of OBL's foot soldiers.

ORAC
17th Jan 2009, 11:44
twiggs,

Osama was never interested in Palestine. Oh, sure, he's taken the chance to use the Palestine card to get new foot soldiers, but it's never been more than a side issue. Even the removal of infidels from Saudi was just a step on a path.

He, and his antecedents and successors, want the Caliphate back, including Al Andalus (http://www.aviationbanter.com/archive/index.php/t-8494.html).


Islam and Nirvana of Global Caliphate (http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/24/19551)

chuks
17th Jan 2009, 12:37
Imagine if Mexico ever wanted to settle scores with the U.S.A. Wave goodbye to a stretch of land from east Texas out to the Pacific Coast! Plus reparations, of course... No U.N. resolution ever set up Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California as separate states from Mexico; we just grabbed 'em fair and square in a very one-sided war.

Another potential problem is some of those treaties the U.S.A. signed with various Indian tribes, almost none of which we have adhered to. Oh well, different rules apply, I guess.

It should be interesting to see how things work out with a Messiah for President, whether much changes in that happy mixture of gunship diplomacy we like to use. Maybe Iran does get the Bomb and that re-rigs the whole dynamic. Oh, happy times such as these! As the Chinese curse supposedly reads, "May you live in interesting times," well, these are becoming downright fascinating!

I hope that Osama bin Laden is experiencing a certain degree of frustration. All that trouble he went to and about all he ends up with is to be living a cave-based lifestyle, as if 9/11 really did not change very much. Yeah, we cannot carry our water/shampoo/shaving cream on board aircraft but otherwise has much happened, changes to the New York City skyline aside, that would not have, absent 9/11?

We always seem to need some foreign adventure or other so that I suspect Bush Lite would still have got us into Iraq one way or the other.

To realistically expect to undo some changes to the map of Europe dating from 1492... good luck with that one! That reads much more like a very good reason to go to war with the West forever, probably what some guy with a little bitty dick would really go for. As geo-politics goes that reads kind of shallow but, hey...

I guess that means I am part of the problem instead of part of the solution, huh?

John Marsh
17th Jan 2009, 23:41
Bombay Duck: I apologise for the font and the invalid link. I hope this is more legible.

A rescue worker reports molten metal in paragraph 6, here: usnews.com: One year after 9/11: Memories (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/9_11/articles/911memories.htm)

A Public Health Advisor saw molten steel: The Scene at Ground Zero (http://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-The.html)

Please don't let Gordon Ross's profession discourage you from examining his work. He offers detailed calculations based on established principles of mass and kinetic energy.

How do the statements of the Structural Engineers' Association of Utah on the official study detract from the Association's President's report on Leslie Robertson's speech?

I find that blogs can offer useful discourse and helpful links to further resources. Please consider exploring the blog page I linked to. If you prefer sites run by professionals, you could try Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice (http://stj911.org) or AE911Truth (http://www.ae911truth.org) . Have you tried any of the other links given?

Although the video (and photographic) evidence was gathered from outside the Towers, the smoke and flame data it contains logically relate to the fires inside. As mentioned, the colour of the smoke is an indication of poor combustion; thus, 'cool' hydrocarbon fires. The information we have on the fires' fuel sources tells scientists that they could not have produced the molten metal found in the ruins, or pulverised most of the Towers' contents plus concrete and glass into a fine, hot cloud.

Yes, I am aware that steel is a good conductor of heat. Therefore, any heat energy imparted to it by the surrounding air will be rapidly conducted away from the heated area. The Towers each contained approx. 90,000 tons of interconnected steel elements to diffuse applied heat. Most of these elements were in the parts of the Towers which were not on fire - as attested to by the video and photographic record and the safe escape of thousands. Remember that the 1,000 degree air temperatures lasted for only 15-20 minutes, to be followed by air temperatures of 500 degrees or less. It is unfeasible, critics argue, for these conditions to bring about a sudden and total destruction of the structure. UL achieved no collapse, in their prolonged tests of WTC-type truss assemblies using a furnace.

FEMA reviewed tests of steel beams, conducted to find out about steel-frame buildings' endurance of widespread, protracted fires. "Despite the temperature of the steel buildings reaching 800-900 degrees Celsius in three of the tests..., no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments." www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apa.pdf (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apa.pdf)

Fires have never before (or since) caused steel frame skyscrapers to 'collapse'. 9-11 Research: Other Skyscraper Fires (http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html)

If a steel structure does experience a collapse due to extreme temperatures, the collapse tends to remain localised to the area subjected to those temperatures. Low-carbon structural steel tends to bend, not shatter. 9-11 Research: The Fires' Impact (http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/steel.html)

"Any downward force"... I apologise for being insufficiently specific here. I was referring to any downward force applied by the part of the structure above the impact area. Yes, I do appreciate the point re. already weakened steel. The bone of contention here between the official theory and its critics concerns the degree of weakening and its scope within the structure as a whole.

I did believe the official explanation, for about four years. After encountering the work of critics, I feel I cannot currently believe the official explanation.

airfoilmod: Both NIST and independent investigators agree that neither the brief jet fuel fires, nor the longer-lasting office fires, were capable of melting steel. See "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Oficial Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction", available via Journal of 9/11 Studies (http://www.journalof911studies.com)
This is why its presence in the ruins is a puzzle.

The pre-collapse computer modelling performed by NIST was 'tweaked'. This, together with NIST's refusal to release details for review, has caused concern. From the journal 'New Civil Engineer': "World Trade Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the investigators. ...A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. "By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated", he said. "The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls"". Quoted in 'Fourteen points...' paper; source article for NCE members' access at WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation (http://www.nce.co.uk/news/2005/11/wtc_investigators_resist_call_for_collapse_visualisation.htm l)

It is a pity that NIST did not model the collapses and release the details of their models to other professionals. The absence of stacks of albeit damaged, but recognisable floor assemblies from the ruins remains a point of contention for the critics.

Evience for 'energetic chemical materials' at the WTC is presented here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.pdf

Professor Steven Jones reveals evidence of explosive material in this paper: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

Dr. Crockett Grabbe offers http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/GrabbeExplosionsEvidence.pdf

I too have thought the oft-quoted 'squibs' of ejected material were due to the compression of polluted air by the falling mass inside. Former UL executive Kevin Ryan offers this analysis: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Ryan_HVBD.pdf

Roger Sofarover
17th Jan 2009, 23:59
John

A good post but no matter what evidence you offer in terms of academic papers or other articles you will be argued down here constantly by people whose only expertise/counter arguement will be to say "The conspiracy is b******s" or "I knew someone that knew someone that was there so it must be as the government said". Good luck:ok::ok: No sensible replies will follow.

airfoilmod
18th Jan 2009, 00:27
Is not evidence of absence. John you address me as if I have some investment in molten steel causing collapse. I do not. I understand the construction and design of WTC well. I did mention the "clear span" areas on each floor before, and would like to repeat here that to do this requires a robust floor design, one with serious tensile strength and bearing elements. This type of floor construction was novel at the time in buildings of this height, though common in structures of ten stories or less which incorporated concrete as the floor material interlaced with stainless steel cables which were stretched in the cured concrete to provide strength for the "post tension slab" design. This "strong floor type" (WTC) actually makes a strong case for the NIST's pressure and pop theory. The finished floor is remarkably strong in all directions, but most importantly in compression. The trusses that made up the core of each floor were designed ensemble to bear the weight of ten similar floors on its surface.

My point is to say that though abandoned, the pancake theory still is the only one that is sensible, ln my opinion. Additionally, the shape of the ejecta at each "detonation" is unlike any explosive jet I've seen, though I think the speed of the camera might be important. It is more Amoebic than conic, and contains varying sizes of debris, again, not indicative of a cutting charge. Each floor, with its compressive integrity and perimeter attachments' failure lends itself to the elegance of a simple explanation. Also, the fact that there seemed to be no consistent "leading distance" of each jet doesn't seem to harm the theory at all; it may in fact support it.

Finally, to presume that in addition to charges placed strategically over time to anticipate an aerial attack by novice pilots, there existed a cunningly complicated (impossibly?) conspiracy of silence doesn't have any evidence to support it. Again, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence, and it is virtually impossible to prove a negative (more's the pity), I don't see what molten steel has to do with anything. A quarter of a million TONS of debris falling into a comparably small hole produces enough friction...... etc. My interest is in the forensics.....

AF

hellsbrink
18th Jan 2009, 01:40
Just a thought on this

The two AEROPLANES (:E) hit on different floors of the two towers.


Didn't Bin Liner say that to bring them down the impact had to between a certain range of floors? I'm sure quite a few people could have done it with a little bit of training...


(PS.... How long after the impacts was it before they "pancaked"? How long did the fires burn? As soon as something above the impact area gave way, it was clear as to what would happen...)

chuks
18th Jan 2009, 07:12
Roger, you forgot to point out that anti-"truthers" often pick on you poor moonbats by pointing out gaping flaws in your logic, shared agendas with various dubious groups and your usual poor English too, as if to suggest that many of you really, really did not pay enough attention in school or else picked up some sad prejudices somewhere along the line.

Why is that? Well, aside from perhaps being basically cruel people, I suppose some of us just find this whole "9/11 was a U.S. government/Zionist/whatever plot" grossly offensive, not really liking to see our government smeared as murderers, the way "everyone" knows they never tell the truth about anything and are always ready to kill thousands of citizens for this or that obscure or trivial reason.

If we can hint heavily that most 9/11 "truther" arguments we see are poorly presented and argued then that does tend to support our contentions about what we see as the real truth, as if to say that those who present these sick fantasies as facts uncovered in some relentless search for hidden truths are just talking nonsense.

If that makes "no sense" to you folks, well, yes, this is one big problem! Why, if you are a moonbat, stop piling up fantastic interpretations of tenuous "facts" to start from something inarguably sensible to end in a welter of poisonous nonsense?

For example, someone puts a small gouge in the facade of a skyscraper with a chisel, say; does it immediately collapse? Of course not, because it is designed to be damage-tolerant. One argument here is "How much damage will make a skyscraper collapse?" This is a question to which there is no fixed answer, especially given that the original design goal is keeping the building standing, not giving it a fixed point at which it should collapse.

Starting from a perfectly sensible observation you moonbats then go marching off into the further realms of total nonsense, claiming that there should be no reason whatsoever for a badly damaged building to fall down, that it obviously had to have been deliberately demolished. Well, no!

You have architects, engineers, pilots, even, showing up on these so-called truth-seeking sites when just a casual glance shows that there's no real search for the truth but just this pushing of fixed, nonsensical notions of what was behind various aspects of 9/11. This is all eerily familiar to anyone who has encountered the far right "searching for the truth" behind the Holocaust.

You can slice this stuff you are selling as thin as you like but it's still baloney.

Roger Sofarover
18th Jan 2009, 11:28
Chucks

All I said was this

John

A good post but no matter what evidence you offer in terms of academic papers or other articles you will be argued down here constantly by people whose only expertise/counter arguement will be to say "The conspiracy is b******s" or "I knew someone that knew someone that was there so it must be as the government said". Good luck No sensible replies will follow.

A fairly small comment amongst the many on this thread, and as usual you launch in with a tirade of personal abuse. I was not commenting either way on what I believe, just pointing out that the poster of the mail concerned would not get replies that included links to similar types of articles of the kind he was referring to, but would be simply shot down. You have proved it again. Bye the way on a very serious note, this thread is not about the 'Holocaust' and 'Zionism', that is always brought up by the regular few, and you have done it again. Why do you do that? I have never read of anyone on Prune, questioning the existence of the event, so why do you seem to think that if the original poster raises some valid questions about a separate event, it gives you and a few others the right to taint everyone with comments like you make above. The original poster is asking questions concerning the structural integrity of 3 buildings, nothing else. There must be a lot of anger in your life.

chuks
18th Jan 2009, 13:13
I have to share my space with neo-Nazis sometimes and, well-spotted, that does make me angry, yes. Not you, Roger, personally but just moonbats in general who like to dabble in daft theories about well-documented events are one of my pet hates.

Oxygen thieves in general just get up my nose, I guess and if that makes me a "crank" so be it. I do have "issues," yes. I dream of Martians landing to eat fools and p1ss gasoline while knowing I just have to live with the world as it is or even slightly worse than that, given current trends.

There is nothing inherently sensible in rejecting the mainstream version of what happened on 9/11. Sensible replies reject nonsense and the fellow you are speaking up in support of just posted a long series of links to sites spouting nonsense.

You may not have noticed this but a core theme in much of this 9/11 nonsense is that "they" are running things, when "they" are often Jewish! Hey, it is just one of those things that "everyone knows," right? I am not the one dragging that one in; it is inherent in 9/11 denial.

What, you expect we should get into some sort of reasoned debate about the minutiae of just why two buildings collapsed after taking hits from big passenger jets, a third one did after being seriously damaged by one of the first two falling on it and a fourth one took a hit from yet another aircraft? Well, WHY?

9/11 has all been exhaustively reported in a way that any reasonable person should have no trouble accepting. Of course there are minor details that are puzzling but nothing that leads a reasonable person from thinking any of the "truther" scenarios are plausbile. Just because this sort of thing never happened before is no reason for assuming it never happened at all.

No one ever set foot on the Moon before 1969; is that a reason for saying that was faked too? Oh, sorry, for some folks yes it is and for the very same sort of reasons we should reject the truth of 9/11!

I am just sat out here in the middle of nowhere with time on my hands, a laptop and an internet connection. Hunting moonbats this way is sort of a modern version of driving out to the dump to shoot rats with a .22.

TwinAisle
18th Jan 2009, 14:30
I'm a great believer in the Occam's razor here.

For example - the death of Princess Di. On the one hand, we have a situation where the British establishment, spurred on by the Duke of Edinburgh, became outraged that Di was dating a Muslim, and got not only the UK secret services in on the job, but also their French counterparts. The hit was arranged in a car at speed (a nice strong car, so presumably loads of sums had to be done to ensure the impact was great enough, and into something solid enough to ensure it was goodnight in Vienna for all concerned - well, not quite, one person lived, but he was not a target). Then, the whole thing was engineered so that a complete (or nearly complete) coverup was managed, and all parties kept schtum, including politicians who traditionally have big mouths, and the judiciary, who must have been bought off for the subsequent trial.

Or, Di got in the car with a drunk driver.

Same applies to 9/11. I just find it hard to believe that the US government (or anyone else's) could arrange this (or the Kennedy hit, or the moon landings or anything else) and keep it quiet. The public explanation (that it was terrorists/a lone gunman/they did actually go there) make much more sense.

Conspiracy theorists are always good IMHO of seeing what they want to see, and making everything else fit. They use facts rather as a drunk sees a lamp-post - rather more for support than illumination...

TA

airfoilmod
18th Jan 2009, 14:52
A rational poster, excellent. Not to say that most are not, but that passion gets more play.

Some folks become comfortable with a conclusion and accept it.
Some are uncomfortable, reject it and look elsewhere.

So far so good. The WTC was blown up once before, by the antecedents of Atta et al. So it had explosives in situ once before. What's a surprise is that folks are surprised when things happen. Fear plays a large part.

The loudest promoters are (generally) driven more by fear than reason.

I can recall a poll in the US (a real one), that demonstrated that 67% (TWO THIRDS) of Americans believe Oswald did NOT act alone.

I go back and forth on Oswald and the assassination, the "evidence" is not sufficient either way, for me.

Moon Landing? No question, done deal.

WTC? I SAW it. It is real. The rest is politics, and deserves no credence.

What's POSSIBLE does not belong in a reasoned conclusion, only what is.

The towers' collapse? I believe in what I know. Could I be mistaken? Good grief yes.

What makes for passion is what is unknown, soccer partisanship eg.

The Truth needs no defense (or promotion), and the rest is cornmeal.

Skeptic? always.

chuks
18th Jan 2009, 19:48
Oh, really? What, we just let people run around putting up good-looking nonsense that promulgates shameless lies?

Where I am coming from, so to speak, is living just down the road in Germany from a little nest of neo-Nazis. When things got going we had a bit of back-and-forth about how to react, when this for me was a real no-brainer. Most folks preferred to just leave the truth undefended; it was not their problem if someone wanted to put up posters lauding Rudolf Hess as a "martyr for peace" and, after all, he did fly off to Britain on a peace mission, didn't he?

Well, he did and he didn't. If someone wanted to take this flight that Hess made as the springboard for a flight of fancy that ended with ze evil Tommies being the warmongers and that nice Adolf, while, yes, having perhaps gone a little bit too far, being basically well-meaning... who should have a problem with that? Me for one!

Well, back there in the village we have real people to deal with, albeit ones living in a fantasy world. On these internet fora we have something less and I don't even know what you call them. Are they not a race of virtual people inhabiting a virtual world where anything goes, so that putting out vicious twaddle is just something one does, somehow?

One big problem is that these 9/11 truthers are back in the First World spinning out their fantastic theories about what really happened there but here in the Third World that stuff finds a ready audience, people ready to buy into it, and I find that sub-optimal.

I guess the other thing is just these strutting dweebs who craft some semi-literate pile of rubbish and put it up as if to say, "See! I know what really happened!" There is no respect for truth or honest inquiry in this, just a wish to give a virtual kick in the shins to that reality that has left them sadly unloved.

At one point Elvis Costello said something real nasty about some fellow musician. Bonny Raitt told him that to say that showed that he must have a little bitty d1ck and then she thumped him! When I read about that I just thought, "Well done!"

"Too many people nowadays just get a free ride when they are right out of line.'" Now is that an old-fashioned, cranky old guy, sort of idea or what? What, 60% of my fellow Americans don't feel that way at all? Golly, I guess I had better get with the program and re-think 9/11, huh?

airfoilmod
18th Jan 2009, 20:01
Check out who's defending the Truth and who's Assaulting it.

"With friends like these, one needs no enemy."

Defending the Truth doesn't make it more True, and attacking it doesn't make it wrong. Use your Head. It stands on its own. It needs no heroes.

If someone attacks your way of life, or your family, (or a Friend, like Merle Haggard), (see your comment re: Costello, above.) then kick his ass. I'll help if need be. But manage your fears, and as an American, Chuks, tolerate those who disagree with you. I don't think the Truthers pose a problem here, but I gather you do. That's a disagreement, not a challenge.

AF

chuks
18th Jan 2009, 21:29
Yeah, I guess I need to lighten up, huh? Anybody who says 9/11 was a government inside job, they aren't attacking the truth or the American way of life or anything like that. No need to react to any of that, is there?

Yeah, I'm cool with that so "truth" away... I sure wouldn't want to seem like a "problem" to any one and, hey, moonbats need love too, right? Where better than on an aviation forum, really.

Who is Merle Haggard, though?

airfoilmod
18th Jan 2009, 21:43
I think you may be confusing me with someone you call "truther". Government inside job? You must be joking. The government can't deliver the mail or stay out of one's business, truth? Merle Haggard is a well known C&W singer, who occasionally shares the stage with Ms. Raitt. The net is well known for those who are not as they seem, to quote the cousins, "Are you having us on?".

AF

twiggs
18th Jan 2009, 23:40
I think the point of the original post is being missed.
Going back and challenging how the towers came down, does not mean that you have to support a conspiracy theory.
Just because you look at some of the evidence used to support a conspiracy theory, doesn't mean you cannot scrutinise the evidence and perhaps use it to support an alternate theory that perhaps expands on the original, but may be less desirable politically than the original.
For example, what if the government found it undesirable to be known that prior to the aircraft hitting the towers, terrorists had planted explosives in the towers to either complement the aircraft attack, or even be part of a separate plan?
We all know how the US and her allies used a theory based on no solid evidence to get support to invade Iraq.
The American people swallowed it whole and if anyone challenged it they were branded anti-american or a terrorism supporter or maybe a "moonbat", chuks?
In that case, the "truthers" turned out to be the ones that were correct.

airfoilmod
18th Jan 2009, 23:49
Wish I'd said that.

AF

Roger Sofarover
19th Jan 2009, 01:30
twiggs has it chuks!

I, like the OP am interested in the reasons for the structural flatpack of three buildings. To make it simple, take the Twin Towers aside, there is not one piece of evidence that was produced that would convince me that WTC 7 should have flatpacked. Forget everything else that the conspiracy theorists spout off. WTC 7 should ring alarm bells with anyone with an understanding of even basic structural engineering. It did not collapse for the reasons given, simple. I have not said it is an inside job and neither have many others. Furthermore, I am not a moonbat thank you very much. Twiggs makes a good point, and it leads me to wonder what you would do with your anger if, thats of course hypothetically if, the truther's were right on this one as they were with the WMDs?

con-pilot
19th Jan 2009, 01:38
Speaking of WMD........

Originally Posted by AP
AP Exclusive: US removes uranium from Iraq

By BRIAN MURPHY
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program - a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium - reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" - the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment - was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.

What's now left is the final and complicated push to clean up the remaining radioactive debris at the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles south of Baghdad - using teams that include Iraqi experts recently trained in the Chernobyl fallout zone in Ukraine.

"Everyone is very happy to have this safely out of Iraq," said a senior U.S. official who outlined the nearly three-month operation to The Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" - a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material - it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment.

The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth "tens of millions of dollars." A Cameco spokesman, Lyle Krahn, declined to discuss the price, but said the yellowcake will be processed at facilities in Ontario for use in energy-producing reactors.

"We are pleased ... that we have taken (the yellowcake) from a volatile region into a stable area to produce clean electricity," he said.

The deal culminated more than a year of intense diplomatic and military initiatives - kept hushed in fear of ambushes or attacks once the convoys were under way: first carrying 3,500 barrels by road to Baghdad, then on 37 military flights to the Indian Ocean atoll of Diego Garcia and finally aboard a U.S.-flagged ship for a 8,500-mile trip to Montreal.

And, in a symbolic way, the mission linked the current attempts to stabilize Iraq with some of the high-profile claims about Saddam's weapons capabilities in the buildup to the 2003 invasion.

Accusations that Saddam had tried to purchase more yellowcake from the African nation of Niger - and an article by a former U.S. ambassador refuting the claims - led to a wide-ranging probe into Washington leaks that reached high into the Bush administration.

Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddam's nuclear efforts.

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.

U.S. and Iraqi forces have guarded the 23,000-acre site - surrounded by huge sand berms - following a wave of looting after Saddam's fall that included villagers toting away yellowcake storage barrels for use as drinking water cisterns.

Yellowcake is obtained by using various solutions to leach out uranium from raw ore and can have a corn meal-like color and consistency. It poses no severe risk if stored and sealed properly. But exposure carries well-documented health concerns associated with heavy metals such as damage to internal organs, experts say.

"The big problem comes with any inhalation of any of the yellowcake dust," said Doug Brugge, a professor of public health issues at the Tufts University School of Medicine.

Moving the yellowcake faced numerous hurdles.

Diplomats and military leaders first weighed the idea of shipping the yellowcake overland to Kuwait's port on the Persian Gulf. Such a route, however, would pass through Iraq's Shiite heartland and within easy range of extremist factions, including some that Washington claims are aided by Iran. The ship also would need to clear the narrow Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Gulf, where U.S. and Iranian ships often come in close contact.

Kuwaiti authorities, too, were reluctant to open their borders to the shipment despite top-level lobbying from Washington.

An alternative plan took shape: shipping out the yellowcake on cargo planes.

But the yellowcake still needed a final destination. Iraqi government officials sought buyers on the commercial market, where uranium prices spiked at about $120 per pound last year. It's currently selling for about half that. The Cameco deal was reached earlier this year, the official said.

At that point, U.S.-led crews began removing the yellowcake from the Saddam-era containers - some leaking or weakened by corrosion - and reloading the material into about 3,500 secure barrels.

In April, truck convoys started moving the yellowcake from Tuwaitha to Baghdad's international airport, the official said. Then, for two weeks in May, it was ferried in 37 flights to Diego Garcia, a speck of British territory in the Indian Ocean where the U.S. military maintains a base.

On June 3, an American ship left the island for Montreal, said the official, who declined to give further details about the operation.

The yellowcake wasn't the only dangerous item removed from Tuwaitha.

Earlier this year, the military withdrew four devices for controlled radiation exposure from the former nuclear complex. The lead-enclosed irradiation units, used to decontaminate food and other items, contain elements of high radioactivity that could potentially be used in a weapon, according to the official. Their Ottawa-based manufacturer, MDS Nordion, took them back for free, the official said.

The yellowcake was the last major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts, but years of final cleanup is ahead for Tuwaitha and other smaller sites.

The U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency plans to offer technical expertise.

Last month, a team of Iraqi nuclear experts completed training in the Ukrainian ghost town of Pripyat, which once housed the Chernobyl workers before the deadly meltdown in 1986, said an IAEA official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decontamination plan has not yet been publicly announced.

But the job ahead is enormous, complicated by digging out radioactive "hot zones" entombed in concrete during Saddam's rule, said the IAEA official. Last year, an IAEA safety expert, Dennis Reisenweaver, predicted the cleanup could take "many years."

Captain Stable
19th Jan 2009, 02:18
Originally posted by AP:
AP Exclusive: US removes metal from Iraq

By Norbert M. Moonbat
Staff Reporter

Part of Saddam Hussein's arsenal was removed from Iraq today in the form of haematite and magnatite which can be processed into several different forms of WMDs such as smart bombs, dumb bombs and dirty bombs as well as rifles and nailclippers, still commonly confiscated from passengers attempting to travel to the USA.

It is known that Saddam Hussein's regime had the knowledge and the technology to process these chemicals into such weapons.

In other developments, devices that could kill hundreds of thousands of American citizens have been removed from places of concealment in Iraqi hospitals. These devices, operated by people called radiographers, could be used to give fatal doses of radiation to anyone strapped down on to the table with a gag in their mouth and a hood over their head...
[Enough flights of fancy - Ed.]

airfoilmod
19th Jan 2009, 02:31
I think "Yellowcake" is mildly refined Uranium hydroxide, yes? I couldn't do anything with it if I wanted to, and neither could have Saddam. It takes insanely expensive and sophisticated equipment to gasify and condense it in centrifuges into the next refined step to plutonium. At 60 dollars a pound I wouldn't buy any of it, nor would Saddam have. What concerned me at the time, and was sufficient to ally me with the forces to invade was Saddams use of gas on his citizens in the North. I never understood Cheney or Powell being so coy; this man needed killing. WMD? Good Grief.

WMD? Wholly Mad Dictator.

con-pilot
19th Jan 2009, 02:41
WMD? Wholly Mad Dictator.

God, I love it! :D:D:D

Now if we could just get rid of Kim I'm Ill, or not, of North Korea. :p





Totally off topic airfoilmod. I know a flight crew that flew the first US corporate jet into North Korea, a Sabre 65. You should hear their stories of what life is really like there from what they saw. You need to remember that what they saw was very heavily sanitized.

henry crun
19th Jan 2009, 02:46
Roger Sofarover: You say "WTC 7 did not collapse for the reasons given, simple".

If I have understood that the way you intend, in one short sentence you have dismissed the several pages in the link in my #58 post, which seem very plausible to me.
Is that correct, or are you referring to other given reasons ?

airfoilmod
19th Jan 2009, 02:48
The more dangerous the world is for murderers and starvers of children, the happier I'll be. Why deny it? Why pretend? Was an invasion absolutely necessary?

CityofFlight
19th Jan 2009, 02:50
Couldn't agree more. WMD's are not limited to inflictions on other countries, but often originate with crazed leaders on their own people. Once they perfect techniques of proximity, the next conquest isn't far behind.

Fanatics have no conscience. Trying to rationalize with them is seldom successful.

BlueWolf
19th Jan 2009, 02:51
LET'S PRETEND that Uncle Sam either orchestrated, or knew about and allowed to happen, the attack on the Twin Towers and everything associated with same.

Why would 'he' (Uncle Sam) do that? Presumably to gain some advantage, somewhere, for some reason.

So what might that advantage be?

con-pilot
19th Jan 2009, 02:55
Was an invasion absolutely necessary?

Personally, no. But then again, assassinations are officially frowned upon by Western Countries. :p

airfoilmod
19th Jan 2009, 03:06
You forget that Saddam was our guy when he ascended the pyramid.
"I brought you in, I can take you out...." Bill Cosby.

Assassination? wholly unnnecessary. I'm not kidding. You miss the larger picture. Captured? easily. "convinced"? Bribed. Think like a politician con-pilot, not a pilot. Buy him a farm in Missouri. One tenth of the treasure squandered in Iraq? SEAL his fate on a more modern version of the Rockwell? We live in an archaically constructed political paradigm, inherited from Mountbatten and Roosevelt, dreadnoughts and airlifts. Gracious.

AF (agility, not fragility)

It was embarrassing when Saddam broke faith with Bush senior, no?

Howard Hughes
19th Jan 2009, 03:06
Con that story doesn't really prove anything either way regarding WMD, just that Saddam had some 'yellowcake'!:ooh:

It would appear that Saddam did not have the technology to use the 'yellowcake' for power generation, let alone for making any type of thermonuclear military device! Now I have one question, where did he get the 'yellowcake'?

I blame the French!:E

CityofFlight
19th Jan 2009, 03:11
HH...Saddam had some neighbors very eager to sell so much. Russia included. (ah, but then there are ties to the French, again... oui?)

airfoilmod
19th Jan 2009, 03:12
This time you've got it.

nahsuD
19th Jan 2009, 03:49
Con that story doesn't really prove anything either way regarding WMD, just that Saddam had some 'yellowcake'!:ooh:

It would appear that Saddam did not have the technology to use the 'yellowcake' for power generation, let alone for making any type of thermonuclear military device! Now I have one question, where did he get the 'yellowcake'?

I blame the French!:E

Do the names Valerie Plame and Joseph C. Wilson, IV mean anything?

chuks
19th Jan 2009, 05:34
You get those at IKEA. Look at the pictures (faked, one assumes?) of the wreckage of WTC7 to see a building that did not fall straight down.

Moonbat. Just saying...

And yes, Aerofoilmod, there you got hold of a "wah" with both hands! You want to hand out warm fuzzies to moonbats, not that I am saying you are necessarily one yourself, expect to be heavily teased.

Hang around Brits long enough, you pick up all sorts of bad habits...

I am a bit disappointed that the Department of Homeland Security jumped to the conclusion that this recent ditching in the Hudson had nothing very strange about it. Are we seeing yet another 9/11-style cover-up?

Why, for instance, should there now be news reports that the crew´s first instinct was to "duck" when these were supposedly geese they hit? Someone is already going off message, not sticking to what "they" want us to believe about this, same as saying WTC7 fell down 30 minutes before it "flatpacked." (Can we say "flatpack" here? Won´t IKEA be after me for copyright infringement?)

Why was there only one engine on the aircraft instead of two? "Oh, it fell off." Yeah, riiight! One engine is still there on the wing but the other one just sort of "fell off," same way WTC7 just sort of "fell down."

And these engines "seized," according to one news report when they hit "geese" but we now have the crew telling us about a "duck."

Call me Daffy but I tell you, there is more to this one than meets the eye and I think someone needs to fire up the old internet connection, put on the tinfoil hat and rally the troops.

Were there any rabbis or Hollywood movie producers on this aircraft and if not, why not? I think we should be told!

Desert Diner
19th Jan 2009, 05:35
where did he get the 'yellowcake'?

Was that the yellocake from the reactor that was destroyed in the 80's?

Howard Hughes
19th Jan 2009, 05:48
Yellowcake is Uraniam that has been mined and then processed for transport, it needs to be further refined before it can be used in a reactor...:ok:

Desert Diner
19th Jan 2009, 05:54
Again, the yellowcake that they found and ended up shipping to Canada was brought in for the first reactor that was bombed and destroyed by the Israelis in the 80's.

That is why it was shipped out quietly, as there was no way to spin this to prove the case of WMDs.

Some revisionists insist that this proves there were WMD's and it was removed with very little publicity due to security reasons.:rolleyes:

BlueWolf
19th Jan 2009, 06:15
So...no-one gives a wet slap the Uncle Sam doesn't appear to have a reason for organising, or contributing to, the Twin Towers events....or can the "Truthers" simply not think of any plausible ones?

chuks
19th Jan 2009, 08:58
To a moonbat anything is plausible: Royal Family: giant, shape-shifting lizards... sounds about right to me! 9/11: faked just like the Moon landings... goes without saying, really!

We are dealing here with people who have a distant and troubled relationship with objective truth. Well, that is just my opinion; perhaps Merle Haggard has a different one.

Roger Sofarover
19th Jan 2009, 12:23
Con

Talking of WMDs!

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.

A nice article but this was nothing to do with the WMDs used to justify the invasion of Iraq.


chuks

Not everyone that has engineering doubts about the collapse of the towers believes in Royal Family: giant, shape-shifting lizards... sounds about right to me! 9/11: faked just like the Moon landings


Henry

There were a number of hypothetical situations proposed by FEMA in their report into the event of WTC7 collapse. Whilst I enjoyed your link it is full of very emotional eyewitness reports and all very subjective. Whilst that evidence has a place the 'truthers' can submit equally valid and emotional eyewitness reports from professionals that tell a different story. The event needs to be looked at objectively.

I have dug out an article I read a while back. It is Chapter 5 of the FEMA report into the event and is concerned with the engineering aspects of the collapse. Unfortunately the FEMA team assigned to the investigation were not permitted to inspect the debris at ground zero, so had to work from engineering records, drawings and assumptions. I think you will find it a good read and it is interesting towards the end of the chapter when they admit that much more investigation is required to determine the cause of the collapse. Please ignore the ramblings in red put in by a 'truther' (all the text in black is the FEMA report), although they do illustrate how 'tit for tat' arguments take place on this subject. Enjoy

Chapter 5 FEMA report (http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm)

nahsuD
19th Jan 2009, 14:10
And these engines "seized," according to one news report when they hit "geese" but we now have the crew telling us about a "duck."



Chuks, chuks,
get your stories straight.

The plane was attacked by a formation of Canada Geese, this according to Chris Matthews MSNBC commentator extraordinaire. We all know the connection of Canada to 9/11 - the terrorist all came across the Canadian Border. Well, there is no record of that, but of course we know it is true, and therefore should not let such things as mere facts interfere with our knowledge of reality. Besides, between the two governments, how hard would it be to erase all the records of 19 guys crossing the border at Lacolle, say, or Kingston On / Alexandria NY? If you don't like that story there is always the Montana / Saskatchewan border.

And isn't it convenient that the NY ferries just happend to be there. Surely a conspiracy as it took them no time to get to the floating plane. They were alerted earlier and just waited to jump to action.

chuks
19th Jan 2009, 17:45
Being ready to swallow any old nonsense theory going about this or that, I mean? Giant lizards, faked Moon landings, MI5 killed Princess Di, 9/11 was a government plot... there are too many loony notions out there to count and many people who really should know better ready to believe. Just think of that crowd in "The Life of Brian" with that fellow who says something like, "Of course He's the Messiah! I should know because I've followed a few!"

It all seems much of a muchness to me, wanting to believe in some conspiracy or other, some alternate version of the truth about something grisly. If you simply focus on WTC7, for instance, that building was shown to have been heavily damaged by impact and fire so that any reasonable person could be persuaded that it should have collapsed as it did. There is absolutely nothing in that collapse that is counter-intuitive. (I read a long report in "Popular Mechanics" called something like "9/11 Myths De-bunked" for most of what I am here citing. It seemed good enough to me!)

It certainly was NOT a case of a building that was largely intact suddenly and mysteriously falling straight down in the manner of a demolition. One can write about "flatpacking" or whatever but in fact pictures of the wreckage of WTC7 show that the building fell over to one side and not straight down.

On the one hand you have the gross improbability of the building having been deliberately demolished. On the other hand you have the way it fell, very unlike a building which has been deliberately demolished. When you add one and one together you get two. Well, unless you are a "truther," when you get the obvious "fact" that "Popular Mechanics" is in the pay of the conspirators, to help in the cover-up and you get 3.14159... which must obviously mean something about a hidden truth!

If you have a conspiracy that already must have multiple thousands of participants, what difference does it make to add the senior staff of some poky little magazine? What, another 30 guys? Why not?

I used to work for a man who thought that the CIA was watching him. The way they did that was to use the gilded angel atop the Mormon Temple alongside the Washington Beltway. If you squinted you could make it out in the distance from our garage in Kensington, Maryland and in a straight line beyond it was Langeley, Virginia and... the CIA headquarters! The poor guy was supposed to stay on lithium but I think he really missed that feeling of having Moroni looking over his shoulder so that he would go off it and off his chump.

At least he had an excuse. You "truthers," what is yours?

If you simply want to argue very, very closely the dynamics of the collapse of WTC7, whether it was down to fire or damage or a combination of the two, well, that would just mark you down as some sort of nerds. (You see these losers poring over airplane crash reports with an unhealthy degree of interest I find rather creepy, as if to suggest their supply of porn mags ran out so that they had to turn to something new for their thrills. That is sad but not exactly sick.)

Unfortunately it seems that approximately 100% of the 9/11 discussions I have seen go speeding right past the logical stopping point of saying, "My goodness! Look at the damage and look at how it didn't really fall straight down! I guess I need to change my mind about that one!" No, people with a lot more interest in this subject than I have pick and choose what evidence they wish to accept and fixedly continue to repeat canards about "no damage" and "it fell straight down" in flat contradiction of evidence any reasonable person should have no trouble with.

One rich irony is that if any of you "truthers" ever cross paths with the perpetrators of this outrage you are going to get such a slapping! They are quite proud of having carried off 9/11 and they most emphatically do not want to be robbed of credit for that. Given that Islamic fundamentalists usually do not show up in your parents' basements or wherever most of you live you need not be alarmed by this; I am just pointing this out as something you might want to keep in mind, the intersection of reality with your little fantasy world.

airfoilmod
19th Jan 2009, 18:02
You are a skilled writer. I want to point out that by now, no one could misunderstand your position, having read thirteen iterations of the same point. Don't leave on my account, but pop in on another thread, your prose is interesting.

AF

Say again s l o w l y
19th Jan 2009, 18:11
Righto, here in pictorial form is what I think of all this conspiracy nonsense.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/PostImages/200709/TinFoil_DB52B2F1-0E7F-A983-F0F9D799A20B06C8.jpg

I do like that picture!

airfoilmod
19th Jan 2009, 18:17
How a cat can be wearing a foil hat and still look condescending.


Say Again - if that's you, you look well. all ok? - Survivor.

AMF
19th Jan 2009, 19:41
chuks...
It all seems much of a muchness to me, wanting to believe in some conspiracy or other, some alternate version of the truth about something grisly. If you simply focus on WTC7, for instance, that building was shown to have been heavily damaged by impact and fire so that any reasonable person could be persuaded that it should have collapsed as it did.There is absolutely nothing in that collapse that is counter-intuitive.....

It certainly was NOT a case of a building that was largely intact suddenly and mysteriously falling straight down in the manner of a demolition. One can write about "flatpacking" or whatever but in fact pictures of the wreckage of WTC7 show that the building fell over to one side and not straight down.


Right on, Chucks. The whole basis of the WTC7 "consipiracy" is founded on the fact the BBC jumped the gun on its collapsing when the word was spreading through the city (and thus the news agencies competing with each other, straining at the bit for new news, but couldn't get near the scene) that WTC7 was on fire and damaged and "could collapse". Like Chinese Whispers, the WTC7's imminent collapse was being talked about on a plethora of local news channels up to the event, and whichever pumped-up BBC journalist on the scene jumped the gun with uncorroborated information did nothing but feed the ridiculous Conpiracy Machine, even to this day it seems. In fact, if I was into conspiracies I'd believe that to save face powers within the BBC actually help foster this particular load of tosh and keep it alive in order to deflect focus from their crapola reporting, which I'm sure they're embarrassed about but (being the BBC) would never admit full responsiblity for. It's pretty embarrassing to report to the world that a major building has fallen down when in fact it hasn't.

(You see these losers poring over airplane crash reports with an unhealthy degree of interest I find rather creepy,

Case in point; On the Hudson River splash-landing thread before the AIRplane was raised, there were those same type of self-fancied "engineering investigators" declaring that there was NO WAY (certainly after the Coast Guard video showing the touchdown, where upon contact with the water the aircraft suddenly spun left before stopping) that the engines stayed connected to the airplane...especially the right hand engine. If anything, the left hand engine stayed connected, thus spinning it in a leftward dirrection by acting as a scoop underwater. If the right hand engine had stayed on...well the airplane would have spun to the right. Right? So sayeth the internet "experts".

Well, they were soon proved wrong. The aircraft spun to the left DESPITE the right hand engine remaining secured to the aircraft and the LEFT engine detaching.

Anyone trying to armchair-assess the laughably imcomplete information of forces and load and torsion and impact etc etc etc sustained in such an event is left at a loss, because they just don't understand (or they are filled with too much hubris to admit) that they DON'T possess..and nobody ever will possess...the complete, whole-picture data that would be required to figure-out and define even with a reasonable level of surety a large-scale, short time-frame, chaotic event like an aircraft splashing down or airplanes crashing into skyscrapers, let alone knowing exactly where and what damage was initially sustained at WTC7 combined with increasing weakenesses from uncontained fires that were occuring within the structure, and therefore the changing stress factors up to the point of collapse. Then there are those who take it even further...into the inane realm of pretending to explain why, during a collapse, things didn't collapse the "right way". It's an exercise in futility filled with so many holes it can be massaged to "prove" any pre-conceived notion one chooses as long as they are pretending that it's a laboratory exercise.

Well it's not. In the REAL world, airplanes can still spin left when they ditch with the left engine detaching and the right engine is still connected and scooping water against that leftward force. Counter-intuitive? Not at all. It just means that it was a BIG left-turning force! And the forces involved in that splash are NOTHING compared to a building falling down, or the chaotic and ever-changing stresses a building would go through with it's plethora of materials burning at different temps and chimney effects at different locations etc etc etc it would go through before a collapse.

Anyone averring that there is "no way" WTC7 could have collapsed the way it did..or that it should have collapsed a certain way..has serious problems concerning the limits of their own understanding of real world forces and events. These wannabes should stick to their basements building toothpick Bridges on the River Kwai, rewinding the VCR tape to get the scaled-down "charges" made of meticulously-measured powder placed just right, and discussing why "there is no way it would have fallen down as it was depicted in the movie. Impossible!"

One rich irony is that if any of you "truthers" ever cross paths with the perpetrators of this outrage you are going to get such a slapping! They are quite proud of having carried off 9/11 and they most emphatically do not want to be robbed of credit for that. Given that Islamic fundamentalists usually do not show up in your parents' basements or wherever most of you live you need not be alarmed by this; I am just pointing this out as something you might want to keep in mind, the intersection of reality with your little fantasy world.

Well said. Makes you wonder if the basement-dwellers would finally grasp the Objective Truth at any point before they actually felt the real-world knife at their throats, or would they remain in denial even during the few seconds they say a detached head still remains aware?

chuks
19th Jan 2009, 19:47
I think I know the answer but which one of you is in control? Are you just there to work the tin opener for your boss?

If that thing had thumbs humanity would be doomed.

BlueWolf
19th Jan 2009, 19:51
You know, I cut down a tree this one time, and it didn't fall where I had wanted it to.

I worked it all out, scarfed it properly, cut it the way I should have; and the damned thing still fell somewhere else.

Got me fecked :confused:

airfoilmod
19th Jan 2009, 19:54
That is sublime

AMF
19th Jan 2009, 20:11
BOAC quote...One piece of interest is the clip of BBC News 24 'announcing' the collapse of Tower 7 20 minutes early, to camera with a shot of the tower still standing behind the presenter.

The only thing interesting here is the interestingly high level of stupidity and lack of proffessionalism of the BBC personnel, who probably never knew there was anything more to the WTC than the Twin Towers before New Yorkers that day began speaking of fire and damage at "WTC7", and to this day probably couldn't tell you the difference between it and the Chrysler Building except that the Chrysler Building still stands. Given this ignorance, it's easy to see how they screwed the pooch on that one.

Occam's Razor. A massive conspiracy perpetrated and flawlessly executed, with people keeping their silence to this day?... or yet another example out of thousands of a palpitating news organization screwing-up in their effort to "break new news" in one of the bigger news moments of the century?

Maybe those BBC journalists stationed in fun places like NYC should spend less time telling each other how smart they are at the journo-cocktail parties they frequent and regurgitating the work of the local reporters to their handlers back home the next day while they nurse their hangovers, and spend more time actually trying to learn what they are talking about instead of merely acting like they do. If you merely act like it, and you're beamed world-wide, these kind of globally-embarrassing stuff-ups are bound to happen.

I find it incredibly humorous that crapola reporting would be used as "evidence" for anything other than what it obviously is.. crapola reporting. I find it even more amusing that many Brits would rather believe in a huge Conspiracy than admit the BBC got it embarrassingly wrong. After all, the BBC likes to pretend to the folks back home and the world that they know more about Americans and America than Americans themselves.

AMF
19th Jan 2009, 20:21
BlueWolf You know, I cut down a tree this one time, and it didn't fall where I had wanted it to.

I worked it all out, scarfed it properly, cut it the way I should have; and the damned thing still fell somewhere else.

Got me fecked

You see Bluey, although you thoughfully factored in the wind effect given the cross-section of existing foliage, skillfully judged the uneven weight of the tree limbs in relation to the center of the earth's gravity, and of course the general lean of the tree, you forgot about the blade sharpness of your saw, and since the sap hadn't completely run out of the tree as it should have by that week of the month due to Global Warming and the secret weather machine in Alaska, and the wind was actually blowing gooey, rounder, heavier chips and sawdust back into the cut thus hindering on that side the equal downward force applied to the trunk proper, the shape of the chips of your dull blade versus a sharp blade used in tests allowed them to be compressed less on that side by the tree's weight as it fell, the result being a torsional force that caused the tree to kick back and try to kill you but thankfully only destroyed your garage.

Now, when the tree struck the garage at the 78-degree angle, given that 42% of it's weight was applied almost instantaneously at a velocity of blah blah blah blah etc etc blah blah blah etc etc etc blah blah blah blah ad infiniturm blah blah which raises very interesting questions about which forgotten drawer or shoebox a copy of your old insurace policy can be found in to see if the garage is covered under this circumstance or do you just go ahead and sue the chainsaw company. Chances are, it's sitting in a shoebox inside the remains of your flattened garage directly under the tree, because that's usually how this shlt works.

shedhead
19th Jan 2009, 20:24
If you crash a couple of hundred tons of aircraft into a building and said aircraft has a lot of fuel in it then that building will start to burn and eventually it will fall down.
If you have an umpteen thousand ton building falling down then it does so with a lot of force and lots of buildings in the surrounding area will also fall down. Now what part of that is so hard to understand?

BlueWolf
19th Jan 2009, 20:34
You see Bluey, although you factored in the wind and lean of the tree, you forgot about the blade sharpness, and since the sap hadn't completely run out of the tree as it should have by that week of the month due to Global Warming and the secret weather machine in Alaska, and the wind was actually blowing chips and sawdust back into the cut thus hindering on that side the equal downward force applied to the trunk proper, the shape of the chips of your dull blade versus a sharp blade used in tests allowed them to be compressed on that side by the tree's weight as it fell, the result being a torsional force that caused the tree to kick back and try to kill you but thankfully only destroyed your garage.

Now, when the tree struck the garage at the 78-degree angle, given that 42% of it's weight was applied almost instantaneously at a velocity of...........

Damn, I thought it was a conspiracy of possums in some of the low branches, who had used remote mind control on me in order to get me to sharpen my chain to the wrong angle, so's the cut would cause the tree to fall on the neighbouring rabbit warren, because they (the rabbits) were competing with the possums for eating rights to my redcurrant patch. Must remember to wear my tinfoil hat in future ;)

John Marsh
19th Jan 2009, 20:51
airfoilmod - Thank you for your clarifications. I apologise for misunderstanding - it's not wilful.

I'm interested in your support for the abandoned pancake theory and your citation of friction as responsible for the molten steel. The molten steel has long been a point for contention between official and independent investigators. Would you consider sending some ball park figures to AE911Truth (http://www.ae911truth.org?)? The Journal of 9/11 Studies will welcome your correspondence re. ejecta.

As regards pre-planted charges etc, I don't know. I'm not trying to prove anything other than that questions remain.

AMF
19th Jan 2009, 21:04
BlueWolf Quote:
, I thought it was a conspiracy of possums in some of the low branches, who had used remote mind control on me in order to get me to sharpen my chain to the wrong angle, so's the cut would cause the tree to fall on the neighbouring rabbit warren, because they (the rabbits) were competing with the possums for eating rights to my redcurrant patch. Must remember to wear my tinfoil hat in future

Yes but there's so much more to it. The fox were paying-off the possums to deflect accusations of culpability after they had enjoyed a good feed of smooshed and scattered rabbits.

I can't even find actual tinfoil anymore....it's clear that World Governments have forced us into using aluminum by agreeing to slowly withdraw tinfoil from the marketplace because aluminum creates a false sense of security while offering no real firewall protection. A couple generations of kids now have been nudged like rats in a lab maze by these same Governments into pulic education classes that focus on "social studies" instead of real Science and thus this tinfoil-less situation has taken place with fewer and fewer questions being asked, and aluminum even being worn by the poor unwitting.

There are clear links to these politicians and those sitting on boards of aluminum-involved companies like ALCOA and Reynold's, not to mention the banks. The only reason it's not talked about is that it's so big! I'd be crazy to get into it here and reveal what I know on a public forum, and in fact I have to log off this connection. I've been parked outside this Starbucks for far too long and dammit the same black Suburban with the extra antenna has cruised by me twice. Gotta go. Out.

Roger Sofarover
19th Jan 2009, 21:08
I am always amazed that on this subject people continue to comment without , clearly, reading any reference material (you all know who you are!). chucks, you always say that you have a lot of time on your hands, then spend some researching some important things in global events. Bluewolf/AMF, you are the same. Please read the link i gave (with the reservations) at my post 112. It is the official report from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on the collapse of WTC7. It is an objective report from engineers from the USA. Why do you all continue to rant on with opinions that have no objective support on, only subjective, such as, well 'we were told it happened this way so it did didn't it'. I sometimes wonder who is the true American patriot? The people like you who say what you say, or the people that say, 'hang on a minute, prove that to me'. I predict a civil war in the US within the next 10 years.( remember where you heard it first!!) :ugh::ugh::ugh:

AMF
19th Jan 2009, 21:18
Roger Sofarover I am always amazed that on this subject people continue to comment without , clearly, reading any reference material (you all know who you are!). chucks, you always say that you have a lot of time on your hands, then spend some researching some important things in global events. Bluewolf, you are the same. Please read the link i gave (with the reservations) at my post 112. It is the official report from FEMA on the collapse of WTC7. It is an objective report from engineers from the USA. Why do you all continue to rant on with opinions that have no objective support, only subjective, such as, well 'we were told it happened this way so it did didn't it'. I sometimes wonder who is the true American patriot? The people like you who say what you say, or the people that say, 'hang on a minute, prove that to me'. I predict a civil war in the US within the next 10 years.

The funniest thing out of the many funny things in this post is the attempt to play the "Patriotism Card", much like others on the defensive play the "Race Card" in order to shift the burden of proof. Hilarious! But I always derive amusement from Conspiracy threads.

Let's take your prediction of another American Civil War occurring and turn it into a real-world bet, shall we? After all, if that's your thoughtful, objective opinion using the same brainyness that has people suspecting something asmiss or not in keeping with with the way WTC7 fell, I'll eagerly wager any amount you name that it will not occur.

con-pilot
19th Jan 2009, 21:25
I predict a civil war in the US within the next 10 years.

Well, as long as it civil, I truly detest uncivil war.



(And another expert on the United States is heard from. :p)

Roger Sofarover
19th Jan 2009, 21:31
AMF
Read the report by FEMA eh! then come out with your smart a**e comments. Oh but I know you cannot be ar**d you just comment from your couch as always.

The funniest thing out of the many funny things in this post is the attempt to play the "Patriotism Card", much like others on the defensive play the "Race Card"

How dare you! At no time am i / have i been racist. You are the type of person that clearly incites racial hatred, guess that what living in KSA does for you eh! SLT

Roger Sofarover
19th Jan 2009, 21:33
Con

well the last one you had was very civil wasn't it :p:p

(And another expert on the United States is heard from.:p )

or is the :p a little bit too flippant?

hellsbrink
19th Jan 2009, 21:38
How dare you! At no time am i / have i been racist. You are the type of person that clearly incites racial hatred, guess that what living in KSA does for you eh! SLT

Methinks you had better read what he said again....... :\

AMF
19th Jan 2009, 21:40
con-pilot Quote:
Well, as long as it civil, I truly detest uncivil war.

If there's a civil war I'm raising my hand of allegiance to North Dakota. Standing alone, it probably has more nulcear warheads than say, England or France, and if it happens to receive a retaliatory strike the heat will merely warm it up to a bearable, wintertime temperature. Invading ground troops can be picked off easily because there's nothing but wheat stalks and suflowers to hide behind, and you can't pound the terrain any flatter. Also, if it does go nuclear, there's good hockey and beer and babes just across the northern border where one can happily wait for the radiation to decay.

But I could see joining up with Oklahoma too, CP. It would be fun to show Texans that people DO...and want to... mess with it!

chuks
19th Jan 2009, 21:44
One night in a bar I became involved in a discussion with a self-proclaimed trained killer. (I think he used to hunt peasants in Sri Lanka with an SF260.) We were both tired and emotional and he seemed to be hinting that he found my continued presence objectionable, when he mentioned yet again that he was a trained killer.

I finally told him that he had better be careful because I was a relatively UNtrained killer so that he was going to find this business of being killed messy and probably very painful if he brought me to that point.

We then bought each other drinks and agreed to disagree.

One of my fave fantasies is inviting a "truther" out here to North Africa to discuss some of the finer points of what happened in New York on 9/11 with some of the locals around a twig fire under that big desert Moon. That might be a bit extreme.

Perhaps we settle for Germany and some of the shaven-headed loons there who share some of these 9/11 beliefs. That wouldn't be quite as much fun but then we cannot always have exactly what we want.

Roger Sofarover
19th Jan 2009, 21:47
Hellsbrink
No sorry, I have read it again, I do not play racist! I did not play patriot to 'shift the burden of proof' either, I was questioning why some people never question what has occurred.

hellsbrink
19th Jan 2009, 21:50
Then Roger, if you read it again, can you be so kind as to point out exactly where YOU were called a racist or accused of playing the "race card"?

Roger Sofarover
19th Jan 2009, 21:52
chuks

One night in a bar I became involved in a discussion with a self-proclaimed trained killer. (I think he used to hunt peasants in Sri Lanka with an SF260.) We were both tired and emotional and he seemed to be hinting that he found my continued presence objectionable, when he mentioned yet again that he was a trained killer.

I finally told him that he had better be careful because I was a relatively UNtrained killer so that he was going to find this business of being killed messy and probably very painful if he brought me to that point.

We then bought each other drinks and agreed to disagree.

One of my fave fantasies is inviting a "truther" out here to North Africa to discuss some of the finer points of what happened in New York on 9/11 with some of the locals around a twig fire under that big desert Moon. That might be a bit extreme.

Perhaps we settle for Germany and some of the shaven-headed loons there who share some of these 9/11 beliefs. That wouldn't be quite as much fun but then we cannot always have exactly what we want.

Explains a lot. Too much time on your hands mate!

BlueWolf
19th Jan 2009, 21:56
Roger

My point is simply that sometimes things don't go according to predictions. Sometimes controlled demolitions go wrong; and the fact that something looks like a controlled demolition going right, doesn't mean that that's what it was.

I'm a mechanical engineer, not a structural engineer, but I have built components for similar buildings, and the only thing I can say definitively on the subject is that sometimes, the things we build don't behave the way we thought they were going to. Dunno why. These days I deal with irrigation. You know, water is really simple stuff, until the likes of us get hold of it and start putting it inside pipes. Then it becomes really complicated, and it starts not always behaving the way we might forecast that it should.

So might it be with steel. Maybe the sheer mass involved brings some other, hitherto unknown, factor into play. Or maybe not. I don't know, and neither does anyone else, yet.

I'm not an American, but if I was, I'd certainly be a patriot. :)

And the predictions business is not one I'd like to get involved in....I mean the world has so far failed to end every time its demise has been predicted, oil still hasn't run out, Y2K was a fizzer, the Lord is yet to make His second appearance, Tuvalu hasn't sunk beneath the waves, the A380 hasn't crashed yet, the personal computer is not a five-ton behemoth whose ownership is restricted to the five richest Kings of Europe, and we're not planting spuds on the moon whilst happy robots attend to our domestic chores, despite the fact that 1985 has long since been and gone.

If America does descend into Civil War inside the next decade, well, I'll be happy to eat humble pie; but I don't feel inclined to bet the farm on it at this point in time.

Roger Sofarover
19th Jan 2009, 22:02
BlueWolf

Thank You. A much more readable and enjoyable post:ok:


Hellsbrink

So why was there any reference at all to a racism card? There was no need was there?


Anyway, for the others mentioned.... Whatever! I'm out!

AMF
19th Jan 2009, 22:23
AMF Quote:
The funniest thing out of the many funny things in this post is the attempt to play the "Patriotism Card", much like others on the defensive play the "Race Card" (in order to shift the burden of proof)

Roger Sofarover quote..How dare you! At no time am i / have i been racist. You are the type of person that clearly incites racial hatred, guess that what living in KSA does for you eh! SLT

So somehow, by my use of a simile, your comprehensive abilities to derive its meaning brought you to the conclusion that (1) I called you a racist and (2) I'm "the type of person that clearly incites racial hatred".

My meaning was clear (about attempts to shift the burder-of-proof) and the use of a simile allows one to point out the "likeness" of two seperate ideas (in this case playing Patriotism and Racism cards) while allowing the ideas themselves to remain apart and distinct. That's the whole point in using them.

So not only through lack of comprehension did you erroneously think I called you a racist, but you took it a step further and accused me directly of being an inciter of race hatred, not to mention (3) the thinly-veiled , racist/bigotry-laden insult to where I live and the amusing notion that I'd give up my value system and become that which I detest.

Putting your accusations to me aside however (since they aren't worthy to defend against) if these are the inane conclusions you derived from the simple, non-technical paragraph I wrote that contained a simple simile , then what on earth would lead me to believe that an opinion derived by applying these same skills of comprehension to a technical FEMA report would produce anything of value, or worth even the shortest amount of time to consider?

galaxy flyer
19th Jan 2009, 22:24
I predict a civil war in the US within the next 10 years.

Having just chopped the ice off my driveway, I rooting for the South in the upcoming civil war. I like their conservative politics, i like the climate (sometimes) and I'm well past draft age. Even they wanted me, I don't see a need for "past sell-by date" airlift pilots. I could be a spectator, for once.

GF

BlueWolf
19th Jan 2009, 22:44
Just reading back over a few posts concerning molten steel; it occurs to me that, whilst a simple kerosene fire can't produce the temperatures required to melt steel, electricity can. I can give you molten steel with my ordinary hardware-store arc welder, plugged into an ordinary domestic wall socket.

The Towers' power supply could easily have produced molten steel, both at the time of impact, and later on when the building main isolator (which presumably was designed to trip out, and further presumably did so, shortly thereafter) was shorted by falling debris.

On top of that there is the possibility that enough static electricity could have been generated by the mass of the aforementioned falling debris, with its varying potentials, to create a discharge through the steel structure of suficient magnitude to melt the said steel.

So there was molten steel, this we know; but just because it can't have been melted by burning aviation kerosene, doesn't mean that it has to have been melted as a result of hypothetical thermite charges, clandestinely placed by hypothetical Dark Operatives of an Infernal Government.

A person with no experience of arc welders might simply not have thought to think about that; I mean why would they?

AMF
19th Jan 2009, 22:54
Roger,

I can't spend time reading the FEMA report because I'm too involved in exposing the real truth behind the Titanic. Every engineering blueprint and designer said it was "unsinkable", and if you would only read those pre-launch reports and design blueprints produced during the YEARS of its manufacture, you would ask questions yourself about this so-called "sinking".

Where are the photographs actually showing it going under the waves? None! The only alleged photos of the "Titanic" are what we are fed almost a century later..and amount to nothing more than dim, barnacle-encrusted pieces of metal that could easily be produced nowadays in a marine-turned-studio operated by the same government agency that produced the moon landings. In fact, the astronauts practiced in their spacesuits....underwater!....coincidence?

The ship closest to the Titanic on the night of its disappearance just happened to ignore its distress calls. Yeah right. Could it be that it was really acting as a screen against other ships that might appear, and transported the commandeering crew to the "sunken" ship whereupon they absconded with it for use as the Rockefeller's private yacht where it hosts Bilderburg and Trilateral Commission meetings on the high seas and far away from prying eyes to this very day?

Seriously, keep an open mind and read the engineering data on the Titanic and it's unsinkable-ness before the after-reports were jury-rigged to give lame "evidence" that a big mother-of-a-hole was ripped down her side by a mountain of immovable ice. This "Tearing Hole" Theory just isn't corroborated by the passengers who later gave statements, who said they were either unaware of the collision or it didn't feel like much. Why this distinct difference between what people on the ship said they experienced and the later theory of a Big Hole Ripped In The Steel?...because it didnt happen.

There's just no way you could collide with an iceburg and rip a hole that large and long in a steel hull and the people inside that same hull wouldn't notice something very big was amiss, and further proof is in the pre-launch engineering data for anyone who isn't an unquestioning Government Lemming fooled by later works of fiction masquerading as "reports" and "studies" to see.

AMF
19th Jan 2009, 23:25
galaxy flyer Quote:
and I'm well past draft age. Even they wanted me, I don't see a need for "past sell-by date" airlift pilots. I could be a spectator, for once.


I've changed my mind and I've decided to join any side in the prophesized, impending Civil War that signs me on with the rank of full colonel, lets me design my own uniform, and gives me command of an armored unit. As a Colonel instead of a General I'll get to ride the tank and push through cities instead of driving a desk and pushing papers.

The more I think about it, the more I'm looking forward to it, except I'd hate to give my life defending, say, Cleveland so I'd have to be of sufficient rank to at least pick my ground, if not the battle.

So where do we go to incite this dust-up? Do I have to believe in Conspiracies and cover-ups?

Say again s l o w l y
20th Jan 2009, 00:17
airfoilmod, that piccie is most definately not me! However yes I am all fixed now and look as healthy as it is possible for a 31 year old borderline alcoholic to look.

Roger Sofarover
20th Jan 2009, 00:19
AMF

Roger,

I can't spend time reading the FEMA report because I'm too involved in exposing the real truth behind the Titanic. Every engineering blueprint and designer said it was "unsinkable", and if you would only read those pre-launch reports and design blueprints produced during the YEARS of its manufacture, you would ask questions yourself about this so-called "sinking".

Where are the photographs actually showing it going under the waves? None! The only alleged photos of the "Titanic" are what we are fed almost a century later..and amount to nothing more than dim, barnacle-encrusted pieces of metal that could easily be produced nowadays in a marine-turned-studio operated by the same government studios that produced the moon landings. In fact, the astronauts practiced in their spacesuits....underwater!....coincidence?

The ship closest to the Titanic on the night of its disappearance just happened to ignore its distress calls. Yeah right. Could it be that it was really acting as a screen against other ships that might appear, and transported the commandeering crew to the "sunken" ship and then absconded with it for use as the Rockefeller's private yacht where it hosts Bilderburg and Trilateral Commission meetings on the high seas and far away from prying eyes to this very day?

Seriously, keep an open mind and read the engineering data on the Titanic and it's unsinkable-ness before the after-reports were jury-rigged to give lame "evidence" that a big mother-of-a-hole was ripped down her side by a mountain of immovable ice. This "tearing hole" Theory just isn't corroborated by the passengers who later gave statements, who said they were either unaware of the collision or it didn't feel like much. Why this distinct difference between what people on the ship said they experienced and the later theory of the Big Hole Ripped In The Steel?...because it didnt happen.

There's just no way you could collide with an iceburg and rip a hole that big in a steel hull and the people inside wouldn't notice something big was amiss, and further proof is in the pre-launch engineering data for anyone who isn't an unquestioning Government Lemming fooled by later works of fiction masquerading as "reports" and "studies" to see.

Thanks for that intelligent response. Silly silly man:ugh::ugh::ugh: Guess the 'Innit" or 'Sidequki' / hooch still flows in KSA. Keep drinking, it will make you happy.

con-pilot
20th Jan 2009, 00:24
Keep drinking, it will make you happy

Better to be delusional due to good Scotch, than to be that way cold stone sober, as someone here. :}


Attacking the person is rather bad form you know, that's why I never do. :p

Roger Sofarover
20th Jan 2009, 00:32
Attacking the person is rather bad form you know, that's why I never do. :p


(And another expert on the United States is heard from. :p )

Perhaps too much use of the stick out tongue Con.

So were the authors of the FEMA report delusional?

con-pilot
20th Jan 2009, 00:40
So were the authors of the FEMA report delusional?

Don't know, don't care and I'm not going to read it, again. I watched it happen, live. Steel does not have to melt to fail.

:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p


Now, just so you don't get the wrong impression.

:p

For good luck.

Roger Sofarover
20th Jan 2009, 00:48
Don't know, don't care and I'm not going to read it, again. I watched it happen, live. Steel does not have to melt to fail
:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p

and i watched

David Copperfield walk through the Great Wall Of China (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtG6t6LcNAU)

:p


Con

I am sure you would read an aircraft accident report to know why it crashed, why not the FEMA report? Quite important really, or do you just settle for 'well everyone on the aircraft died because it hit the ground?'

con-pilot
20th Jan 2009, 00:59
Ah Ha! Now you went and done it. You done discovered the real truth behind 9/11.

David Copperfield! :eek:

You need to start watching and listening for the Black Helicopters, they are on the way to get you.

Be afraid, very afraid.

Dushan
20th Jan 2009, 01:02
Con

I am sure you would read an aircraft accident report to know why it crashed, why not the FEMA report? Quite important really, or do you just settle for 'well everyone on the aircraft died because it hit the ground?'

I am with con here. You would read an accident report if an aircraft fell out of the sky without explanation. If however, you see it being hit with an air-to-air missile a report is hardly necessary.

Edited to add: which of course brings us to the issue of TWA 800...

con-pilot
20th Jan 2009, 01:33
Con

I am sure you would read an aircraft accident report to know why it crashed, why not the FEMA report? Quite important really, or do you just settle for 'well everyone on the aircraft died because it hit the ground?'

It so happens that I am an Aircraft Accident Investigator. While not always the cause, the vast majority of people that do die in an aircraft accident do so because the aircraft "hit the ground", sometimes under control, sometimes not under control. In fact every accident that I have been involved with as an investigator that has been the case. Just as most people that die due to fire, do not burn to death, but in fact die from smoke and fumes, still it was the fire that caused their demise.

The fact is that rabid, radical, terrorist hijacked airliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center area. The resulting damage caused the affected buildings to collapse from both impact damage and heat damage.

Either accept that, the truth, or be ready to be accused to be moonbat, your choice.

Just as in the case of the Pentagon. As soon as I saw the live pictures from the scene and saw the debris laying around the impact area I knew from experience and training that what had hit the Pentagon was a large airliner, at least the size of a 727, if not bigger. Of course as we, well most intelligent people, know now a Boeing 757.

Now, if the building contractors that built the buildings that collapsed cheated on the building materials to make extra money could be partially blamed for the buildings to collapse I could believe. However, that is hardly a conspiracy, especially a deep, dark Government conspiracy orchestrated by President George W. Bush.

Anybody who has any knowledge of demolishing huge buildings by explosives laugh at the completely idiotic theory that 'explosives were secretly planted' into any building, let alone the World Trade Center Buildings, without anyone noticing it.

But you go ahead and conspire away, have fun.

AMF
20th Jan 2009, 01:35
BlueWolf Just reading back over a few posts concerning molten steel; it occurs to me that, whilst a simple kerosene fire can't produce the temperatures required to melt steel, electricity can.

So there was molten steel, this we know; but just because it can't have been melted by burning aviation kerosene, doesn't mean that it has to have been melted as a result of hypothetical thermite charges, clandestinely placed by hypothetical Dark Operatives of an Infernal Government.


Rememeber when government researchers and engineers and other assorted experts were tasked with developing an "explosion-proof" fuel and/or fuel tank for airliners? These experts, thinking they had all the physics and forces and dynamics and frictions and potentialities and volitilities of an airplane impacting the ground figured-out, believed they had a good engineering and design answer on fire, heat, and explosive forces (therefore how to avoid them) the day they finally flew (in a rather benign belly-landing into some low barriers designed to rupture the wing skin) a remotely-piloted B707 fitted with these well-researched tanks into the ground to see how their combined efforts fared.

Most of you have probably seen the video...it's quite spectacular, the way the whole thing exploded impressively on touchdown. It may have even exploded more violently than a regular fuel tank would have. It was highly entertaining.

After being shuffled out of whatever agencies they were working for at the time, perhaps some of these very same experts on fire and it's potentialities are now writing reports for FEMA?

BombayDuck
20th Jan 2009, 09:38
I'm glad I returned to peek at this thread... AMF, the Titanic post was priceless! :ok:

BOAC
20th Jan 2009, 10:04
May I drag us away from neo-Nazis the Titanic and any other paranoia/wit and ask:

IF as ?reliably? reported, there were 'rivers of molten steel' flowing under the site at least some hours - if not days- after the collapse, where did this molten steel go? It is reported that most of the steelwork was removed from site very quickly, but for obvious reasons this could not have been. So - is it still there, now solidified?

chuks
20th Jan 2009, 10:15
That report on WTC7 missed a lot of points which later came to light. It is not really correct. That is not to say that it was deliberately deceitful, just that it was not complete in view of later facts.

Roger, thanks for your concern about my lack of education on 9/11. If it sets your mind at rest let me tell you that I read about this event until I had settled any doubts I had. Then I stopped reading about that and went on to something else that I found interesting, as one does.

I was quite impressed by this "Popular Mechanics" article about 9/11, particularly the way they zeroed in on such things as the heavy, mostly unmentioned, pre-collapse damage to WTC7 and the fact that it did not fall right straight down, what here is called "flat-packing." This article was not particularly profound, suited to the average layman as it was but I thought it was honest and well-researched.

It´s interesting how you obnoxious little pests keep surfacing on what is basically an aviation site to spread your lies about 9/11 in the guise of truth-seekers. Surely there is someplace much more welcoming to this stuff so why try to peddle it here? Is it the challenge of trying to get more aviation professionals to drink the Kool-Aid and sign on to these fantasies? (There are a few already, I know.)

Are we being unfair to tell you that most "truthers" come across as unbalanced? In the sense of someone you most definitely would not want to be sat next to at dinner at least while some of you really do seem sectionable, right up there with purveyors of healing crystals, ayurvedic honey and coffee enemas with the question being, "Do they believe this stuff or are they just squeezing the boobs?" In other words, con man or moonbat?

AMF
20th Jan 2009, 12:02
chuks quote...

Are we being unfair to tell you that most "truthers" come across as unbalanced? In the sense of someone you most definitely would not want to be sat next to at dinner at least while some of you really do seem sectionable, right up there with purveyors of healing crystals, ayurvedic honey and coffee enemas with the question being, "Do they believe this stuff or are they just squeezing the boobs?" In other words, con man or moonbat?

Chucks I have to disagree on one point. Being seated next to a purveyor of healing crystals usually means she's shapely due to her bean sprout diet and is breathtakingly gullible. This means that for the low, low price of listening to some admittedly insipid (but in the end, harmless) chatter during dinner, with even half an effort at charm you'll almost certainly have Ms April Rainwater (or whatever her name is) serving you breakfast the next morning when you mention you need to renew your precious bodily fluids that have been sapped by her glowing essence. And if that breakfast is at YOUR place, you won't have to worry about her presenting you with anything made from tofu. But if by chance it's her place and the bacon and greasy hashbrowns you're craving aren't forthcoming, remember that this is more than made up for by the fact she's undoubtedly a rabid devotee of yoga, and is really really good at it.

Just wanted to point that out. :ok: Now I'll leave you to carry-on dicing up the truthers and whack-jobs like so many little, pungent onions.

Storminnorm
20th Jan 2009, 14:21
AMF, you can be really hurtful at times, but I love the idea
of the veggie nympho serving up eggs and bacon at your place!!!! :ok:

bnt
20th Jan 2009, 14:31
Was there actually molten steel found at the WTC site, at all? I know there was molten metal, but steel was not the only metal there. There was more aluminium alloy there, that day, than there had been the day before... :oh:

chuks
20th Jan 2009, 17:12
Get you inside the...

Well, some people do find me narrow-minded, cranky and intolerant but that is just the wife and kids and what do they know, really? Or so I thought until here my esteemed colleague from another sand pit had pointed out one very good reason to at least give some of this tosh a respectful hearing, one my cranky and intolerant narrow-mindedness had blinded me to.

Okay, send me April Rainwater and I shall grit my teeth and pretend to be willing to be enlightened. "Would you mind very much adjusting my chakras for me, dear? Ah, that is it! Just a little lower..."

Some of my desert colleagues would very much enjoy a nice helping of fresh moonbat to play with out there under the stars, far enough from camp that the screams wouldn´t bother anyone, so there is another use for them, I guess. They could learn some surprising new "facts" about 9/11 that way and they wouldn´t even have to go on-line to do it.

I did once blow my chances with a cute little Marxist right out of the water by laughing at her naivete when she assumed that by "Cuba Libre" I meant something to do with Fidel & Co. instead of just one of Papa Hemingway´s beloved drinks. (Not that the man ever met a drink he didn´t like...) A certain chill descended over the rest of the evening when it had all been going so swimmingly.

Aren´t there some more recycling programs to take moonbats and turn them into something useful? Scarecrows in Kansas? Shopping mall security guards, or has that one been done?

Perhaps it is so that a moonbat dismounted from his hobbyhorse is just a sad little thing. I have no idea really because I have never seen one afoot.

If it was the same news sources that saw the rivers of molten steel as saw WTC7 collapsed with it in view out the window behind the presenter, well...

BOAC
20th Jan 2009, 19:20
bnt - here is one quote from the 9/11 report document:

The 9/11 Commission Report quotes Holden: “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6."

Others talk of 'steel' but that is obviously unquantifiable. Who knows?

AJMortimer
20th Jan 2009, 19:35
The trouble is with all these 'conspiracy' theories that without complete knowledge there can never be a final answer. By 'complete' I mean all facts in the public domain.

There is never complete knowledge, so there can never be a final answer - at least not one that the public can determine.

Although I have read a number of books relating to a number of so-called 'conspiracies', nothing is absolute - mainly hearsay or based on 'facts' gleaned by the author. Some of the 'facts' appear to be the result of 'whistle-blowers', but it's not evidence that these whistle-blowers exist or in fact have stated the 'facts' as reported.

Heaven forbid the authorities ever tell the truth, so conspiracy is an almost inevitable consequence of any disaster or event which is the subject of apparent doubt - fueled by public perception of actual cover-ups, the CIA and the rest of it.

There are two kinds of people in this World: Those that have the knowledge and the power and those who don't.

Hence the much loved phrases: 'If I tell you, I'll have to kill you', 'That's for me to know and you to wonder over' and 'if I tell you, you'll know as much as me' (and I'll lose my power).

AJ

joehunt
21st Jan 2009, 07:34
Whoever planned this cowardly act, knew something about numbers. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvwW2912o3A)

chuks
21st Jan 2009, 08:23
I had always blindly accepted the official version of the sinking of the Titanic: a couple poised on the point of the bow blocked the Captain´s view of an iceberg that caused a stampede of rats or something or other like that anyway... I kind of nodded off in that overheated movie theatre after the film to which my wife dragged me turned out to not have very much nudity and waay too much romance in it so that I am not really up on this one. But like a lot of the gullible public in so many things, I thought this matter had been settled long ago. Same as 9/11 in my mind, in fact!

The recent post, above, though, raises many points that cast doubt on what "they" want us to believe about this surprising and unreasonable event, an unsinkable ship going down for no obvious reason.

I think I can add one more: the people who designed, built and sailed this ship are all dead! As in, "Dead men tell no tails," I think we can assume!

At least that time we can safely say it was not the CIA or Mossad so that it must have been either the British Royal Family or else MI5 or perhaps both together. Fenians? Can we put this to a vote to discover the truth at last? Some of us need to be told.

BOAC
21st Jan 2009, 08:54
I had to leave the cinema before the film finished, Chuks - what actually happened to the ship - did it sink?

Joeh - a lot of coincidences there - and the 'Wingdings' trick at the end (if correct) IS weird. Shame they couldn't bother to spell 'tragedy', though.

chuks
21st Jan 2009, 13:51
When I was awakened by a sharp elbow in the ribs the credits were rolling so that I really don't know the fate of RMS Titanic either!

Using moonbat logic if "they" are telling us it sank then it is sailing on, somewhere. Same as these aircraft that did not hit the Twin Towers and/or the Pentagon; they, like the truth are out there somewhere.

joehunt
22nd Jan 2009, 08:03
BOAC

"and the 'Wingdings' trick at the end (if correct) IS weird."

Oh it is correct, let me assure you. MS word - wingdings.

Whether 911 was an inside job, (which I believe to be the case) or not, it proves to me beyond a shadow of a doubt it is the work of the devil and his disciples.

henry crun
22nd Jan 2009, 08:44
Surely if it was an inside job the weather would not be a factor ? :confused:

Captain Stable
22nd Jan 2009, 10:31
<Sigh> :rolleyes:

The moonbats are really upon us. I wonder if anyone recently looked up the definition of "gullible"... :bored:

snopes.com: 9/11 Coincidences (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/coincidence.asp)

27mm
22nd Jan 2009, 10:51
The Twin Towers scenario I can accept, but I've a real problem with what happened at the Pentagon, especially the lack of evidence of the aircraft actually hitting the building.

airfoilmod
22nd Jan 2009, 15:31
Likewise. It also requires a level of trust in authority that is lacking in my perspective.

AF

AMF
22nd Jan 2009, 16:47
I don't believe the story about who reached the South Pole first. Where's the evidence? It's a myth..a propoganda tool... conjured up by the Norwegians to direct attention away from whatever sneaky stuff they were up to at the North Pole.

Captain Stable
22nd Jan 2009, 17:13
Spot on, AMF. Furthermore, Scott never died in Antarctica, nor Oates. Spot the link - both were serving officers. Oates was supposedly co-opted onto the expedition because of his experience with horses (he was a cavalry officer), yet Scott had someone else go off to buy the horses. :confused: How come? Doesn't that make one a little suspicious? In the meantime, with the Norwegians supposedly the enemies in reaching the South Pole, where does Scott go? To France and Norway :ooh: , supposedly testing sledges. Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

We were heading towards s major war - seems a bit strange that a senior Naval Officer would be given time off to wander into the wilderness. Furthermore, almost all the remainder of the expedition personnel (except for the scientists) were serving members of the Armed Forces - predominantly RN. Who's to say they ever even got to Antarctica, let alone the South Pole? There was clearly a cover story cooked up in Norway with Amundsen (Scott was also friendly with Nansen) in order to infiltrate Germany from Scandinavia. I think we now need to be told what the real purpose of the expedition was.

airfoilmod
22nd Jan 2009, 17:21
Stop, I believe you, but I'm getting a headache. One needn't be daft to question a version of History. Certainly if it's written by those whose ox may get gored, you know, politicals.

chuks
22nd Jan 2009, 18:17
What about all those pieces of aircraft left lying about after the Pentagon was hit? Where did they come from if not from an aircraft hitting the Pentagon?

Are you referring to the fact that this event was not captured on a video surveillance camera, perhaps? Lack of that particular proof doesn't invalidate other evidence, including eyewitness testimony to seeing an aircraft hit the Pentagon, does it?

Sorry, now that I think about that it's just too pat. "They" must have hit the Pentagon with a cruise missile and then trucked the aircraft wreckage and the human remains in later as a cover-up.

Does the Pentagon also belong to the same real-estate mogul who owned the World Trade Center? Perhaps that is the link between those attacks!

Anyone else here old enough to remember the way Tom Sawyer decided to free Jim the runaway slave in "Huckleberry Finn"? (Tom decided to do that as elaborately as possible for the glory of it when it could have been done very simply in one night, plus it was not really necessary since Jim had already been freed from slavery.) Did one of his descendents plan 9/11?

Yes, isn't it weird the way that this little aviation sub-site attracts moonbats? The scary thing is, are they all, um, outsiders? I hope so but I don't think so.

I can only remember one fully paid-up moonbat from my time in aviation. He believed in auras, healing crystals, the laying on of hands and homeopathy... Unfortunately for him he also believed in a Nigerian 419 scam that wouldn't have fooled a child of 8 years so that he had to leave us before 9/11. Otherwise I am sure we could have been told all these alternate truths long ago instead of having to find them out now on Jet Blast.

con-pilot
22nd Jan 2009, 18:56
27mm

The Twin Towers scenario I can accept, but I've a real problem with what happened at the Pentagon, especially the lack of evidence of the aircraft actually hitting the building.

I am reposting my response from a few years ago to provide you evidence that in fact American Airlines flight 77, a Boeing 757, did in fact hit the Pentagon.


As some you may know I have attended and graduated from the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) Aircraft Accident Investigators Schools I and II. I have been trained to detect aircraft parts and remains of aircraft (and sadly to say human remains) from other debris at an accident site. I have been trained to do this either on site or from video/still photos of an accident site. On September 11 in the afternoon while watching live TV feeds from the Pentagon site I could observe the remains of a large aircraft at the front of the impact site. Obviously I could not determine the type of aircraft or the airline it belonged to, however, when it was reported to be American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, I had no reason not to believe that the remains were in fact that of a 757.

Now, before I continue I would like to ask all of you a couple of simple questions.

1. I am sure we all remember the horrifying footage of the two airliners hitting the World Trade Center Buildings. Now let me ask you this, where is the wreckage of those aircraft? We all saw the airliners hit the buildings, there is no doubt of that. So where are the remains of these two airliners?

Alright, I’ll answer my own question. All of the parts of the airliners were there. The impact was so catastrophically severe that the airplanes literally disintegrated. What few intact pieces that remained were for all intents and proposes unrecognizable.

Therefore, why would the results of the American Boeing 757 slamming into the Pentagon at over 500 miles per hour be any different?

2. Assuming that these purveyors of falsehood about 9/11 are telling truth, which they are not, and no aircraft actually hit the Pentagon, I would ask you to consider the following.

Where are the crew and passengers of American Airlines Flight 77? Where is American Airlines Boeing 757 serial number 28142?

The truth is that the crew and passengers died and the 757 was destroyed when it slammed into the Pentagon at over 500 miles per hour.

There was wreckage of American Airlines Flight 77 inside of the Pentagon, there were over 100 documented witnesses that have testified seeing a large silver airplane fly into the Pentagon and explode.

Unfortunately there are more conspiracy theory links in the cyber world than there are of the truth. Therefore I request that you please go to the following web-site and please read narrative and view the pictures contained within.

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

Please view the above and make up your own mind.
If after reading the above, if you still feel that there is insufficient evidence to prove to you that American Airlines 77 did in fact hit the Pentagon, this debate is over.

forget
22nd Jan 2009, 21:35
On September 11 in the afternoon while watching live TV feeds from the Pentagon site I could observe the remains of a large aircraft at the front of the impact site.

Last line of Gunga Din (http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_gunga.htm) comes to mind.

BOAC
22nd Jan 2009, 21:42
Whether 911 was an inside job, (which I believe to be the case) or not, it proves to me beyond a shadow of a doubt it is the work of the devil and his disciples. - it was the 'work of the devil, Joe, but I'm afraid that the 'wingdings trick' loses all credibility (assuming SNOPES is not a hoax, of course:))

chuks
22nd Jan 2009, 22:34
I know what they are, "wingdings," sort of but how do they prove that the Devil and his disciples were involved in 9/11?

I don't understand the logic behind that statement. The Devil, assuming he exists at all, is a supernatural being. Can it be objectively proved that he caused 9/11 and if so how? Where do these "wingdings" come into this?

This makes me think of how the Man in the Moon on their soap boxes set off mass hysteria about how that proved that Procter and Gamble were satanists. That Bill Gates might well be thought to be a figure of evil, given some of the pain and suffering his software has inflicted on innocent computer users, that I can accept but that "wingdings" unleashes Satan somehow... I think I need some clarification on this point.

It almost seems as if we have some weird offshoot of mainstream moonbattery here, substituting the supernatural for (already loony enough, I would have thought) ideas about how cruise missiles, explosives and/or secret societies caused 9/11. Perhaps this is some devilish plot to cause people like me to retreat from this theology-based lunacy to merely reality-based lunacy? What, "lunacy with knobs on" we should call this?

Are moonbats like some of these highly-developed social insects so that when you squash one pheromenes are released that cause more of them to swarm to the attack?

AMF
23rd Jan 2009, 05:35
Captain Stable Spot on, AMF. Furthermore, Scott never died in Antarctica, nor Oates. Spot the link - both were serving officers. Oates was supposedly co-opted onto the expedition because of his experience with horses (he was a cavalry officer), yet Scott had someone else go off to buy the horses. How come? Doesn't that make one a little suspicious? In the meantime, with the Norwegians supposedly the enemies in reaching the South Pole, where does Scott go? To France and Norway , supposedly testing sledges. Yeah, right.

We were heading towards s major war - seems a bit strange that a senior Naval Officer would be given time off to wander into the wilderness. Furthermore, almost all the remainder of the expedition personnel (except for the scientists) were serving members of the Armed Forces - predominantly RN. Who's to say they ever even got to Antarctica, let alone the South Pole? There was clearly a cover story cooked up in Norway with Amundsen (Scott was also friendly with Nansen) in order to infiltrate Germany from Scandinavia. I think we now need to be told what the real purpose of the expedition was.

Aha, I knew! Thanks Captain S. I've had this dubious feeling in my gut about the unlikely Amundsen story my whole life, but you're obviously well-versed in the details and personnel involved in the whole affair and every bit of info you've brought to light seems to prove I was right to trust my gut.

I certainly don't need anything further, it's confirmed. Nobody knows who discovered the South Pole, but we know it is NOT who we've all been told. And as you say the question remains....what was the real purpose for those expeditions?....or should we say.....missions!

Brian Abraham
24th Jan 2009, 03:00
Scott never died in Antarctica, nor Oates
My theory is that they found the hole at the pole and fell in. Its obvious by deduction that Amundsen never got to the pole, else he would have seen it and reported its existence. Why would he keep it a secret? There is a religious group (forget its name but chap bought its equivalent of the Watchtower into work) who believe so (hollow earth and hole) and would a religion preach what is not fact?
Hollow Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth)

John Marsh
24th Jan 2009, 20:40
"A white paper on the structure of the Twin Towers carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson contained eleven numbered points, including:

'The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.'

--City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center, James Glanz & Eric Lipton, p 131."

Quoted at Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice (http://stj911.org/evidence/wtc.html)

-------------------------------------------------------------

In 1965, Richard Roth, a partner at Emery Roth & Sons, the architects working on the Towers, stated in a telegram: "The structural analysis carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson is the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure. The preliminary calculations alone cover 1,200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings.

...
"Because of its configuration, which is essentially that of a steel beam 209' deep, the Towers are actually far less daring structurally than a conventional building such as the Empire State Building where the spine or braced area of the building is far smaller in relation to its height.

...
"The building as designed is sixteen times stiffer than a conventional structure. The design concept is so sound that the structural engineer has been able to be ultra-conservative in his design without adversely affecting the economics of the structure." ('City in the Sky', p.134-6)

"Live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs."
--John Skilling, in Engineering News Record, 4/2/1964

Although the Twin Towers were designed to survive impacts from a Boeing 707 or a Douglas DC-8, they could reasonably be expected to survive impacts from a Boeing 767. The 767-200s used on 9/11 were only slightly larger than the 707 and the DC-8. As a 707 cruises faster than a 767, it would have more kinetic energy than the 767. General comparison details are at 9-11 Research: Towers' Design Parameters (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html)

with detailed calculations at http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/wtc-demolition.html

A quote from the calculations: "The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is...4.136 billion ft pounds force... The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is 3.706 billion ft pounds force. [So] under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10% more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767."

In "Debunking 9/11 Debunking", David Ray Griffin reminds us that "...the Boeing 767s that hit the North and South Towers were said to be travelling at 440 and 540 mph, respectively, whereas the report from the 1960s spoke of a 707 travelling at 600 mph." (p.146)

It's also relevant that the 767s on 9/11 were carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel; only about 40% of the capacity of a 707. 9-11 Research: Towers' Design Parameters (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html)

John Skilling, head structural engineer for the World Trade Centre, stated in 1993: "We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side... Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. The building structure would still be there." (E. Nalder, 'Twin Towers engineered to withstand jet collision', Seattle Times, Feb. 27, 1993. Business | Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision | Seattle Times Newspaper (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698) )

Independent researchers have completed a paper, "The Missing Jolt", on the start of the destruction of WTC 1. Close analysis reveals that the upper structure did not fall on to the lower structure at a speed sufficient to precipitate 'global collapse', as is claimed in the NIST scenario. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

A companion work to The Missing Jolt is a short video made by David Chandler, a physics teacher, mathematician and member of AE911Truth (http://www.ae911truth.org) . The video is here: YouTube - Downward Acceleration of the North Tower (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4)

airfoilmod
24th Jan 2009, 21:34
Two glaring problems with the cites in your post. (They're not wrong, but the information is misleading.)

First, a pet peeve of mine. The "Truth" is different than "what is true"

Second, the report by Skilling states that the live load at the columns could be increased 2000 per cent without failing.

It's absolutely true, and completely irrelevant. The Failure was one of shear, not bearing. The columns were drawn inward by the collapsing mass of the floors above the initial seam of failure and all those subsequent. As I have stated, the floors failed at their attachments to the columns, but not before "effectively shrinking in perimeter dimension".

The mass that dropped INTO the building was smaller in dimension than the "columnar perimeter".

The building fell into itself, as a result of floors sequentially snapping free of their critical perimeter supports, as explained elsewhere.

The "VIDEO"?? Several gross and primitive errors are apparent. One claim the author made was "The upper part of the building turned immediately to dust". Well, number one, that isn't visible, if it happened, the smoke cloud enveloped it immediately; (There was no dust cloud at this point.)

Like most of the supporting evidence, claims are made seemingly to inspire doubt, not elicit fact.

I have and always will stop short of "mystery". It is unattractive to me.
What appeals to me is technical discussion of what is widely accepted as evidence.

By now, offering a description by Skilling of the fabulous value of the perimeter structure is to put it mildly, off focus, neither condemning or exculpatory.

As I watched the video with the graph and audio, (by the "physics teacher"), as he invoked Newton, see if you can spot his mistake?

I am indebted to you for your time and work, and I have an open mind regarding the engineering and Physics (as well as the forensics), but, sad to say, so far Popular Mechanics has the best explanation (sic).

AF

chuks
24th Jan 2009, 21:35
So, John Marsh, I guess we have two different conclusions to be drawn from this:

A. The engineers got it wrong and these towers could be destroyed by large jet transport aircraft being flown into them. In fact they were so destroyed, a fact proven by lots and lots of evidence. This was human error, at least insofar as mistaken assumptions were made about this building being collision-proof.

B. The engineers got it right and these towers were not destroyed by large jet transport aircraft being flown into them. No, despite everything that supports A, above, it was something else entirely that brought these towers down. We don't know what exactly destroyed the towers, just that it couldn't have happened the way most people think it did because their designers could not have made any mistakes.

How about this:

A. The designers of RMS Titanic got it wrong so that the ship they assumed to be unsinkable simply sank due to an unforeseen sort of damage incurred in a glancing collision with an iceberg. This was human error.

B. RMS Titanic was unsinkable due to its state-of-the-art design featuring watertight compartments. There is no conceivable scenario that would have resulted in the total loss of the ship (with so much faith being placed in this "fact" that there were not even enough life boats for all its passengers). If this ship sank then that had to be due to an act of sabotage. Either that or else it did not sink at all, having been properly designed to be unsinkable. QED! In either case we have been fed monstrous lies for over a century now about its "accidental sinking".

I like "A" but perhaps that is just me... Now where did I put that tinfoil hat?

Brian Abraham
25th Jan 2009, 00:57
Re the Titanic it was never claimed to be unsinkable, but a qualified statement as being "virtually unsinkable", "as far as it is possible to do, the ship is designed to be unsinkable", "practically unsinkable" and "nearly unsinkable". People latched on to the "unsinkable" and disregarded the qualifier.

chuks
25th Jan 2009, 07:42
Brian, you mean to say that there are no absolutes? That is terrible! Those poor people, up there on the bow of the Titanic doing that proto-"Hang ten", looking at that iceberg and thinking, "Cool! An iceberg! Good thing this ship is unsinkable or else we could be in a whole heap of trouble."

You may be on to something here, though. The nearly unsinkable ship sank, when everyone had to drop back from the "unsinkable" to focus on the "nearly", which just shows that life is full of surprises.

Did we not just see an Airbus with engines designed to resist bird strikes floating down the Hudson River, or was that one faked too? Are you trying to tell me it was big birds when the engines were designed to take strikes from little birds? That sounds pretty stupid, really.

It seems rather boring but by your logic then the engineers must have designed the twin towers of the World Trade Center using some sort of reasonable assumptions about the risks from a passenger jet hitting one of them, assumptions that simply have been proved to be over-optimistic. That would mean that all these moonbat cross-references to this design feature and that study of the stresses, pages and pages and pages... they are all essentially meaningless simply because the twin towers did, in strict point of fact, collapse! Is that what you are trying to tell us here?

That must mean that every time we travel on a ship, ascend a skyscraper or fly on an airplane we are taking our lives in our hands to some degree! Someone should do something about this!

Well, the moonbats are doing something, in their sadly warped way! Instead of tamely accepting that the engineers got it wrong so that the twin towers were vulnerable to strikes from passenger aircraft they are telling us that, no, the engineers got it right and that it was not the strikes from the passenger jets that brought them down.

Gee, is that really helpful, though? Instead of having to worry about some engineers making mistakes, something I thought occasionally does happen, I now have to worry about "them," the CIA, Mossad, the Illuminati... Thanks a lot, moonbats! I had just got over worrying about the bogeyman under my bed and now you are trying to frighten me with this!

I was wondering; how many moonbats will it take before the balcony at Castle Moonbat collapses? I feel fairly safe down here in the courtyard but what about all those poor things up there, raving in the moonlight? Is that safe?

doubleu-anker
25th Jan 2009, 09:17
chuks

That's quite a lot there and I am sure your intentions are for the good.

Let me come in with a few questions.

-Do you believe everything you hear or see on CNN/BBC??

-Do you believe the CIA (Rockefeller's police force) is capable of protecting us, let alone the President of the USA? Have a look at this

YouTube - JFK bodyguards told to stay away (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt3Jiuq5NS0)

You may laugh at youtube but I find some of the clips on that sight give a greater insight to world events, than the state controlled media. So much so, they want it closed down and are just waiting for an excuse!

If you can give me just one plusable reason why there is no more than 1 or 2 frames released at the Pentegon of the "aircraft" flying into it, then I may trust the government a little more than I do now. Please don't try and convince me there were no other frames taken, as that would be an affront to my intelligence and integrity.

chuks
25th Jan 2009, 14:00
You want a plusable reason why there were only a couple of frames showing an aircraft hitting the Pentegon. I guess that means that you want a plausible reason why there were only a couple of frames showing an aircraft hitting the Pentagon which is almost the same thing, really. Here goes:

The official explanation was that this security camera had a low scan rate. I think it was given as one frame per second where a normal TV image is something like 24 frames per second. It is easy to see that a fast-moving aircraft will only show up in a couple of frames when imaged by a camera with a low scan rate. (We see this all the time when security camera footage is played back at a higher scan rate so that stationary objects are surrounded by what appear to be very fast-moving ones. Watch this sort of footage and you may see vehicles appear and then disappear very briefly in the same way this aircraft does on the film you refer to here for the reason I have just given.)

Unfortunately I cannot assure you that there is proof that there are no missing security camera frames, however much of an "affront" you may find this fact because proving a negative is a logical impossibility. (You may find this statement an affront to your intelligence if I am asking you to believe something that is quite stupid but how should it affront your integrity? I can only do that by asking you to do something dishonest, not as here by making a logical counter-argument. Think about that one a moment or else phone a friend.)

I just take this one about the brief imaging of the aircraft on faith as a reasonable explanation, the probably truth, knowing very little as I do about the Pentagon's security camera setup. I assume that if that camera really had a higher scan rate then someone directly involved would have gone public with that news by now to state that, for example, these were XYZ123 model cameras with XX frames per second scan rate. As far as I know no one has done this thing, which I take for confirmation that the scan rate was as stated. Someone such as yourself probably takes this as evidence that "they" have silenced anyone who might tell the truth.

The CIA is Rockefeller's secret police? Hmm... Which Rockefeller, if that is not a secret? There are so many of them, you see and most of the better-known ones really are quite dead so that I have to ask you to be a bit more specific. It cannot be John D. or Nelson so which Rockefeller do you mean? Or did you just decide to throw this one into the stew to spice it up a bit?

I finally managed to watch most of the Youtube clip you attached there. Interesting clip! It gives you a feeling that its background soundtrack was cleverly edited to give the feel of originality with, for instance, the clopping sound of horses' hooves but did they really play the "Dead March" during the motorcade? "Hail to the Chief" I can buy but not that!

Okay, they pulled the bodyguards off the Presidential limo. Has anyone ever asked why that was done? Not just to hint darkly and repeatedly as this clip does that... what, exactly? I have to ask because I missed the end of the clip, watching up to the agent on the right shrugging in puzzlement or whatever he was doing there. I assume that the commentator on the clip is just guessing about what we see because I doubt that any Secret Service men told him directly about that.

Hey, if they told then they would have to change their name to something else entirely, right? "Where," asks POTUS, "is my 'Somewhat Secretive Service' detail?" Just think of all the windbreakers, matchbooks, notepads and coffee cups that would have to be re-branded when money is already tight so no wonder those guys are ordered not to talk. Plus, knowing that you are up against "The Secret Service," well...

As a heretic should I worry about "The Spanish Please Fill Out This Questionnaire About Your Religious Beliefs When You Have A Spare Moment If It's Not Too Much Trouble Thanks Very Much"? Nah, it's "The Spanish Inquisition," not that I expect them. Well, nobody does.

By the way, not to spoil a perfectly good theory about the CIA being in the pay of "Rockefeller" as "his" secret police but the Secret Service are under the Department of the Treasury and not the CIA (which under U.S. law only operates outside the U.S.A or so we are led to believe).

Again I have to ask who "they" are who cannot wait to shut Youtube down? If "they" are as powerful as you so darkly hint then what are they waiting for, why don't they just shut it down? Or do you mean some of these dead Rockefellers; they have to wait for resurrection, I suppose. There is that, being dead meaning that you just do not get a hell of a lot done, most days.

I don't watch CNN; I think it is too simplistic, "infotainment" or just TV news for people with really short attention spans. The BBC is okay by me. When I find something really interesting then I like to read about it in "The Daily Telegraph," "The International Herald Tribune," "The New York Times," "The New Yorker," "The New York Review of Books," "Stern," "Der Spiegel" or by going to Wikipedia and just following where that leads me.

I think that anyone of normal intelligence is quite aware that various news sources will put their own spin on whatever truths they are presenting; this is why I try to keep my sources diverse. Then there is just walking around talking to other people and keeping my eyes, ears and mind open. I find that most of the sources we have been referred to by those who doubt the official verson of 9/11 are no use at all in discovering any truths, being there just to propagate a gross distortion of the truth, so that I tend to ignore them. I don't see the point in going on to do a point-by-point refutation of any of them but just to say that taken as a whole they seem to be a total waste of time. You might as well try to point out the lies in one of Dr Goebbel's masterpieces.

Edited to reflect the fact that I painstakingly downloaded most of this clip, having very little much better to do but now the sun is shining, the sparrows are cheeping and I am off for a walk.

doubleu-anker
25th Jan 2009, 14:57
chuks

I'm sure you aren't all that bad, are you?

Just wish you would get a better Internet connection, as a picture (frame) speaks a thousand words. More pictures (frames) = more words.:}

Oh BTW, try and stay out of the desert midday sun!

chuks
25th Jan 2009, 16:03
I use a hat when I go out in the sun. Just a normal baseball cap from Adidas, bought cheap when it was on sale but it seems to get the job done. And you? Same thing but lined with tinfoil, I presume?

Thanks for the snappy comments but do you have anything by way of a factual response to my answer to your question about the mysterious non-appearance of the aircraft in most of the Pentegon, Pantagoon, whatever, security camera footage?

nahsuD
25th Jan 2009, 17:45
Although the Twin Towers were designed to survive impacts from a Boeing 707 or a Douglas DC-8, they could reasonably be expected to survive impacts from a Boeing 767. The 767-200s used on 9/11 were only slightly larger than the 707 and the DC-8. As a 707 cruises faster than a 767, it would have more kinetic energy than the 767. General comparison details are at 9-11 Research: Towers' Design Parameters (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html)

with detailed calculations at http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/wtc-demolition.html

A quote from the calculations: "The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is...4.136 billion ft pounds force... The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is 3.706 billion ft pounds force. [So] under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10% more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767."


Just an observation from a non-engineering type. If the building was designed to withstand the impact of an aircraft of given mass and at a given speed (kinetic energy) it seems to me that it did just that. We all stood, speechless, watching the building with a gaping hole where the impact was. The building withstood the impact of an aircraft doing a fair clip. The calculations by the engineers used the energy produced by the impact to calculate and certify the building for a certain strength. I don't think that they factored in the weakening of the building by the burning fuel that resulted afterwards.

If the aircraft, by some miracle, did not cause the massive fire from it's own fuel I think that the buildings would still be standing, badly damaged, with some minor fires on the floors because of electrical shorts, but overall undamaged.

Of course the other option to completely prevent the incident would have been to have everyone in the building wear a tinfoil hat which would have created a huge reflection of light and the hijackers would not have been able to see where they were going and ended in the Hudson river.

A A Gruntpuddock
25th Jan 2009, 17:47
Well the report would seem to be right, the towers did not fall because they were struck by the aircraft.

However, they did subsequently collapse as a result of the ensuing fires.

You have to be careful as a report on 'structural damage' does not necessarily include reference to any fire damage.

This weakness (in the reporting) was commented on years ago and designers have been urged to pay more attention to the loss of structural integrity arising from fires.

heretic
26th Jan 2009, 18:18
J M Thanks for the links, I had not seen the Missing Jolt paper.

Airfoilmod
I can see the sense of the collapsing floors pulling the exterior columns in towards the central columns but if so how do you explain the ejections of large and presumably heavy chunks of steel shown in some photographs?

airfoilmod
26th Jan 2009, 18:46
"Bearing", as in support, infers enormous weight on supporting steel columns. Easy enough to imagine a deflection from vertical of support.
Steel is profoundly elastic, in an engineering sense, and return to vertical from deflection can create enormous and unsupported loads outside the design format. Put a swizzle stick between forefinger and thumb, squeeze; when attachment is lost, no telling what direction the plastic will go.

Use goggles. Since the vectors in my theory imply an inward collapse, I assume most columns (with their Bridgework) will follow an inward path.

This is certainly not to say that a catastrophic failure will follow expectations explicitly. It isn't mysterious in any way, and to me that is its appeal.

AF

El Grifo
10th Apr 2009, 11:49
A colleague, who remains, like many, eternaly unconvinced, sent me this link.

Save your usual bluster and puff my dear usual suspects.

Just read and think about it.

Just because many think there is more to 9/11 than meets the eye does not mean that there is, equally just because you don't, does not mean that there aint. So to speak !

I did not write this stuff, I only read it :-

Deseret News | Traces of explosives in 9/11 dust, scientists say (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/0,5143,705295677,00.html)

Roger Sofarover
10th Apr 2009, 12:09
Very interesting El Grifo..seriously that is, however,

I give it about 6 hours till there is

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mHTh2W9jmK8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mHTh2W9jmK8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
:ok:

corsair
10th Apr 2009, 13:13
I'm completely convinced now that explosives were used to bring down the WTC. It's so obvious now. I don't understand how I missed it before. :ugh:

The people who organised this whole conspiracy were geniuses. Not only have they fooled most of the world's population, except me and a few enlightened others but they fooled Al Qaeda into thinking they did it. Poor old Osama is innocent and he doesn't know it.

First off they hired some fanatics convinced them it was for Islam, trained them to fly the airliners into the towers at the exact point where the explosives were planted. If you look closely you can see the towers collapsed at the very point the aircraft hit them. Such precision flying.:D What's also amazing is that the detonation devices for the explosives was clearly designed to survive being hit by an airliner and the fireball that followed. They even went to the trouble of ensuring the towers fell exactly on top of themselves so as to minimise collateral damage. You have to admire those people for their precision.

Then there was the Pentagon job, firing a missile at it while telling everyone it was an airliner was risky. But they obviously hired hundreds of witnesses to say they saw an airliner hit the building. They left nothing to chance. They even planted pieces of aircraft around the impact site almost immediately after the attack and staged photos which they later published. A near perfect conspiracy except for their failure to produce a well faked photo of the aircraft flying into the building.

The conspiracy was completed by creating an explosion in Pennsylvania to explain the disappearance of yet another airliner. Evidence shows that both unused airliners hijacked that day have been returned to service with new identities. Never underestimate how difficult that is. You have to change the identity of virtually every component. Extremely difficult that and a commendable effort on the part of the conspirators. What happened to the passengers on those aircraft. Well who knows? Perhaps they never existed at all.

Thank goodness we have so many independant thinkers out there. Otherwise this conspiracy would never be unmasked. ;)

bnt
10th Apr 2009, 13:45
Don't need any more fireworks - it's not the first time a Thermite theory has popped up here. Neither is that Skillings paper particularly interesting: it's based on the assumptions that the fire insulation on the structural steel was sufficient, and that it would remain intact after it was struck - both things that were demonstrably untrue. All we need now is another claim of "molten" steel, when we know that steel fails at far lower temperatures than is required to melt it, varying according to the stress imposed on it. :rolleyes:

El Grifo
10th Apr 2009, 14:43
Well bnt, it has "popped-up" again.

This time from an alleged, reliable source, reported as recently as April 6th

Did you read the piece, or did you simply dismiss it off-hand.

OFSO
10th Apr 2009, 15:04
Re: the 9/11 Pentagon airliner crash not being on CCTV cameras: at last week's London summit conference (see thread elsewhere in JB) a worker on his way home (and uninvolved with the demo) was assaulted by police and subsequently died of a heart attack (may/may not have been connected).

However, despite London having more CCTV cameras observing the public than anywhere else in the world - perhaps than the rest of the world put together (or something) - there's no record of the assault on CCTV, or of a previous assault by police on the same man, and it was only due to an American fund manager filming the incident on his mobile that we now have a police constable being disciplined (or something like that.)

My own view is that CCTV when controlled by the government will only record or subsequently show exactly what they want to show. IT CANNOT BE RELIED ON FOR IMPARTIAL EVIDENCE, EITHER FOR OR AGAINST.

El Grifo
10th Apr 2009, 15:13
I was about to amplify my point by directing towards the Brigham Young University, Department of Physics page relating to Prof. Steven E Jones.

After spotting references to "tin-foil" on the page, I though perhaps not. Only serves to provide succour to the rabids.


The I though, **** it :}

Dr. Steven E. Jones (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/)

Roger Sofarover
10th Apr 2009, 15:25
It is so easy for everyone on here to lambast someone else when they put up information which goes against the grain. El Grifo has put up an interesting article. It is nothing to do with the Pentagon Corsair, or Al Quaeda. It is an article about the presence of super thermite in dust samples taken after the collapse of the Twin Towers. Thats all. No need to deride him, rather, if you have any interest in the matter then a discussion about how there could be Super Thermite in samples of dust collected by different people from different locations would be much more appropriate. The article is serious enough and the article draws no conclusions about the source and purpose of the explosives. To say 'well its just there' won't really do, as this is a substance that does not really show itself on a normal day to day dust gathering session.

Dushan
10th Apr 2009, 15:59
The I though, **** it :}

Dr. Steven E. Jones (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/)

Valiant effort, El Grifo, but I don't buy it. There is no reference to peanut butter in the description of the tin foil "apparatus".

And, also, isn't it strange that this article just "happens" to appear and is brought to the attention of PPRune, when Chuks has gone skiing. Just askin'.

bnt
10th Apr 2009, 16:01
Well bnt, it has "popped-up" again.

This time from an alleged, reliable source, reported as recently as April 6th

Did you read the piece, or did you simply dismiss it off-hand.
I read it, and haven't exactly "dismissed" it, because there was very little in there for me to make a judgment about. What is the chemical formulation of this "super thermite"?

corsair
10th Apr 2009, 16:06
Two aeroplanes flew into the towers, the fires they started weakened the structure sufficiently to cause them to collapse. This has in fact been explained by Engineers who actually know what they are talking about. This was a bonus for the terrorists but probably not expected. That is the simple reality of it.

There is no US goverment conspiracy. It was a simple plan thought up by intelligent people driven by hatred of all things western and American. Hijack four airliners with suicide squads and fly them into significant buildings in NY and Washington DC.

I have to say. I'm puzzled at to why apparently serious intelligent people get pulled into believing these conspiracy theories. Even the variety and range and absurdity of these notions doesn't seem to phase them. That aircraft hit the towers is indisputable because it was videoed and was live for one attack. But because the Pentagon aircraft wasn't filmed, this gave rise to the absurd notion that there wasn't an aircraft there at all and of course the fourth aircraft was either shot down to cover up everything or it's crash was faked. :ugh:

Even if you want to believe somebody in the US government wanted to do thing. There was no need to complicate things with explosives and fakery. Simply hijacking four airliners and flying them into significant buildings would have produced EXACTLY the same result.

These conspiracys fail the most simple test of all. The common sense test.

It seems every significant event in this worlds has it's own conspiracy theory to match. It's a wonder the Tsunami of a few years back wasn't blamed on the US government.:rolleyes:


The only possible, even plausible conspiracy theory is that somebody, somewhere knew about the attacks and did nothing knowing it would be useful for their own purposes.

El Grifo
10th Apr 2009, 16:13
All very well, but where does the existence of thermite in the rubble dust fit in.

Or is that just another conspiracy theory ?

AcroChik
10th Apr 2009, 16:41
Major components of thermite are Fe2O3 and Al2O3, both oxidants. Presence of these would be considered precursors of thermite combustion rather than the products.

An indication of thermite oxidation would not be the presence of thermite components but the presence of the products of its oxidation, such as elemental iron.

While iron itself is a common substance from ore to various manufactured items, iron in its elemental (pure, unadulterated) state, is quite rare.

There are many ways of extracting elemental iron from, let's say, structural steel: electrical, chemical and long exposure to heat at above annealing temperatures.

Thermite is known for its transient deflagration (short, non-explosive burn time). Thus it is commonly used in the welding of critical structural metal joints, such as railroad tracks and weight-bearing members.

There are numerous articles in peer reviewed journals debunking the fellow Jones, upon whose writings so many conspiracy advocates depend, as "junk science."

Disclosure: While in high school I helped another super-nerd make experimental fireworks. The outcome of this was very impressive and... well... let's just say... given the property damage we caused to the surface of the country club tennis court upon which we set the thing off, we're lucky to be alive.

Matari
10th Apr 2009, 17:07
Corsair:

It seems every significant event in this worlds has it's own conspiracy theory to match. It's a wonder the Tsunami of a few years back wasn't blamed on the US government.Indeed, such a conspiracy theory rattles through cyberspace attracting various freakazoid adherents.

Won't be long before the ppruner equivalents jump on this one as well.

Tsunami - Nuclear Bombs created the India Asia Tsunami (http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/tsunami.html)

El Grifo
10th Apr 2009, 17:53
Concise and to the point AcroChik.


With your greater depth of knowledge on the subject, are you able to dismiss 100% the theories of Jones.

Flash2001
10th Apr 2009, 18:09
AC

Mix iron and aluminum oxides together and you don't get anything else. Mix Iron oxide and aluminum powder and you get thermite. Aluminum oxide has already burnt and it is a very energy intensive process to get the aluminum or the oxygen out. It's called smelting.

After an excellent landing you can use the airplane again!

airfoilmod
10th Apr 2009, 18:16
As an Investigator in Criminal Defense, I had to change my mind about certain preconceived ideas re: Police, Government, and their combinations. I have seen exculpatory evidence destroyed, witheld, and crucial interviews covered up, as well as material witnesses threatened into leaving the Jurisdiction. It isn't politics, or ideology, at bottom is Hubris, money, the Buddy system, etc. Opened my eyes.

As far as the Towers go, the Government conclusion involves a conspiracy itself, so to entertain others is not outrageous. Having seen the a/c impact the Towers, the actual mechanism of collapse is not so important as the history of the pilots, in my mind.

I don't need either Jones (Alex or Steven) to affirm my right to question anything emanating from the Government. Whether or not the conclusions of the commission are accurate (I have my doubts), to believe them because of an abiding trust in authority is a brand of dangerous mental disorder.

Flash2001: Thank you for explaining the difference between Oxidant and Oxidizer, saved me the trouble.

AF

hellsbrink
10th Apr 2009, 18:29
This time from an alleged, reliable source, reported as recently as April 6th


Someone so reliable he was fired because of his crackpot theories?

Ok, El G, I read the "article" and here's one thing that blows his "theory" out of the water.His 2005 "research" says that the fires alone would not have been hot enough to melt the steel. Correct, if it was merely an open fuel fire. But this wasn't. Because of the way the building was opened up, as the fires intesified they drew more air, and therefore oxygen, into the fire. This makes the fire burn hotter, and that draws more air in. Essentially you have a blast furnace which gets even hotter as other materials in the building, even those allegedly fireproof, catch fire (get something hot enough and it will burn, even stone) which adds more fuel to the fire. This fire then spreads, as fire likes to do, and more stuff burns intensly, bringing even more oxygen in and creating a bigger blast furnace effect. Now, that alone could create all sorts of chemical copounds and you did have aluminium (aircraft) and steel (building supports) in close proximity so when things melt they will mix together. Oooh, that couldn't be where the thermite came from, could it?

Now, Mr "where's my tinfoil suit" Scientist is claiming that there was "super thermite" which exploded. So explain where the big puffs of smoke flying in a horizontal direction out of the building were? After all, an explosion has a pretty specific effect and since the TV people from around the world had their cameras trained on the area that was hit don't you think there would be ONE view of such an effect? Guess what, there wasn't. The smoke was still going in the same direction when the towers started to collapse, there was no change and therefore no explosion. Why was a steel beam thrown out? It's pretty obvious when you think about it. When things shear off, they have this thing called kinetic energy. When you have enough energy, you can move things a fair distance and, after all, the dust was over a fair area which in itself show the energy released as it had to follow the streets as there wasn't exactly a clear area for a mile or two for it to fly into, there were buildings in the way.

So, please don't try to say this "scientist" is reliable in any way. All he is doing is insulting the names of those who lost their lives in the disaster in an attempt to massage his own ego.

El Grifo
10th Apr 2009, 18:40
Well Mr hellsbrink, I am glad to hear that you have got it all figured out down to the last detail.

Marvellous really :D

Thank you for sharing it, albiet in a very condescending manner .

AcroChik, what is your comeback on the Thermite issue ?

hellsbrink
10th Apr 2009, 18:51
As is your reply, El G, but we won't go into that.

bnt
10th Apr 2009, 19:05
According to fireman friends of Denis Leary, the foundations of WTC7 were damaged by the collapses of WTC 1&2:

vWFlsIlj5_I

Flash2001
10th Apr 2009, 19:09
It's not even that complicated. I think that most fire codes assume that the fire services will intervene at some point. If they don't, heated steel loses both strength and stiffness. For practical purposes slenderness and stiffness are the major determinants of the point at which steel buckles. When the steel structure buckles that is the end of it.

After an excellent landing etc...

Captain Stable
10th Apr 2009, 19:43
I don't give a damn what was in this powder that people allegedly found on their windowsills. If it was not collected under forensic modus operandi it is worth zilch as evidence of anything. Two blokes could quite simply have cooked up a story together, shared a little of it out and both gone to a known conspiracy-theorist cookie saying "Guess what I found - oh - and this bloke I never met or heard of seems to have found the same stuff"

I find that scenario a lot easier to believe than the incredibly immense amount of effort it would have taken to construct the sort of conspiracy between the government, the DoD, the airlines, everyone in WTC, etc. etc. etc. which is the sort of conspiracy only someone with a doctorate degree in spreading peanut butter on tinfoil would believe.

Roger Sofarover
10th Apr 2009, 20:01
bnt

:}:}:D

Dennis who? His friends said 1/4 of the foundations were knocked away by the debris of the twin towers . Well bugger me, why even bother having an investigation, just ask Dennis Leary the comedian ...who? mmm, I wonder why just the bit of the building with a 1/4 of the foundations missing didnt fall first then.

Anyway, an awesome vid, that blows any academic arguments outta the water. What else is there to say? Dennis for President.
Thankyou
:}:} PML:}

I don't suppose Mr Learys friends would join this lot
Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth TOWER 7 (http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=158)

tony draper
10th Apr 2009, 20:20
Mr OFSO,I worked in the world of Town Center CCTV for thirty years,CCTV Cameras do not record every frame,ie they are not continuous the images are multiplexed,IE their may be up to sixteen cameras being recorded on one tape,ergo only one frame in sixteen from a individual camera may be laid down on the tape,you would be amazed at how much can happen in that time period,if a controller sees something going on they switch the camera output to a individual monitor tape.
Incidentally Camera control rooms are generally paid for and run by the local councils,the controllers are not employed by the Police,if a incident occurs the Police have to apply for a view of the tape same as anybody else.
Saying that the Police generally have a few CCTV Cameras that they do control,mobile units that can be moved about stuck on top of Tower Blocks and such,but they do not control the main Town Center Cameras,leastwise I never came across any that do.
:)

corsair
10th Apr 2009, 20:32
No need to be sarcastic Roger, Dennis O'Leary was simply repeating what the firemen who were there on the day told him. They know better than some idiot with a vivid imagination and access to the internet who comes up with some absurd scenario involving explosives.

On the foot of this thread. I spent an amusing half an hour trawling the youtube videos of this affair. One nutjob had a video claiming there was no aircraft at the Pentagon. His proof was that a turbine disk sitting in the wreckage was too small to come from the 757 engine. This is another 'proof' the moonbats love to trot out. All of them apparently with zero knowledge of jet engines if they don't realise that engine disks vary in diameter even in big turbofan engines. His second video was even more idiotic as he sought to prove that in fact a second airliner didn't hit the WTC at all despite all the footage you've seen. It was either a hologram or faked in some remarkable way. The really sad thing was that this character claimed he was a teacher who showed this stuff to his students.:suspect:

It's a crazy world with lots of crazies in it.:8

MadsDad
10th Apr 2009, 20:40
One possible source for Thermite dust.

Thus it is commonly used in the welding of critical structural metal joints, such as railroad tracks and weight-bearing members.

If thermite welding was used in the construction of the towers there would have been some residue left I'm sure.

Roger Sofarover
10th Apr 2009, 20:44
Corsair
You have been red carded I am afraid. You have mentioned 'moonbats' and you know this topic can only have sprung up again now because Chucks is away skiing. Now it's as if he is here, all the 'truthers' will be running for cover.

ref the vids. Keep searching, there are hundreds of rib ticklers out there. Don't watch to many though or the moonbat virus will bite:ok:

Come on though Dennis Leary, at least that other bloke has an ology.

AcroChik
10th Apr 2009, 20:47
"... at least that other bloke has an ology."

Pseudoscienceology?

Roger Sofarover
10th Apr 2009, 20:57
Pseudoscienceology?

No, Physics!!! Oh bugger there is no ology in Physics is there? aaaagh, you win.

Dushan
10th Apr 2009, 22:29
You lot are all crazy. How could there be any termite dust in a building that was built in the 70s from steel, glass and concrete. Everybody knows that termites live in wood. Where do you think the wood to feed the termites came from? Obviously it came from the smaller, older buildings in the surrounding area, where the dust settled.

There, no conspiracy at all, just a natural explanation. Fools....

El Grifo
11th Apr 2009, 00:07
Woof, for a while there I thought I may have resurrected an unwelcome ghost.

In the absence of the ubiquitous chuks, that would have been a very mean thing to have done.

Oxidides, oxites or broken limbs aside, I think there are many questions un-answered. (Unless you are bnt or the actor bloke of course)

Happy daze and bueno noches.

El G.

vapilot2004
11th Apr 2009, 01:07
All of these conspiracy ideas about WTC 1,2 and 7 can be shot down with one simple concept alongside two known facts.

It would have required no small gang of people to carry out such a grand conspiracy and we all know how people love to talk. Somebody would have surely said something by now.

con-pilot
11th Apr 2009, 01:33
vapilot2004, shhhhusssssssss, your not supposed to bring up logic and facts in this thread.

Now, go eat a Brussels sprout for punshipment. :p

evilroy
11th Apr 2009, 02:35
Can I leave the structural and chemical issues aside for a moment, and ask the ATPL holders here a question:

You are probably aware of claims from people like the Pilots for Truth group, which include that it was impossible for the hijackers to have flown the manoeuvres they did, that it would have required highly skilled piloting to achieve what happened.

What comments do ATPL holders, with experience in flying multi-engined jet airliners, have on this issue? I'd ask that you state your type / experience (if it is not in your profile).

Thank you.

con-pilot
11th Apr 2009, 03:34
Just what,

for the hijackers to have flown the manoeuvres they did,

maneuvers would that have been?

Did they put on an airshow, doing loops and rolls?

There are computer airplane game people here that claim that they have flown in real life simulators that say they can actually fly a real 737.

Anybody with minimal actual flying lessons can fly an airliner as long as they don't have to land the goddamn thing.

Dream on. :rolleyes:

By the way, I am an ATPL holder typed rated in the B 727, DC-3, Jetstar, Sabreliner, DA 50/900/EX, LR-Jet, IA-Jet and CE-500 with over 21,000 hours and have been a proffesional pilot for over 40 years.

Lord, there is no end of gullible people in the world, is there?

That's it, I'm out of here.

BlueDiamond
11th Apr 2009, 04:16
Now you stop that right this minute, Con ... talking sense on a thread like this. Brussels sprout for you too, mate ... go and join vapilot2004 please. :rolleyes:

Roger Sofarover
11th Apr 2009, 04:18
Dushan

Termite dust:}:}

Now that is funny, although I now hate you as I now keep repeating this
You lot are all crazy. How could there be any termite dust in a building that was built in the 70s from steel, glass and concrete. Everybody knows that termites live in wood. Where do you think the wood to feed the termites came from? Obviously it came from the smaller, older buildings in the surrounding area, where the dust settled.
in an Irish voice in my head.

evilroy
11th Apr 2009, 04:18
con - I quite agree, but people point to PFTers like Russ Wittenberg, etc, who say that executing the final turn into the Pentagon would have been impossible. The only way to counter such nonsense is for similarly qualified people to offer their own opinions, to show that people like Mr Wittenberg are in the vast minority, that PFT opinions are fringe and not held by mainstream professional aircrew.

Thanks for your post!

Overdrive
11th Apr 2009, 19:16
There are so many loons afoot, that should the authorities ever decide to "do" a conspiracy job, it would be impossible to wade far enough through the endless sh*te talked to ever prove it.

BombayDuck
11th Apr 2009, 19:23
Lord, there is no end of gullible people in the world, is there?

Even I know the answer to that one, and I'm a fair bit younger than you* :(

*I'm not saying you're OLD, just that I haven't spent 21,000 minutes as SLF in an airyplane!

con-pilot
11th Apr 2009, 20:16
Now you stop that right this minute, Con ... talking sense on a thread like this. Brussels sprout for you too, mate ... go and join vapilot2004 please.

Oh shoot, quite right you are. :(


*I'm not saying you're OLD, just that I haven't spent 21,000 minutes as SLF in an airyplane!

Well let me tell you something sonny, back when the Dead Sea was just sick and I was............:p

brickhistory
11th Apr 2009, 20:17
back when the Dead Sea was just sick


A) THAT'S funny!

and

B) Just who killed it? I think we should be told.

I bet someone illegally dumped uneaten Brussel sprouts in it.

CityofFlight
11th Apr 2009, 21:26
Con... gotta agree with Brick...


back when the Dead Sea was just sick and I was............


That's just too dog-gone funny! My laugh for the day. :ok::D

Gordy
12th Apr 2009, 02:00
Con... gotta agree with Brick...


Quote:
back when the Dead Sea was just sick and I was............

That's just too dog-gone funny! My laugh for the day.

Agreed--just as funny as

"Back when Pontious was a pilot"...

CityofFlight
12th Apr 2009, 02:23
Gordy.... hadn't hear that one before and for the life of me, I'm surprised I haven't!!

Very funny! :D:D

evilroy
12th Apr 2009, 02:31
Sounds like:

"Back when ships were made of wood, and men were made of steel..."

or

"When I joined up, we didn't need service numbers... because I knew the other fella."

:ok:

Dushan
12th Apr 2009, 03:57
B) Just who killed it? I think we should be told.

I bet someone illegally dumped uneaten Brussel sprouts in it.

That's a conspiracy theory of its own, but I think Mossad had something to do with it. Oh and GWB had a hand in it...

BombayDuck
12th Apr 2009, 04:48
In all this the Hindu Zionists - yes - are feeling left out, I bet....

Solid Rust Twotter
12th Apr 2009, 08:38
Thought that ran "Back when Pontius was just a pupil pilate....";)

AcroChik
12th Apr 2009, 13:33
Back when even you guys were just liquid...

Happy holiday friends :)

DCS99
24th Apr 2009, 01:31
From someone who flew with Atta:

Interview: A Mission to Die For (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/interviews/)

Check out this:

Anne Greaves Interview (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/interviews/greaves.htm)

Very interesting reading.
For me it's another nail in the head of the conspiracy theories.

Roger Sofarover
24th Apr 2009, 12:01
DCS99

Those links. You are kidding right! Do you seriously consider the interview with Anne Greaves to be credible?

"The abiding image for me will always be watching this man being already a little bit sort of suspicious as to his motives learning to fly, striding towards me…in a very purposeful stride but just this set face and the cold eyes. Emotionless eyes. That's how I will always remember him."

A quote from a middle aged woman who has just decided to learn to fly herself, and for what purpose? She was questioning the motivation of why someone else wanted to fly.? Cold emotionless eyes because he would avoid all eye contact with a middle aged woman frankly, due to culture of course.She is making map fit ground, after the event. Dramatic claptrap that she no doubt still dines on.

Sorry but the links are as credible as a really uncredible thing.