Conspiracy v. fact 9/11

[Prog_gun_owner]

So I just got done watching the documentary Zero link:

on youtube and what I found lacking were conspiracy theories. What I did see was the "official" story debunked by the evidence or lack there of. questions like what happened to the engines of the plane that hit the pentagon, or how come fighters didn't intercept ANY of the planes, or how do sky scrapers fall into their own foot print at free-fall speed, or why was evidence of therm-ate found in the dust?

So my question is this: how can I ask a question about something like building 7 falling into it's own foot print after being hit with "falling Debris" from one of the towers with out being labeled a conspiracy crack pot.

And lastly, if you seriously expect me to believe that building 7 was brought down by "Falling Debris" then I would question the design integrity and construction team that built it. I can see the other side too. for instance, if it were something other then the bowing 757 that hit the pentagon, then what happen to the real aircraft and it's passengers?? Were they all made up? were they all taken into protective custody? were they crashed in the ocean or some place no one would ever find them?

I don't know the answer, but I will say that judging by the lack of damage to the pentagon, it is not possible that a 757 hit it. may be the wings didn't penetrate, may be the engines didn't penetrate. well then where are they? not on the ground. Another question I have is: is it even possible for a 757 to travel at 450 knots that low?

So the gov. is basically telling me that a 757 folded it's wings and engines at the moment the nose hit and all of that metal, including the engines some how fit in a 10 foot hole. And some how I'm the conspiracy theorist because I don't believe their conspiracy theory. yea right.

Where is the tipping point? will truth ever be told? How much evidence do we need before we can question any of it?

(Note to mods: this is in the correct forum from what I can tell, and it's not about "9 11 death ray laser beams, SO I am hoping it can stay, probably get the silent treatment any way.)

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

1. My favorite....

....is probably the footprint contradiction.

1. Always say the two towers collapsed into their own footprint.

2. Debunkers (cue screaming): "They did not collapse into their own footprint!" And the debunkers are right. In fact, the building's pieces immediately begin to splay outward and the debris field for each tower is something like almost 500 fit. wide.

3. BUT, then the debunkers rely on Bazant's "Crush Down - Crush Up" theory. A theory that ignores the loss of building material and mass.

So, we are expected to believe this splaying material had enough concentrated, downward force to burrow down the entire core, through sections of greatest resistance of thicker, more robust and intact materials.

Absolutely ludicrous.

[tomk52]

13. Yup, ludicrous. But...

... the ludicrous part is your portrayal of the situation.

First off, the general (i.e., non structural engineer) debunker's opinion about detailed engineering esoterica is as amateur as any truther's opinion about the same.

The typical, non-engineer debunkers opinion that "we should listen to the consensus of demonstrated experts in the specific fields" turns out to be well-founded advice.

For example, you brought up Bazant's "crush down - crush up" theory. I'm curious to find out what you think about it. In engineering DETAIL. Your diffuse, generic disdain is obvious.

But so is your lack of knowledge about its detail. For example, in BLGB, the issue of "ejected material" is explicitly addressed.

Then you attribute the crush-down to "this splaying material".??
Yes, I agree 100%. That is absolutely ludicrous.

Just out of curiosity, estimates regarding "what percent fell into footprint & what percent fell outside footprint" have been available for quite some time. Are you familiar with them? Perhaps they may help you answer your own question.

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

46. My apologies.....

....I hadn't noticed a response to my comment before which I will address.

1. Bazant's paper of 2001 did not address the dissipation of material at all.

2. His paper of 2008 tries to play down the dissipation of material: "But, if the object has much empty space, as in the
case of the twin towers, one must expect a similar behavior as in penetration of a hard missile
into a rigid foam, in which case almost no mass is spread laterally."

Someone forgot to remind him of the core.

Nevertheless, anyone who thinks that Block C will retain enough rigidity and mass to crush the entire lower, undamaged building of more robust materials will find comfort dancing with angels on the head of a pin.

[tomk52]

51. thanks for reply.

No problem, I've missed replies often.

But your reply demonstrates that you don't understand Bazant at a fundamental level.

It also shows that you have a tendency to play fast & loose with the truth. I've told you my background. SURELY you don't think that I'm going to accept the utterly childish interpretation of Bazant's attention to mass shedding that you've portrayed in your reply.

Would you care to try again. Or are you in the habit of making others clean up your mess.

A useful piece of info is that Bazant uses Kout = 0.2. Independent measurements, based on lidar data, suggested values of 0.25 - 0.3. But Bazant's value is, to a very, very high probability, more accurate because, as he states explicitly, much of the expulsion happens after the building has cratered. And the lidar happened several days after the collapse.

Now, for some more fundamental misunderstandings...

Do you think that Bazant believes that the building's progressive collapse happened as described in Bazant & Le (2001), Bazant & Verdue (2007), or Bazant, Le, Greening & Benson (2008)?

[AtheistCrusader]

2. The engines of the plane that hit the Pentagon energetically dissasembled themselves when they diges

ted a limestone wall. To be expected, given they can similarly disintegrate when they digest softer things, like geese.



This is part of the compressor section of a Rolls Royce 54555 engine (RB211-535), as expected to be found on a 757-223, tail number N644AA.



Again, combustion section of a Rolls Royce 54555







I can probably safely assume the rest of your 'questions' are similarly high quality research.

[Prog_gun_owner]

3. Ok

What about the Thur-mate?

[AtheistCrusader]

4. I don't know what the fuck "Thur-mate" is.

If you mean Thermite or 'Thermate', or allegations thereabouts, due to 'traces' found in various wreckage, what of it? Please be precise in what you mean by where it was 'found', how much, and why you think its alleged presence is significant.

[Berlum]

5. The whole "official" 9/11 story is riddled with stinking-lying Republican holes

[tomk52]

57. You do realize, don't you ...

... that there was no thermite in any of those buildings.

You do realize, don't you, that not one of the Harrit, Ferrar, Jones, et al. clowns had ever done a forensic chemical analysis before this abortion of a paper?

You do realize, don't you, that this was the first time that Ferrar (who did the testing) had ever used the type of calorimeter that is responsible for their key "finding"?

You do realize, don't you, that a competent reading of their own results explicitly excludes thermite?

You do realize, don't you, that there are standard tests, done in arson investigations, that are definitive for thermite. Or thermate. Or nanothermite. Or superthermite. Or highly engineered, weaponized super-duper thermite. Or whatever Steven Jones' thermite-du-jour may be this week?

You do realize, don't you, that the Farrer, Jones, Harrit et al (proper order, based on who did the actual work) clowns used none of these tests. Instead they invented their own useless tests that are NOT specific to the COMPOUND thermite? That only tell the elements (iron, aluminum, oxygen, etc.).

You do realize, don't you, that there was a bit of iron, aluminum & oxygen around the towers?

You do realize, don't you, that competent scientists do not make up their own non-definitive tests, when there are standard, cheap definitive tests available from accredited testing labs?

You do realize, don't you, that the easiest, simplest way for Ferrar, Harrit, Jones, et al. to get their results accepted by competent scientists would have been to deliver their samples to some testing accredited lab(s) & get their results confirmed by people who know what they're doing? Yet, in ~3 years, he has done nothing of the sort. Some incompetent "searcher for the truth" that clown is.

You do realize, don't you, that Dr. James Millette, a professional who does do forensic chemical analysis for a living, tested some WTC dust, and his conclusion is "no doubt about it. No thermite."?

You do realize, don't you, that Jones refused to share his WTC dust samples with Millette so that the question could be answered decisively? Some incompetent "searcher for the truth" that clown is.

You do realize all this, don't you?

No?

Quel non surpris...!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

62. Could thermite cutters even survive a plane impact?

Honest question. I see all these theories claim there were explosives/cutters of one sort or another but then we're supposed to believe that these devices survived a plane collision with all that burning fuel etc. And not just the charges themselves, what about detonators, wiring etc. It all sounds too precariously fragile to be plausible.

[tomk52]

63. Depends on what the word "survive" means...

Last edited Fri Apr 5, 2013, 06:59 AM - Edit history (1)

If you mean "will fires ignite it?", then the answer is "possibly, but not for certain". Takes a high temp to ignite. The igniters are hi temp (magnesium powder, IIRC). Grab a sparkler, put the tip (non-igniter) end in a fire, then in a barbecue, & see. I doubt that it'll ignite, but you might find a spot hot enough. Contrary to amateur opinion, fires do not burn at any one temp. They have a wide distribution of temps. You might find a hot spot.

"One experiment is worth 1000 theories."

But "resistance to ignition" is the least of the problems of collapsing columns with thermite. The biggest problem is keeping reacting termite physically in contact with column. (Yeah, I've seen Jon Cole's - really dumb - videos) and timing. The thermite wants to fly in all directions when it ignites. That's why most demos, the thermite cuts downward. Gravity holds it down. Tougher to do when trying to cut sideways.

The timing is impossible. Even if possible, it would take about 20 ±5 seconds (IIRC) for thermite to cut thru a 6" thick column. In order to execute the brain-dead "collapse at free fall speed" Truther delusion, the cutting of the columns would have to be sequenced within about 0.03 seconds. Impossible on its face.

There is a short list of reasons why the whole "thermite" thing is really, really stupid.
1. Despite the ballyhoo, no thermite was ever found in any dust. The people who claim it were incompetent amateurs who had never once performed that sort of analysis before.

2. The real confidence in ANY study comes only after replication by unbiased, independent, competent investigators.
2a) Harrit, Jones, et al have had years to get their results replicated. They've made zero effort to do so.
2b) When another qualified expert (James Millette) replicated tests, the results were conclusive: no thermite.
2c) When asked to share his samples with Millette, Jones & Ryan refused. This is the action of charlatans, not "seekers of the truth".

3. When one has earth-shaking, revolutionary results in ANY field, you bring your results (including absolute transparent disclosure of evidence, test methods, error analyses & any weaknesses you know about your own assertions) to bona fide experts in the explicit field. In other words, you cooperate with those who think that you are wrong. The truth has nothing to fear from being attacked. In fact, competent attack from competent attackers is the quickest way for some theory to be accepted.
You do NOT:
3a. present to college kids or "the public"
3b. present to "truther conventions"
3c. post on YouTube.
3d. create an "us vs. them" environment, and attribute disagreement to prejudice &/or evil
3e. ask amateurs to "decide for themselves"

Origins of thermite claim: From Steven Jones, in order to explain lack of "booms".
Jones' sequence of 'certainty':
"Thermite!"
"Oops, thermate.!"
"Sorry, thermite. For sure!"
"Uhh, nanothermite. Absolutely."
"Ahhh, weapons-grade superthermite. This time for sure."

And now...?
I have heard that he has joined Harrit in the "hundreds of tons of high explosives, with thermite used as fuses" delusion. It's difficult to know for sure, because he has chosen to abandon the whole discussion, and has moved on to "US underwater nuclear detonations have caused Asian tsunamis" garbage.

The "thermite as fuses" is simultaneously hilarious & incompetent, because:
1) thermite will NOT detonate high explosives.
2) after 5 incompetent years, it brings him right back to where he started: unable to explain the lack of "booms", the impetus for this Path of Stupidity in the first place..!!!

Better proofs that [ETA] NO thermite (nor explosives of any sort) were used:
Photos from Ground Zero, which you can examine today.

Look at the ends of the columns. If they were destroyed with explosives or melted with thermite, you'd be able to see that from 20' away with the naked eye. The resolution of these photos is plenty good enough to see the proof.

If melted with thermite, you'd see massive "slumps" of metal, as it transitioned between unmelted, semi-melted, melted steel. There is NOT ONE such end seen.

If cut with explosives or cutter charges, you'd see clear melted & "rubber-banded" (melted, forced in one direction from blast & quick re-solidified) metal. This metal would be unmistakably obvious to anyone experienced in detonations, & 100% provable from the grain structure. There is NOT ONE such end in the photos.

The vast majority of the ends of columns seen are "clean machined surfaces". That means that the connecting bolts snapped in tension. The column itself acted like a 36' long claw hammer, with its claw under the heads of 4 7/8" diameter bolts. Given the weight of those columns, I'd be shocked if the bolts would not fail if you just tilted a single upper column by 10° or so, just under its own weight, with no additional side load.

The remainder of the ends are "distorted machined surfaces", which means that the bolts held a little longer, enough to distort the end plates & tear a few welds, before the bolt heads snapped or the bolts pulled thru the plates.

There are zero melted column ends in the pile.
There are zero high-shear rate, explosive deformed ends in the pile.
Therefore there was zero explosives & zero thermite.

The whole 5 year tail-chase has been one, giant, amateur cluster-fork.

Most specifically not "JMO".
Fact.

Tom

[Nuclear Unicorn]

70. Thank-you

And I think I understood most of that.

[tomk52]

64. An aside...

Nuke,

I wrote this as an aside in my previous answer to your question about thermite. My posts are insufferably long as it is, so I stripped it out.

I was about to dump it, but thought that you are one of the few people that are still asking honest questions. (Good for you!) Perhaps you'd like to read it. It addresses the question "Where did all the energy come from to hurl all those columns so far?"

Here 'tis.
(This was going to be inserted right after "... I'd be shocked if the bolts would not fail if you just tilted a single upper column by 10° or so, just under its own weight, with no additional side load.&quot
___

The fact that they held together thru the fall (most landed in long, continuous, still-connected sheets) is, to me, nothing short of amazing.

(Aside:
BTW, this answers another "truther mystery": "Where did all the energy come from to 'hurl' those multi-ton column assemblies so far?" The answer is "The vast majority were not 'hurled', they tilted outward in sheets. For those that fell in sheets, it takes no work to displace them to the side, other than the tiny amount required to snap their lateral connections to the floor trusses."

The "by demo" explanation is: Imagine a perfectly vertical ladder with weights hung from every rung. If you tilt the ladder a tiny amount, it'll fall to the side, taking the weights with it. No additional work required.

The technical explanation is that Work = Force x Distance Displaced. But Force & Distance are vector (not scalar) quantities, so the proper equation is: W = F x D x cos(Ø), where Ø = angle between force vector & displacement vector at each instant. For a ladder (or the external columns), the force is always "up the vertical supports", and the instantaneous displacement is always "90° to the vertical supports". Since cos(90°) = 0, the work = 0.

Note: the above applies only to those columns that tilted outward in sheets, not the ones that were flung out individually or in groups, but not connected at their bottoms. But, if you look at the photos of GZ, you'll see that all the far-flung columns (e.g., that hit Winter Gardens) were part of sheets. The individual ones didn't travel nearly as far.
(End Aside.)

[Bolo Boffin]

65. Here's a picture of what tomk52 is talking about.

You can see the sides fell out, and they reach all the way to the Winter Gardens.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

69. Thank-you -- I was about to "Press 1 for English"

[Politicalboi]

73. You do realize that the NIST animation

Shows the core beams still standing while the building collapses around it, just like it really happened. Oh wait, that's right it didn't happen that way. But shhhhhh! They're showing us the video of their animation, and it's fact. LOL!
It's in the 9/11 Commission Report, so it must be true. Just like DNA was traceable but the planes were vaporized. LOL!
Even the "terrorist" DNA was matched. LOL! I guess their families were so willing to give that right away.

I will take Jones word over any clown the government likes. How does the WTC lobby get it's windows blown out, but windows above the lobby are intact? We won't even put the janitors testimony in the Commission report that stated he felt an explosion in the basement a second or two before impact, because it doesn't jive with their story. He even saw the damage, but they scrubbed it. I guess they don't want the truth in their report. Or the Secretary of Transportation saying they had a Stand Down order from the Dick himself. But you keep on believing their story.

[AtheistCrusader]

78. Um, the south tower core columns up to floor 50 or so are visible standing in the dust

for several seconds after the outer columns and floors have hit the ground.

So uh.. Yeah.

[ocpagu]

79. LOL

"Just like DNA was traceable but the planes were vaporized. LOL! Even the "terrorist" DNA was matched."

[tomk52]

81. I thought you truthers gave up...

Sorry, I haven't checked here in awhile.

All of my comments addressed the Harrit, Jones, Farrer fiasco.

it would be nice if you responded to any one of my points?

Do you think any of the authors had the slightest prior experience performing forensic chemical analysis?

Do you agree that many tens of thousands of papers get published every year, even in quality peer-reviewed technical journals (much less rags like Bentham), that turn out to be simple wrong?

Do you think that unbiased, objective replication of results by competent experts is therefore a critical step for discovering real truth of issues?

Can you come up with any reason that, in ~5 years, none of those researchers has attempted to have their results replicated by such experts?

Can you come up with any reason, any reason at all, why they refuse to present their case to a competent review board of experienced, unbiased engineers? Or why they choose to post on the internet, present to college kids & Truther conventions instead?

Can you come up with a reason that they performed non-definitive tests themselves, when cheap, standard, definitive tests - and accredited testing labs - are readily available?

I can give you - explicitly - the one reason that explains all of the above: they KNOW they screwed the pooch, and that their paper is crap.
___

Now, for your tangent…

"The NIST animation ..." NIST did no animation of the collapse of either tower. I have heard Dr. Corley state explicitly that "there is some suggestion that the cores buckled first." with the rapidly increasing bowing of the outer columns, "exactly which piece broke first" is both uncertain & irrelevant.

So, you must be talking their WTC7 animation.

Or are you just making stuff up??

"The core beams still standing while the building collapses around it"??? You're not serious, are you?

What does the 9/11 Commission Report (a report done by lawyers & politicians) have to do with the structural collapse of any WTC building? Nothing. That was done by NIST.

The planes weren't "vaporized". That's a stupid, meaningless term that truthers throw around. Parts of the planes melted (including aluminum, but not steel or titanium), parts burned (likely including some aluminum), and some number of micrograms likely "vaporized" in plasma discharges known as "sparks".

Last I heard, NO terrorist family member gave comparison DNA. It appears that they believe that their kin were the hijackers & chose not to assist in the "exoneration of their 'falsely accused' kin". Any explanation for this behavior that you'd like to offer?

3 out of the 10 hijackers were specifically ID'd in 2 NYC planes (by comparison to hair & tissue in car & hotels). Tissue samples from all 9 PA & Pentagon hijackers were GENERICALLY ID'd (as "middle eastern man", but not to specific individuals) by process of elimination. Because the families wouldn't help & they couldn't come up with comparison tissue samples.

"How does windows in lobby get blown out, but windows above are intact?" Easy, if you understand freshman mechanics. Ever bury a stick in the ground & then hit it hard enough to snap? It snaps right at ground level. Higher levels are not broken. Why?

"Janitor's testimony in Commission Report". Janitor's testimony, plus a million other people's, is 100% irrelevant to any & all topics in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Please state your conclusion regarding "Janitor's testimony", PLUS how it fits into larger narrative of 9/11 events. Note that it would have been more convincing if Rodriguez had stopped changing his story every few months...

"He felt explosion a second or two before impact."

He heard one "boom" & then a 2nd "boom". There is nothing that allows Rodriguez to determine that the 2nd boom was the impact (88 stories above), rather than one of the other 100+ "booms" that occurred at ground level as things broke, fell to the floor, fuel exploded out of elevator, etc.

"Minetta said Cheney ordered stand-down"?? Feel free to provide a reference & construct a cogent argument for this. Nobody's provided one thus far.

Looking forward to your reply...

[tomk52]

6. The right way to ask questions...

"how can I ask a question about something like building 7 falling into it's own foot print after being hit with "falling Debris" from one of the towers with out being labeled a conspiracy crack pot."

It's not asking the question. It's more "who you ask, and what you do when you're provided an answer" that will be the determinant.

The process of finding correct answers to these questions is absolutely no different than that for any other important question. The methods are clearly defined in the study called "epistemology". I suggest you learn its methods well. It will serve you throughout your life.

In short:
Ask the right people & listen carefully to their answers. You would be very wise to provisionally accept an expert's answer while gathering confirmation from a consensus of experts.

Note that a well developed epistemology acknowledges the existence of small groups of contrarians, mavericks, etc., especially when they self-select into an agenda-driven organization. You would do very well to ignore the conclusions of these groups.

"For every crackpot that turned out to be an Einstein, there are 10,000 crackpots who turned out to be crackpots."

If you're really impressed with the fringe group's issues, take their questions to the experts.

For the question above, you should ask multiple respected structural engineers who have extensive experience in the collapse of large structures, preferably modern office buildings.

People that you should NOT ask: architects (they make buildings look pretty, engineers make sure they stand & analyze why they occasionally fall down), particle physicists, high school physics teachers, religious studies professors or angry young boys on the internet.

Asking the question should not get you labelled "crackpot", unless the framing of the question is wildly biased.

Rejecting the consensus conclusion of real experts without a rock-solid basis, or attaching evil and/or cowardly motivations to those persons, etc. will, AND SHOULD, get you labelled a crackpot.

Frequently you will not have access to such experts. Their time tends to be quite valuable. Fortunately, they frequently publish their opinions on the matters in question. In the matters listed here (the Pentagon damage & fall of WTC 1, 2 & 7), many experts, real experts have, in fact, published their findings. They are referred to as the NIST Report & FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Team's Report. I encourage you to check the credentials of the engineers who produced that document. The documents themselves are superbly done.

Your post indicates a distinct bias in your views on these matters. I am confident that my post does, as well. This is not a symmetric situation. I've earned my bias.

The following statements in your post are simply incorrect:
"What I did see was the "official" story debunked by the evidence..."

"...sky scrapers fall into their own foot print at free-fall speed..." (if I were feeling unkind, I'd say that anybody who used the expression "free fall speed" instantly renders their opinion on any physical event irrelevant. No building fell "at free fall acceleration" (correct terminology). Not even the outer shell of WTC7.)

"... building 7 was brought down by 'Falling Debris'..." Nobody said this.

"... it is not possible that a 757 hit [the Pentagon]." Yup, it is not only "possible". It's a certainty.

"... may be the wings didn't penetrate" (They did not penetrate.)

"... may be the engines didn't penetrate..." They did, and the evidence is crystal clear.

"...is it even possible for a 757 to travel at 450 knots that low? " This is a question, which cannot be wrong. The answer is "absolutely no problem flying that fast, that low. Those that told you it was impossible are incompetent.

"So the gov. is basically telling me that a 757 folded it's wings and engines at the moment the nose hit and all of that metal, including the engines some how fit in a 10 foot hole." Nope, nobody with any knowledge ever said that.

"How much evidence do we need before we can question any of it?" Again, a question. A highly leading question that implies a false situation. Truthers have been questioning for over a decade, with zero evidence. Just questions & suspicions & a wholly undeserved sense of technical & moral superiority over some of the world's real experts.

I'll be happy to embellish any point on which you are unclear.

Regards,


TomK

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

8. In that case, I have a first question.....

....The Pentagon video shows the flying object leaving a thick, white exhaust trail. Jet airliners do not produce thick, white exhaust trails. So why is this object concluded to be an airliner?

[tomk52]

9. Jet engines don't leave thick, white exhaust trails until ...

... they ingest street lamps.

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

14. Are you saying....

....the street lights went into the engines?

[tomk52]

16. I am saying that ...

... what on earth difference does it make if the plane's engine was leaving the smoke trail or something else was responsible.

Here is a website with over 100 eyewitnesses & excerpts from their testimony.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

Not less than 9 of those witnesses (on my quick scan) explicitly state that the plane hit light poles in the last seconds before impact. The chance of FOD from these impacts is very high, although not certain.

It's also likely that the impacts with the poles struck the wings instead of the engine. In which case, the smoke might well be a trailing plume of unignited fuel. It is a near certainty that Jet Fuel will not ignite merely from impact [ETA] with the lamp post.

One person, Frank Probst, said:
"On either side of him, three streetlights had been sheared in half by the airliner's wings at 12 to 15 feet above the ground. An engine had clipped the antenna off a Jeep Grand Cherokee stalled in traffic not far away."

Another witness:
Evey, Walker Lee
"The plane approached the Pentagon about six feet off the ground, clipping a light pole, a car antenna, a construction trailer and an emergency generator"

So, again, please explain to me what you deem to be the implications of the smoke trailing behind the airplane. Especially in view of the numerous persons who unequivocally described it as "a passenger jet", and "an American Airlines passenger jet"?

Was it a lamp or antenna or other material in the engine? Or fuel trailing from a wing?

Please provide me with the slightest reason to give a damn. Tell me what changes about it being AA77 being flown into the side of the Pentagon.

[greyl]

19. A well-reasoned explanation for the smoke trail:

?t=1m23s

I linked the vid at 1:23 so that frame would be visible...

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

20. Nice animation but....

....having read hundreds of 'eyewitness accounts,' many of whom said they saw the plane hit the building, none of them mentioned smoke coming off a damaged engine. Do you?

[greyl]

22. Luckily, there's VIDEO of that exceedingly short period of time. Remember that? nt

[tomk52]

23. Perhaps in the grand scheme of things, ...

... you know, giant airplane zooming in from the sky, flying terrifyingly close overhead, smashing directly into (not just any building, but) the Pentagon, giant fireball, many people dead & injured, unprecedented terrorist attacks on our country, etc. etc. etc., and shocked realization "Oh s**t, I'm not dead, I'm not dead...", some white smoke trailing from a wing or engine sank below the threshold of either notice at the time or reporting later.

Perhaps people dove for cover, flinched or averted their eyes from an impending horrible event. People focus on bizarre, trivial things during fearful events.

Or perhaps it was reported, and the intermediaries - the press - didn't think it was sufficiently significant.

Perhaps it was reported by eyewitnesses, reported in the press, & you (& I) simply missed it.

Who knows which is true? Who cares?

Apparently, you do.

Once again, there is no doubt that a trail of smoke followed the plane. There is no doubt that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

I've put in a bit of thought & time into answering a couple of your questions now, & gotten nothing but petulance for my effort. Could you please do me the courtesy of explaining what, in your estimation, changes in the big picture based upon this issue?

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

26. Well, that's strange because.....

.....one of the best witnesses, whose immediate photos of the area are familiar to millions of Americans, Steve Riskus, specifically said

"....... I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the ground first... It did not hit the roof first... It hit dead center on the edge... I was close enough (about 100 feet or so) that I could see the "American Airlines" logo on the tail as it headed towards the building...... I did not see any smoke or debris coming from the plane."

So the plane wasn't trailing smoke & debris. So I wonder why we see a vapor/smoke trail on the tape when there wasn't really one there.

[tomk52]

32. Well, I have to agree that this is strange...

1) Motorcycles T-bone cars that turn in front of them every day of the week. When asked why they turned into the motorcycle's path, the driver invariably says "I didn't see him."

Perhaps, "I didn't see it" ain't exactly the same as "it wasn't there."

Ya think...?

2) If 50 people don't see something, but a video of the incident is available, then the one video trumps the 50 eyewitnesses every single time. And twice on Tues, Sept 11, 2001.

This is exactly the situation with the "explosions" missing from the audio tapes.

Nebulous accounts of "explosions" (of undefined strength, undefined timing & undefined number) are trumped by their specific & exact absence (just before collapse began) on dozens of recorded audio tracks.

In both case, the lesson is the same:

Recording instruments don't get distracted. They don't make mistakes. They don't lie. They don't forget. They don't even "misremember". And they don't have political axes to grind.

People are subject to all of those foibles.

3) the strangest part of all ...

You are invoking the testimony of a person who says, with absolute & admirable certain, that an American Airlines jet hit the building.

For all the world, it seems to me like you're trying to generate some argument that either a) it wasn't AA77 that hit the building, or b) someone fabricated a couple of video frames or c) who the hell knows (because you won't say.)

This is now the 4th time that I've asked you to state clearly what significant conclusion changes based on this issue.

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

39. One certainly can't help but admire...

...your comfortable certainty. Alas, I am not so endowed.

But I am relieved that I can now ignore all those witnesses who said they saw an American Airlines jet because they were wrong on the other things they saw (or didn't, in this case).

Or not.

Or, everyone did see something they recognized as an undamaged American Airlines jet and the government-custody, single witness, digital file is wrong. Which means the file was manipulated, changed. That the vapor trail in the file didn't really happen.

What are we not supposed to see?

[tomk52]

40. OF COURSE you get to ignore all those witnesses.

You MUST ignore all those witnesses.

You must also ignore:
Plane parts
body parts
DNA evidence
FDR evidence
Radar tracking, both primary & secondary,
a missing airplane
59 innocent men, women & children on board,
& 5 pathetic excuses for human beings, called hijackers.

Funny that you ignore the fact that these people hijacked the plane, while their own families acknowledge it. No, strike that. "Funny" ain't the right word.
___

All those people saw an undamaged AA jet. And the camera picked up a damaged AA jet. And neither one is contradictory.

It was only damaged for the last fraction of a second. So, the last 3 seconds of flight (at 0.2 sec intervals) would have gone something like:

no smoke, no smoke, no smoke, no smoke, no smoke, no smoke, no smoke, no smoke, no smoke, no smoke, no smoke, no smoke, no smoke, smoke, smoke, CRASH! MASSIVE EXPLOSION!!! FIREBALL!

What part of "people blink", "people flinch", "people dive for cover", "people sometimes just miss things", is too complicated a concept for you?

One experienced pilot asserted, without question, that he saw the pilot extend the landing gear. Was he correct? Nope. Is his testimony dismissible. Nope. He got a detail wrong. Happens all the time.
___

Best analogy that I can think of: we've got a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle. 9,990 pieces fit together perfectly, and show a picture of OBL, KSM, Atta, Hanjour, et al. The other pieces are lost & forever unknowable.

It is NOT the situation that you have these pieces, they fit & show something wrong with the rest of the picture. It's simply that the pieces are missing. They are unknowable, because people have died, evidence was destroyed, etc.

You think that you'll find 1 or 2 or 10 pieces that will switch the rest of the picture from OBL et al to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al.

You're wrong.

I know for 100% certain that there are absolutely no words that I can write to make you change your mind. You're being silly if you think that is my purpose.

I have no power to fix such determined, resolute, unbending stupidity.
So, you just ignore anything & everything that tickles your fancy.
Fine by me.

Moreover, your attempt at intellectual superiority is laughable.
Those who believe we never went to the moon think that they're the smartest, clearest thinking & most noble guys around, & that everyone else is a sap, too.
As do the guys who think that the Holocaust was a fabrication.
As do the guys who think that scientists fabricated all those fake fossils.
As do the guys who think that underwater US nuclear detonations caused Indonesia tsunami. (e.g., Dr. Steven Jones)
etc.
etc.

They ALL think that they're the smartest, most critical thinking, most honest guys in the world.

The rest of the world stands back in awe.
We are NOT in awe of their smarts, their critical thinking skills or their honesty.

Just thought you should know...

[zappaman]

41. Well said!

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

42. Wow......

....good luck with that colic. What do you take for it?

[William Seger]

43. ... said Frank, rubbing his sore ass.

[tomk52]

44. And here is your last bastion ...

... of ignorance.

You're gonna stop right here.
With the excuse "tk's an asshole".

Rather than learn anything, think about anything or - God Forbid - change your mind about anything, you'll run to the comforting skirts of "mommy, he's a meanie! I want to leave."

I don't care if you like me or not. People can judge their impact on those around them by both the folks that like them AND the ones that don't. Considering my low regard for your thoughtfulness, I would strongly prefer, and request, your resolute disdain.

You posted above (Post #1, this thread) your gross misunderstanding regarding the structure of buildings, you understanding of Bazant's paper & the role of ejected materials. I pointed out that your statements were erroneous.

Your response: silence.

Now you've seen, here, some compelling arguments that this argument of yours is built on a foundation of quicksand as well.

Your response: hang up.

As a strategy for maintaining your illusion of intellectual superiority: childish, but I guess self-servingly effective.

As a strategy for finding the truth: not so good.

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

47. You and....

...Mr. William "there is no software in a transponder" Seeger seem to have a posterior obsession. Should get that looked at.

[William Seger]

48. LOL, I had forgotten that...

... you think the perps took control of the planes by reprogramming the transponders. Ah, good times...

[tomk52]

53. What you scoffin' at, Willis??

After all, Mr. Data WAS able to bypass the security protection in the Borg Mothership by infiltrating his positronic brain thru some low level, unprotected maintenance protocols & put them all to sleep!!

Borg mothership ... Boeing 767?

They're both techy pieces of hardware that are, to truthers & children, indistinguishable from magic.
They both start with a "B".

If it worked for one...

[William Seger]

55. Well, there has to be SOME explanation

... since flying planes into the sides of some of the largest buildings on the planet requires years of experience, and even then, it's doubtful Arabs could do it.

[tomk52]

56. Yup.

As a friend of mine says, "Landing a plane is hard. Crashing it is easiest thing in the world."

Today, I ran into, for 1st time in years: "1/4 power, drop one wing, hold standard rate turn for 2 minutes" described as "Top Gun Maneuver"..!!

It boggles my mind that Bowman & Wittenberg (?) both said this early on...

PS. Considering his history, it does not surprise me one iota that John Lear said this, too.

[tomk52]

52. 2nd last bastion...

This is why debating children is so annoying.

You start out with (allegedly) serious issues. The debate moves along, and each "serious" issue evaporates as soon as it's examined with the least amount of scrutiny.

And you're standing there, at the end, waiting for the light to dawn on the child: that this was silly & irrelevant from the git-go, and perhaps they should put in a little more effort up front, use a little more skepticism in selecting their arguments, be a little more demanding of themselves ...

... and suddenly the "ass obsession" jokes start.

Kids & Truthers.
Can't live with 'em. Can't retroactively abort 'em.

[Politicalboi]

74. They'll say anything

But we still don't have ONE clear video of our most guarded DEFENSE base on the planet to show us "truthers" what really happened. You can't win with these guys. I as a citizen of this country believe WE the People deserve to see a clear video of what hit the Pentagon. But those that ask for it, are, well you know, "truthers".

[tomk52]

82. Saying nonsense doesn't make it true.

"Most guarded defense base on the planet". Are you kidding? Do you have any evidence for this, or is it merely a digital-rectal extraction?

There was zero air defense at the Pentagon against airplane attack prior to 9/11. It is colossally stupid & risky to put a SAM missile battery a couple miles from a major airports "final approach" airspace.

The Pentagon, the White House, the Capitol Building were overflown thousands of time before 9/11, with no response from the ground.

It is absolutely zero surprise that there were no other videos than one crappy peripheral view in the fringes of a parking lot fisheye lens. Look at NYC & AA11.

AA11 flew over on the order of 10,000 security cameras on the way to the tower. It got caught on ONE security camera. You point security cameras at points of interest (doorways, alley ways, cash registers). Not at random points in the sky.

One French camera crew had been filming fire fighters for a couple months, happened to be in the exact right spot, and got 1 second of video.

Tens of thousands of tourists, with photo cameras & video cameras, were walking the streets of NYC that day. One of them, driving into the city, got one crappy image of AA11 thru the windshield of his car.

What's wrong is not the dearth of data available. It's your silly expectation of what the magnitude of that data should have been in 2001.

(Today, as the Boston Marathon showed, security cameras are ubiquitous - as a direct result of 9/11 - and video cameras are in most phones. Therefore the situation is very different.)

[BobbyBoring]

10. How did the engines penetrate through a 10' hole?

Also, the hole is at ground level. The engines on a 757 hang down lower than the fuselage. That being the case, they would have left big gorges in the ground. Where are they?

[tomk52]

12. 5 sentences. So much misinformation...

If you want to find out the answers for yourself, download & read the ASCE/FEMA's Pentagon Building Performance Report.

It'll answer all these questions for you. After you put in a little effort, If you still have questions, feel free to ask.

I would be doing you no favor by simply answering your questions. Learn to answer them yourself.

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

15. Aren't we here....

....to discuss and not to lecture? You offered and we accepted and now you send us to the library?

[tomk52]

17. You went thru a lot of effort to be this lazy ...

I remember the days when one had to go to the library to do research.
These days, the library comes to you.

I gave you the names of the reports. You could have them all in a matter of a couple of minutes, tops.

Those reports were written by bona fide experts in the relevant fields. To which you should assign credibility much, much higher than anything you hear from any anonymous person on the internet.

What on earth could be your objection to reading the conclusions of experts??

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

21. Good Grief!

....just answer the fellow's question.

[tomk52]

25. You got a bus to catch...??

It's been >11 years.
Do you expect something to suddenly change in the next week?
If this question doesn't get answered in the next couple days, are you going to lose all interest? (Christ, if it were only that easy...!)

These are Bobby's questions.
1. Did the engines penetrate thru a 10' diameter hole?
2. Why no gouges in ground from engine nacelles?

The answer to most of his questions can be found in the BPAT report.

Why would I deny him the knowledge, self-reliance & pure pleasure that he would gain by reviewing that report & figuring it out himself? Why would you attempt to deny him those things?

[Politicalboi]

75. We have for years

There is no way a plane fits into the Pentagon, let alone penetrate 3 rings of steel and concrete. And planes vaporize, but DNA stands the test. Laughable. And the Pentagon that doesn't shoot down anything that comes into it's airspace is acceptable to you with this whole scenario? Second tower hit 9:03 Pentagon hit 9:46. Over 40 minutes and no manned guns on the rooftops of the Pentagon. Is that correct? Does that make sense to you?

And let's not forget the 2.3 Trillion missing announced on 09/10/01. Is that perfect timing or what. Who asked about the money on 9/11? Who's asked about it since? You, like I, will probably never know the truth, although you think you know it, just like I do. I go by what's lacking. Lacking are the reconstructions of any of the 4 planes. The FAA ALWAYS does that, but for some reason we find another part of the puzzle last week in NY. Lacking are any seats in ANY debris pictures. Laugh all you want, but show me ONE! We have all seen plane crashes, and seats bounce, and they burn. Even when they burn, they usually have metal frames that are visible. Seats should have littered the streets of NY empty and occupied. But flight 93 should of had seats everywhere around the "hole" it sunk into. LOL!
Sorry but that hole was there prior to 9/11 too. But you go on telling us how it really happened. I find you guys funny.

You'll accept such incompetence and say those who question it are the crazy ones.

[hack89]

27. It wasn't a 10 foot hole

it was a 90 foot hole corresponding exactly to the distance between the engines. The engines didn't hit the ground - they entered the building. Go read the ASCE/FEMA's Pentagon Building Performance Report - it is all in there.

[BobbyBoring]

49. This is a 90' hole?

http://pentagonexithole.0catch.com/

I read the report and it's says nothing. Now after the building collapsed, it may have been 90'.

While were on the subject of reading, why not read something like the Penta Con and watch the vids. I'll even throw in a link! http://www.thepentacon.com/

[hack89]

50. That is the 10' EXIT hole in the Pentagon E ring - not the entrance hole in the facade.

read your own link. Then read the report.

[tomk52]

45. Bobby, anything more to say...?

You asked this question. Are you interested at all in finding out the answer?
Or are you merely in the JAQing off business.
(Aldo Raine: "... and, cousin, business is a-boomin'!&quot

[link:

&t=0m5s|

[tomk52]

54. You say you read the FEMA/ASCE Pentagon BPAT report?

Well, that's great.
Then you can tell us why the FEMA/ASCE engineers say there are no gouges on the lawn.

Let's see if you did read the report.
How many walls total did the plane parts pass thru, on its way from outside the building to the small exit hole drive at AE drive.

BTW, tell me you did not think that was the entrance hole...

PS. Regarding reading...
The Pentacon.?? Really...???
THIS is the best you have to offer?

[Politicalboi]

7. I have questions that don't involve the collapses

Like why did "terrorist" who we were told worked on this for years, not fly out of NY. We were told they couldn't take box cutters on board. So instead they take a chance of flying over military bases, thousands of miles away from their target. Years of planning, but stopped by no box cutters. Martial arts would have done the job. 4 planes, 800 seats, but not ONE picture of a seat or a section of seats in debris pictures. But here, that's "crazy" talk. And the Pentagon, our biggest DEFENSE building couldn't and wouldn't defend itself. WHY? We were told not to blame ANYONE for incompetence, and till this day, it stands. And there are millions of Americans who agree with them.

All we get for our money for defense, is a blurry video of the Pentagon being attacked, and you'll ALL accept IT. Would anyone here like to be tried with blurry video in a court of law? But that's good enough for most here in America. Nothing to see there. But those who ask questions are considered "nuts".

[tomk52]

11. Here's an answer that doesn't involve collapses...

First, Hi.

My experience over the last 5 years says that this is foolish, but I'm going to proceed as if you really are a person pursuing the truth on this matter. Just a couple of posts will reveal whether or not this is one of those rare exceptions.

We were told ...

I would strongly advise you to stop using this meme. Today, it's literal translation is "I'm about to repeat something I read somewhere on the interwebz, or think that I remember, no matter how idiotic, clueless, etc., with no effort at confirming the truth of the statement."

Research & primary sources are your friends.

Could you please tell us your age. I've no intent to be patronizing, but there's a bunch of misinformation here. I'm curious to see if that's because the info is morphing internal or external to you.

Like why did "terrorist" who we were told worked on this for years, not fly out of NY.

This is a wasted question.
First, it's irrelevant. Who cares in the grand scheme? Video of some of the hijackers boarding in Boston have been available for years.
Second, it's asking about the unknown & unknowable motives of a bunch of dead guys.
Third, simply bringing it up undercuts your credibility, especially presenting it as a first (apparently "primary&quot issue. It makes you seem frivolous, as though you have nothing & are reaching for straws.
Finally, the answer is immediately obvious, if you merely look at all 4 flight paths. Specifically, look at the distance between where they took off & where they were hijacked. I don't want to spoil the rewards of "original research" by just handing you the answer.

If you want to convince anybody of anything, stick to substantive, PROVABLE issues, not conjecture.

We were told they couldn't take box cutters on board.

You were told wrong.

So instead they take a chance of flying over military bases, thousands of miles away from their target.

Look up "thousands". Even in casual conversation, don't be off by an order of magnitude.
Investigate what bases in the US had interceptors, where they were located, and their relative locations with respect to the flight paths.
I am 100% certain that the hijackers had no concern about being intercepted by jets. For many reasons, including the fact that being shot down would have been merely a lesser victory.

Years of planning, but stopped by no box cutters.

Puzzling statement. They were not stopped. They had box cutters.
You'd be well advised to eliminate your "we were told" sources.

4 planes, 800 seats, but not ONE picture of a seat or a section of seats in debris pictures.

Utterly incorrect. You were told "wrong".
Several pictures of passenger seats from UA93 & (extremely gruesome one, including body parts) from AA77, presented at trial.

But here, that's "crazy" talk.

"More factual" = "less crazy".

And the Pentagon, our biggest DEFENSE building couldn't and wouldn't defend itself. WHY?

Buildings don't defend themselves. In this particular case, the only defense would have been a Antiaircraft battery. It's been proven, beyond doubt, that there was no such battery installed at the Pentagon. For very good reason. People & machinery make mistakes. Do you remember the USS Vincennes? If not, look it up.
What do you think happened to the career of the captain? What do you think would have happened if he had been off of NYC & those passengers had been American?
US Generals & Admirals are not in the habit of making career-ending decisions.

Putting an AA battery immediately under the final approach path to a major US airport, frequented by the (self-imagined) most "I" of VIPs is a very, very bad idea.

We were told not to blame ANYONE for incompetence, and till this day, it stands.

What silly person told you this?
Why would they tell YOU? Personally. Are you on some investigative board that we don't know about?

And there are millions of Americans who agree with them.

Yup.
One of the great things about this country that you might get to appreciate as you get older: a deep, abiding reservoir of "common sense". In spite of the unending attempts of "the media" to portray the average US citizen as some combination of ignorant, racist, morally bankrupt, helpless and/or just plain stupid.

Young people have a very, very difficult time with the concept that adults have much of anything to offer the ethical, moral, or philosophical discussion.

A question for you: Do you think that the media, in any form (either "respected" sources (e.g., NYTimes, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, PBS) or entertainment TV/movies) makes any attempt whatsoever to provide an image of America/Americans that is accurate &/or representative of the "typical American life"?

Think about the question. Think about the answer. Think about the implications of the answer.

All we get for our money for defense, is a blurry video of the Pentagon being attacked, and you'll ALL accept IT.

You're starting to sound like you're 18 years old & coming down with your first scorching case of moral indignity. Which inevitably leads to a 5-10 year lingering case of moral superiority.

Would anyone here like to be tried with blurry video in a court of law?

Nobody was convicted on this video. It was a trivial, irrelevant confirmation of a mountain of other evidence (including Flight Data Recorder, radar tracks, eyewitness accounts, body parts, DNA confirmation, FBI investigation (PENTTBOM), etc. etc.)

But that's good enough for most here in America.

No, it absolutely would not be good enough on its own for "most here in America". Who, it evidently will come as a surprise to you to hear, have a very highly developed sense of "justice".
However, see "mountain of evidence" above.

Nothing to see there. But those who ask questions are considered "nuts".

Nope. Asking questions is fine.
Asking the same old, 1000x answered questions starts to raise serious eyebrows.
And those who won't accept answers, compelling answers backed up by mountains of hard evidence, from real experts, when they possess zero evidence to the contrary, are considered nuts.
And should be.

For an accurate comparison, 9/11 Conspiracy Theories fall right smack dab in the epistemological middle of Alien Abductions, Bigfoot hunters & The Bermuda Triangle. Lots of press, lots of conjecture by amateurs, lots of books & DVDs for sale, zero evidence of anything.

Important note added:
For the purpose of this discussion, one subset of "nuts" includes "youngsters coming to the issue for the first time". Inglorious, self-righteous, down-in-flames, "publicly screaming stupidity" mistakes are a bona fide right of passage for most youngsters.
Most youngsters learn from, & mature out of, this dysfunctional state. And no permanent humiliation should attach to them for the sidetrack into temporary insanity.

It's infuriating, though, to hear adults entrusted with teaching (such as Doctors S. Jones, J. Fetzer, K. Barrett & D.R. Griffin), inflicting this toxic nonsense on the young & impressionable, while lacking the courage or integrity to first stand before a panel of seasoned experts.

This is the consummate failure of AE911T, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Truth & Justice, etc. Their utter contempt for a real review of their nonsense by real experts: highly experienced structural engineers. There is a painfully obvious reason why they choose not to do this. They know that they'd be laughed out of the room in a matter of minutes.

So instead, they inflict their nonsense on college kids & the amateur public.

For this irresponsible behavior, these people deserve every ounce of contempt & derision that honorable people can muster.

... JM(very strong)O ...

[ocpagu]

18. Wow... what a waste of time reading this.

You have nothing, absolutely N-O-T-H-I-N-G, not a single sentence of arguments. Nothing. You just wrote abunch of childish name calling with ZERO argument. I don't understand why you feel you have to use the disqualification of interlocutor technique if you are comfortable with your "knowledge" on the topic.

[tomk52]

24. Are you kidding?

Argument? We haven't gotten close to an argument, yet.

About 2/3rds of Politicalboi's statements were simply incorrect. I either corrected them, or provided obvious clues as to where he could find out the truth himself.

Once he gets his facts straight, THEN we can start a discussion.

Likely, it won't be necessary at that point, because with correct facts, virtually all of his questions evaporate.

Kinda like over on the "Martin Sheen 9/11 Questions Unanswered" thread, when you claimed that Anders Bjorkman was "a peer" of Zdenek Bazant, and had the slightest chance of being capable of debunking Bazant's papers. And then I set you straight about their comparative expertise in structural engineering. And the discussion ended, due directly to the presence of actual facts.

Not that your ego would let you acknowledge any of that, of course.
But we all knew, anyway.

[ocpagu]

30. Several of Bazant's explanations...

...i.e, "pancake theory", were "debunked" by NIST itself...

So much for your "engineering God".

[tomk52]

31. Again,

I don't know quite where to begin.

The fact that you think that Bazant invoked "pancake theory" in any of his collapse mechanisms convinces me that you fail to understand what he wrote. Bazant's collapse mechanisms are about as far from a pancake theory as one could possibly get.

The fact that you appear to believe that NIST ruled out "pancake theory" for anything other than the collapse initiation convinces me that you fail to understand NIST's conclusions, as well.

Do you believe that Bazant thinks that NIST got their analyses wrong?
If so, in what way.
Exactly, please.

Do you believe that NIST thinks that Bazant got his analyses wrong?
If so, in what way.
Exactly, please.

Just out of curiosity, please list for me the "several Bazant explanations" that have been debunked. By anyone.

After all this time & (I would guess) a substantial amount of effort on the part of some Duh-bunkers to explain it to you, your continued misconceptions are kinda sad.

I note, with some amusement, that your misunderstandings did not prevent you from employing simple, declarative sentences on the matter.

Ummmm, that should be "simple, declarative, wrong sentences."

Best regards,
Tom

PS. Attempting to Gallop away from a previous subject (at which time, you dressed up, took to dinner & then enthusiastically screwed the proverbial pooch) by bringing up a new subject and proceeding to inflict your affections upon a different, but equally innocent, canine, ain't such a good debating tactic. You may wish to reconsider.

PPS. I also note that you avoided addressing the previous issue: the relative expertise of Bazant vs. Bjorkman. Had any revelations on that matter?

[ocpagu]

35. On NIST site

"NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below)."

This is what Bazant proposed first and, then, after he started being questioned, tried to change.

[tomk52]

37. Yup, I didn't think you understood either one.

Would you please answer my questions. Simply & directly.

That would be courteous.

After you do this, I'll happily explain why your first NIST quote is a gross misunderstanding of what NIST really said.

And why your second sentence is 100% wrong.

[hack89]

28. There are pictures of seats (with bodies attached)

why are we revisiting ancient history here?

[ocpagu]

29. Because...

...constant revision of history is part of the normal scholarly process of writing history.

That is valid for all of this planet societies, in any time period. Except in the US, where some luminaries have established this brilliant highly scientific theory that revision of history is for lunatics and that the US government does not lie, period.

[tomk52]

58. How do you pack so much "wrong"...

... in such little space?

"revision of history" implies some core concept or conclusion has been changed by the discovery of new information. In the case of 9/11 conspiracy theories, the exact opposite is true.

Not one single 9/11CT "theory" has borne the slightest fruit. Not one has proven to be valid.

OTOH, the conclusions put forward by NIST in their report have now undergone 5 years of examination by the engineering community & have been accepted. To be clear, I am talking about all technical "what happened, why did they collapse" aspects.

NIST made a bunch of regulatory recommendations, related to the design of new buildings. Some of these have been accepted & implemented, mostly related to issues of "better adherence of insulation, widely separated & better protected stairwells, and more attention to "progressive failure modes & analysis". That is, ways to help the building stand longer & get the people out.

Others were controversial, some accepted and many (I believe correctly) rejected by the structural engineering community as too costly, with too little return. These were issues related to "making buildings more survivable to airplane impact" & retrofitting older structures. These were rejected principally because, while it is entirely feasible to make buildings "more robust" (at tremendous cost), it is impossible to design (or retrofit) any modern high rise "to be able to withstand a plane impact" of the 9/11 type. This correct statement should be eye-opening to those who still labor under the delusion that the WTC towers were "designed to withstand a plane impact". That's a (fascinating, from an engineering POV) urban myth.

Not one code change for "thermite detection" or "inspection for secretly planted explosives" has been brought forward. Well, has not survived the "laughed out of the room at first suggestion" test, at least.

And many, many changes have been made in the airline industry to enormously strengthen the "keep terrorists off of the plane" & especially "out of the cockpit" procedures.

ALL of the above (last 7 years of engineering) history in multiple disciplines confirms NIST's conclusions.

And verifies that "revision of history", in its big picture in this case, is not only unnecessary, but incorrect.

As far as the revision that Truthers are looking for ("OBL innocent, Bush/Cheney et al guilty&quot , keep dreaming.
___

What "luminaries" have put forth the silly, silly theory that you claim?

True, academic "revision of history" happens all the time. And most of it shows that earlier academic historians did an excellent job with the info that they had. Most of it fills in some blanks, broadens perspectives & ends up strengthening & supporting previous conclusions.

"Revisionist history", the kind that turns previous big picture 180° (again, the type Truthers are looking for, here) is to the 99th percentile, a bad joke. And is the polar opposite of the very word "history". (Examples "America had foreknowledge of, or pushed Japan into, Pearl harbor attack", "Eisenhower's 7 million murdered German POWs", & "US's foreknowledge of 9/11 attacks & stand down of defenses&quot .

Yup, that stuff is "for lunatics". And politically driven ideologues. And Angry Young Men. And DVD selling shysters.

BTW, "the US gov't does not lie" is not part of any real history. That's also an ideologue's delusion.

And the US Gov't wrote not one word of NIST's conclusions. The NIST report is not "Da Gubbamint's" (or even "The Government's) story. It is the considered conclusions of over 200 professional, accomplished engineers.

Conclusions which, the US government, in a all-too-rare demonstration of good judgment & common sense, accepted.

[ocpagu]

60. LOL.

nt

[tomk52]

61. This has become a pattern.

Once or twice is one thing, but your modus operandi has become like memos from the Department of Redundancy Department.

Again and again:
1. You say something unsupportable, wrong or just plain dumb.

2. I reply with a bunch of pertinent information, correcting your mistakes, applied with a delicately swung sledgehammer.

3. You ignore every single point that I make, then post some content-free reply like this & run away.

Is this any way to learn anything?

[AlwaysQuestion]

33. Ya can't have it both ways, government apologists

I've come to learn that pointing out to government apologists the errors in their "thinking" is an exercise in futility. Besides, while they'll never acknowledge they're kidding the troops, they know that we know that that is, indeed, what they're endeavoring to do. It's all a ruse, I swear. Yes, you can take that to the bank as I refuse to believe for a moment that they could possibly be THAT left of plumb.

And I say, so be it. Apparently it's best that we attack government on its egregious incompetency to protect the American people even as we give thanks to the miracle of their being able to solve the crime within 48 hours based not on intelligence (an oxymoron to be sure) but rather on some fortuitous "finds." 911 is anything but funny; still, how the government has it going down, it's much akin to a Mack Sennet comedy gone sorely south.

Our apologists would rather admit that a motley lot of box cutter wielding Muslims hating our much superior lifestyle did on a trifling budget foil the entire military might of these United States of America backed up by all manner of resources that trillions of taxpayer dollars can provide.

Moreover, these same apologists would have us believe--and rightly so--that government leadership actually sanctions the type of wretched performance that was in play that fateful day when three out of four "planes" hit their targets without so much as a blip. Wow! China, Russia, North Korea, hear us ROAR!! Nothing to fear here, fellas. We're open for business. We're your high-end paper tigers (and we hang on to ours with no reserve). Seems that the loss of 3,000 lives was insufficient to warrant the immediate court martial and dismissal of those who failed abysmally to protect American lives on American soil. Seems life is cheap in the emerging countries, but here in America, too? Not the good ol' U.S. of yesteryear it seems.

And then, guess what? This same lame government empowered by their mystery solving abilities, sent thousands of more men and women abroad to kill and be killed by people who had absolutely nothing to do with 911. In fact, dear Uncle George received some cheap laughs one night as he pretended with much hilarity to "look for" Bin Laden. Turned out in the skit (some pretty funny stuff, no?) he wasn't interested in finding Bin Laden any more. But, then, why would he? Have you ever noticed that the truth comes out when you're least expecting it. And don't forget to take a peak-boo at this clip.

&feature=related" target="_blank">

&feature=related

Oh my.

Finally, let's not get into a discussion about the downfall of the infamous Building 7 on account of all dem fires (insert huge guffaw). And let's not discuss what exactly was housed in Building 7 which made it de rigueur to dismantle. And let's not harken back to Silverstein clearly stating that he and the NYFD had decided "to pull" the building....cuz we all know (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) that pulling a building has nothing whatever to do with demolition.

So apologists, yoose has a choice--the government had an active role in 911 or it was derelict in its duty to protect American people on American soil. Either way, the picture in focus is a tad tainted................ya think?











So

[zappaman]

34. Yeah right

"Our apologists would rather admit that a motley lot of box cutter wielding Muslims hating our much superior lifestyle did on a trifling budget foil the entire military might of these United States of America backed up by all manner of resources that trillions of taxpayer dollars can provide."

Can one believe this scenario and not be a "government apologist"?

[ocpagu]

36. Who in this planet has ever used the expression

"pull it"

with the meaning of "take these people out of the building"?

That's the lousiest explanation ever.

[tomk52]

38. it's 2005 all over again?

Groundhog day?
An 11 year long game of Whack-A-Mole?

1. Who uses the verb "pull" to mean "take these people out of (away from) building"?

How about FDNY Chief Peter Hayden.
From Firehouse Magazine Interview, April 2002

"... but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
...

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.

One interview, used it 4 times.

So the FDNY had known for hours hat the building was likely coming down, had been trying hard to pull back all of their men & everyone else, and had been in contact with Silverstein about those efforts to pull back their men, their cordon, their equipment, their entire effort back from the building.

Presumably, if Silverstein had said, "... maybe the smartest thing to do is pull back ...", this whole issue evaporates.
___

2. You're STILL quote-mining.
Full quote:

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
- Larry Silverstein

Which makes sense?

a) 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is not worry about trying to save it, but get everyone back from the building.'
or
b)'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is blow up the building.'
___

3. Who gives a taped interview to the National press (PBS) and calmly announces, "oh, by the way, I committed treason, destruction of other people's property on a biblical scale & insurance fraud worth a couple hundred million dollars"???
___

4. Do you also ask your auto mechanic to perform brain surgery??

The FDNY is not, & never has been, in the business of demolishing buildings. But somehow you expect people to accept your interpretation that "they (the FDNY) made the decision to (blow up the building)."
___

This must be the 500th time that people have made at least some of these compelling arguments to you.

Please provide any interpretation - that a reasonable person would find sensible - for items 2, 3 & 4. above.

Please explain why 500x debunked nonsense never dies.

[stevebreeze]

76. You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place

"Johnathan Swift
that's why

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

77. Because....

....it's not debunked.

You are mixing apples and oranges here. You cannot compare Silverstein's comments (that of a layman) with the terminology of cognoscenti, namely firemen or professional building demolitionists.

To 'pull' a building and to mean by that to bring the building down is firmly grounded in our vernacular. For example, a quick Google search of ("pull it" "a building" down -wtc -silverstein -7 -fire) yields over 566,000 examples. Some of them are off subject but there remain hundreds of thousands of relevant examples.

This is what Silverstein meant. A slip of the lip.

Or do you think Rumsfeld really meant 'airplane' when he said a missile hit the pentagon.

Or do you think Rumsfeld really meant 'crashed' when he said Flight 93 was shot down.

These are old men speaking unprepared off the cuff.

Your only alternative is to accept that these men conspired to spread disinfo.

[ocpagu]

80. He knows that...

Now he'll come with a vitriolic, aggressive answer to disqualify you while ignoring all your relevant points and claiming that you're stupid and he's not. That pretty much summarizes his modus operandi.

[William Seger]

59. There's nothing resembling sound premises or valid logical inferences in your argument

... which is a common problem when you start with a conclusion, and impugning the motives of people who can see that is simply piling on the irrationality.

What we learned on 9/11 was that we had completely inadequate defenses against hijackings -- something that apparently was as obvious to the hijackers as it was to me -- and that we were completely unprepared to defend against hijacked passenger jets being used as guided bombs by suicidal fanatics.

Why that was so is a valid question, but I can't think of anything less relevant to any real issue than your personal incredulity that it could happen.

[truth2power]

66. Pro_gun_owner...Here's a link to a video that I encourage you to watch...

The website is Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth.

http://ae911truth.org

It's titled, 9/11: Explosive evidence; Experts Speak Out. Here's a link to the free one hour version:

If this doesn't work for you then just go to the ae911 website, above, and scroll down the page. On the left side you'll see a link to the free 1 hr. version (not the trailer, directly above it).

IMO, this is the best video, so far, regarding what really happened on 9/11. It's narrated by architect, Richard Gage. It's straightforward and to the point. As is said multiple times during the film: "The official story of 9/11 can't be true." Please watch it and make your own determination.

In terms of this particular forum, with some exceptions, I don't think you're going to find answers here. Rather, you'll find yourself running in circles and trying to "prove" this or that bit of minutae, and end up right where you started, exhausted and frustrated. Which may be the whole point....just MHO, you understand. This is neither the time nor the place to offer an opinion as to WHY some individuals seem at pains to muddy the waters. Let he who has ears to hear, and all that...

If you decide to view the above video, then watch those buildings fall and ask yourself what you see. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. It doesn't matter what I think. I've already made up my mind. And I no longer engage people whom I perceive as not honestly searching for a resolution of this matter.

Good luck.

[tomk52]

67. "... not honestly searching for a resolution ..."

t2p,

Have you considered that the person "not honestly searching for a resolution might be the guy in your mirror?

Does your "made up mind" rest on "controlled demolition", as does Mr. Gage's?

Here is my offer to you. Pick the 3 STRONGEST arguments offered in this video. Please put some thought into this. The arguments that you pick must NOT rely upon: speculation of any sort, motives, politics, ethics, etc. They must be something that can be, for the most part, provable by examining evidence and competent theory.

Would you agree that, if the STRONGEST arguments collapse, then the viability of the weaker arguments is seriously suspect?

After we agree which are your strongest 3 arguments that fit the above criteria, then I'll tell you where they collapse. "at free-fall speed". "Into their own footprint".

And, if you promise to do likewise, I promise to (I adamantly prefer to) write with complete respect. Lots of humor, no snark.

[truth2power]

68. No thanks....

tomk52 -

From your profile I see that you've only been registered here a short while, but perhaps you've been lurking for much longer.

The reason I mention this is that you may or may not be aware that in the "old DU" there was actually a September 11 forum. The arguments there never bore any fruit, as far as I could tell.

Nonetheless, the hashing and re-hashing went on for years, frequently characterized by what were clearly disinformation tactics on the part of some posters, i.e., straw-men, ridicule, or calls for impossible proofs, just to name a few.

Now we have the new DU and discussion of 9/11 goes on under the topic of "Creative Speculation" and at the same level as the sub-topic, "Weird News". IMO, the signal is clear: "Don't take anything said in the creative speculation forum too seriously", which is a pre-emptive strike against any serious discussion of 9/11, entirely.

In your challenge, above, you seem to be conflating evidence with proof. Evidence "proves" nothing. If there is evidence that a crime has been committed, then that evidence needs to be presented in a court of law where a judge or jury will decide, and even then, only 'beyond a reasonable doubt'; or, in a civil case, by 'a preponderance of the evidence'. Neither of which presupposes absolute 100% certainty.

I have met the 'prove it' argument many times before, and I've determined that it's of no benefit to go there.

Furthermore, you have asked me to provide my three strongest arguments and you will tell me where (not if, but where) they collapse. And if I provide my next strongest, and the next, and the next, you are already assuming that they WILL collapse.

I see no benefit to wasting my time (and yours) in pursuing such a fruitless endeavor.

To the best of my ability, I have critically examined the events of 9/11 and have determined for myself that the official narrative can't be true. Others may think what they wish, which is the reason I suggested to pro_gun_owner that he watch those buildings fall and ask himself what he sees. If it's nothing anomalous, then so be it.

Thank you for your respectful reply.

t2p

[tomk52]

71. you seem to have a "legal" slant on things...

I'm an engineer. You'll excuse me that I find it, um, "amusing" that you think that the cause of collapse of a building is properly determined in a courtroom by a jury of non-structural engineers. Or any group of amateurs.

Subjective things, like "who's your favorite artist?" "What's your favorite music?" "Paper or plastic?" Sure. Everyone gets their own vote.
But structural collapse? I don't think so.

Here's my offer. If you decline, I'll drop it.

The one & only mystery that I see remaining in any discussion of the building performance is the "mystery of the 2.25 seconds (i.e., 8 stories) of free-fall acceleration of WTC7". This is why Gage, Jones, Chandler et al harp on this tiny, irrelevant bit of trivia as "the smoking gun" of 9/11.

What if I could explain to you, in about one relatively short post, exactly why:
1) their acceleration assertion is wrong,

2) what was the real acceleration of the roof of the building,

and (most important)

3) exactly why the upper block fell at NEAR-G acceleration over that distance.
And I could do so in simple, easy-to-understand English.

Would that be of any interest to you?

[Politicalboi]

72. Welcome to the club

Ask serious questions about 9/11, and you're off to the nut farm. I want to know why didn't the Pentagon, our biggest DEFENSE building gets hit and no heads roll? Why didn't they protect DC? Or why in ALL debris pictures are we lacking seats. Now I'm going on the crazy with that one, but I dare do it. Where the fuck are they? 4 "planes" about 200 seats each, 800 seats and they ALL were vaporized, but DNA was traced and ID. LOL! I found this video a while back, and just now discovered how to post my still picture. I don't do photo shop, so I didn't do anything to this photo.

<a href="http://imgur.com/i0mBqyb"><img src="" title="Hosted by imgur.com"/></a>


A homing devise would explain the "flash" we see before impact. And how come we only get ONE blurry video of what hit the Pentagon when they should of had hundreds of cameras everywhere. I have asked these questions for eons, so now I am going one step farther with the picture. I like you, don't know every detail of 9/11, but what I do know stinks to high heaven. The evidence our government has wouldn't stand an episode of ANY CSI program. And the lack of seats may sound crazy, but why hasn't just ONE popped up anywhere in ANY debris photo. And why didn't the FAA do a reconstruction of any plane????? Flight 800 in the Atlantic got brought back up and put back together again. Seems like flight 93 would have been a picnic to that.