9/11 belief, mythology, and the unknowable (OT)

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 1 - 954 of total 954 in this topic
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Topic Author's Original Post - Jun 22, 2010 - 11:31am PT
Here you go boys, have at 'er...
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jun 22, 2010 - 11:56am PT
I understand how you'd like 9-11 stuff off whatever thread you are trying to protect and so this is a reasonable effort, but also, folks who start less than half-hearted new threads with almost nothing to say about the subject (when old ones are available to bump) are probably not doing the taco bandwidth much of a favor either.

Peace

karl
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 22, 2010 - 12:05pm PT
I personally don't give a damn where it goes so long as it's off the the thread in question where it's entirely inappropriate.
mooser

Trad climber
seattle
Jun 22, 2010 - 12:17pm PT
Sorry, Dr. F. Your post lost all credibility at the end. It was "My Pet Goat." :)

Edit: That's right, Dr. F. Let's get the essential facts straight! Consider your credibility fully restored...
rockermike

Trad climber
Berkeley
Jun 22, 2010 - 12:18pm PT
building #7; it won't go away, despite all the self denial.
By the way, I'm a climber and I talk about 9/11. Note use of possesive above "climber's forum" ha

http://www.wtc7.net/collapsecause.html
dirtbag

climber
Jun 22, 2010 - 12:19pm PT
I'd like to know what the Bible codes tell us about all this.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jun 22, 2010 - 12:20pm PT
This thread should have legs...

dirtbag

climber
Jun 22, 2010 - 12:22pm PT
That photo leads me to believe that the government was invulvaed in the conspiracy.
turd

climber
Jun 22, 2010 - 12:30pm PT
How come all the truther sites look like they were put together by 3rd graders?
WBraun

climber
Jun 22, 2010 - 12:35pm PT
That's because you're a turd and only see sh'it.

Everywhere you look you'll only see yourself since you're the turd .....
dirtbag

climber
Jun 22, 2010 - 12:37pm PT
wow, that's deep...
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 22, 2010 - 12:47pm PT
healyje, nice of you to do this. will you be sticking around?
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 22, 2010 - 12:48pm PT
she's a high-rise to give you a high-rise.
dirtbag

climber
Jun 22, 2010 - 12:59pm PT
Three cheers for Dr. F!
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
Jun 22, 2010 - 01:08pm PT
I pole-vaulted in high school, in shorts, anybody want to see my pics?
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 22, 2010 - 01:20pm PT
your daughter, dr. f?

my mom was supposed to have been italy's entry in the women's javelin throw for the 1940 olympics--did she ever take some career detours.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 22, 2010 - 01:23pm PT
anybody wanna talk about belief in god?
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 22, 2010 - 01:45pm PT
healyje started this thread to get 9/11 talk out of the god thread. nobody really wants to talk about 9/11 here, but we love to do it on the god thread because it irritates people like healyje.

but dr. f, i think you've got something. largo is sure not to show up on this thread because he's allergic to 9/11 talk, especially because of griffin. so if we wanna talk about largo behind his back ...

(mwahahahahah)
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 22, 2010 - 01:52pm PT
then we could gang up on him over here and really come down on the dude over there. he won't know what hit him. he'll be hollering "conspiracy" and he'll be right!
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jun 22, 2010 - 02:00pm PT
If we admit that we will never know all, that our minds can only accept logical explanations

Our minds will accept all kinds if illogical explanations

Then you have to accept God as well, or it just shows just how closed minded you are

Yup, but by the same logic you must also accept the spaghetti monster, whose existence is EQUALLY probable
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 22, 2010 - 02:01pm PT
that's a big problem with him--20 posts later he says, "it was a trick question". i've stopped taking any of it seriously.
survival

Big Wall climber
A Token of My Extreme
Jun 22, 2010 - 02:01pm PT
I read it once, twice, and I still can't figure out what he is trying to say

I don't think Ed H got it either, and he's way 'marter than I, so I didn't try to make my head hurt anymore.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 22, 2010 - 02:05pm PT
john, btw, can be a fine writer writing about other things, but i don't think he has had to deal with really tough editors. his writing often shows a lack of discipline and tends to run way long. his sojourn into theology/philosophy is remarkable. as i said previously, i don't think he's digested that stuff yet, and that may be why he isn't making sense here.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 22, 2010 - 02:39pm PT
so fructose spilled the beans on us--can't gossip about largo here. what a spoiler.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 22, 2010 - 02:40pm PT
it's all healyje's fault for starting this thread in the first place. it's not good faith to start a thread you have no real interest in. he's just trying to manipulate the god discussion.
couchmaster

climber
pdx
Jun 22, 2010 - 02:45pm PT
I, for one, will not be posting on this thread.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jun 22, 2010 - 02:47pm PT
Well, Couch, you will be missing a thread with great legs!

WBraun

climber
Jun 22, 2010 - 02:49pm PT
The 9/11 Commission was a white wash and complete fraud!
Posted by rschop in September 11
Fri Dec 11th 2009, 10:35 PM
The 9/11 Commission was not only a white wash, but the whole thing was just a complete fraud. The same documents that the 9/11 commission had access to, clearly show that the CIA working with groups inside of the FBI HQ knowingly intentionally and deliberately, allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to murder 3000 people on 9/11.

What do these documents show:

That the CIA knew on August 22, 2001 that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, and knew at that time that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US for no other reason than to carry out a horrific al Qaeda attack that the CIA and FBI HQ had been warned about since April 2001.

So what did the CIA and FBI HQ do at this point:

First they tried to kept this information as a complete secret from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing even though the CIA and FBI HQ knew that the Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at the January 2000 al Qaeda planning meeting with Walid Bin Attash, Khallad, mastermind of the Cole bombing, actually planning the Cole bombing.

When FBI Agent Steve Bongardt accidentally found out on August 28, 2001 that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US and called FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi to demand that the investigation and search for Mihdhar and Hazmi be given to his group, Corsi said that Bongardt and his team would not be allowed to investigate Mihdhar because the information he would need would have to come from a NSA document and the NSA had not given permission to pass this document on to any FBI criminal investigator.

But the NSA had already approved a request for FBI Agent Dina Corsi to pass this NSA information on to the FBBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing on August 27, 2001, the day before she tells him he is not allowed to have this information.

When Bongardt was told he and his team could not investigate and search for Mihdhar, he protested to Corsi since he did not see any connection between this NSA document and a FISA warrant, and asked Corsi to get a ruling from the FBI NSLU unit, the legal unit at the FBI because he was clearly aware that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US only in order to carry out a massive al Qaeda attack. The CIA had already connected both of these terrorists to the Cole bombing and also to the east African bombings that had killed over 200 people.

When Corsi contacted Sherry Sabol, according to a footnote buried at the end of the 9/11 Commission report, on page 538, footnote 81, Sabol told Corsi that since the NSA information had nothing to do with any FISA warrant, Bongardt and his team could take part in any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

But Corsi on August 29, 2001 told Bongardt a completely different version of what Sabol had said. Corsi tells Bongardt that the NSLU attorney had ruled he could have no part in any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, effectively shutting down his investigation of these two al Qaeda terrorists.

At the time Corsi is doing this, she knows as does her boss Rod Middleton and the CIA officer who was directing her actions in shutting down this investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, Tom Wilshire, that the CIA and FBI HQ had been hiding the photograph of Walid Bin Attash taken at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting, the very photograph that directly connected both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the planning of the Cole bombing that took place at that meeting.

Since Wilshire had been forbidden from giving the FBI Cole bombing investigators the information that came from Kuala Lumpur twice in July 2001, and Middleton was clearly part of this conspiracy to sabotage Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar, this criminal conspiracy to hide this Kuala Lumpur information and shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi went way beyond Wilshire and Corsi and included many people at the CIA and FBI HQ including almost all of the CIA management, and FBI HQ management including FBI Director Louis Freeh himself.

It is now impossible to believe that when the CIA and FBI HQ ordered Wilshire and Corsi to shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that they did not know that as a result of their actions, that thousands of Americans were going to be murdered by the al Qaeda terrorists.

**Since the 9/11 Commission had access to all of this information, the 9/11 Commission report was not only a fraud on the American people but was also a criminal conspiracy to hide what really allowed the attacks on 9/11 to succeed and protect the people at the CIA and FBI HQ who were behind this conspiracy.

See my Journal for additional details and the actual government documents that prove all of this.**
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jun 22, 2010 - 03:05pm PT
Speaking of conspiracy theories, after more than 60 years, scholars really don't know who was behind burning the Reich stag (parliament building) in Germany, that "terrorist" event that gave the power opportunity to Hitler before WW2.

Who knows if nobody talked or if people talk and nobody listens.

FYI, disproving stuff like demolition or plane-no plane could just be disinformation or a distraction. Few follow the money or the people or the war games on that date. Only a couple of people like Dick Cheney and a few CIA guys would have to know in order for them to learn about Al Queda's plan and do a few things to make sure nothing got in their way (like conduct those war games with false radar blips)

I'd like to know why the Pakistani secret service cheif, who has been accused of sending Mohammed Atta $100,000, was meeting in Washington on 9-11 with top administration officials.

peace

Karl
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 22, 2010 - 04:14pm PT
there has been quite a bit researched and published about the alleged hijackers sojourn in florida, where one of them even stayed at a u.s. military base, and others enjoyed themselves with lapdances, drug use and the like, like good little islamic extremists.

the reichstag was supposedly a classical case of patsy set-up.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 22, 2010 - 05:20pm PT
lots has been happening in research about the pentagon end, dr. f. thepentacon.com will bring you up to date. it's as extensive as the trade center stuff.

but, to address your objections, yes, we do have some idea of what the scene should have looked like. you have to understand that there are two sets of photos which have gotten out to the public--some taken immediately after the crash by bystanders, others 20 minutes later or so when part of the building collapsed. it's just too difficult to imagine a jetliner, especially with two large turbojet engines positioned as we're all familiar with on jetliners, making the damage you see in the initial photos.

they went to a lot of trouble to stage things at the pentagon, but it all falls apart with scrutiny. as i said, the real corker is their behavior. they have footage. they won't release it, and they confiscated all private security cam footage within an hour.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 22, 2010 - 05:25pm PT
the problem with your other premise is that you're assuming there was a jet full of passengers. the great refutation of this is that there was never anything shown in the wreckage to confirm that, except a few items, rather obviously planted, which had nothing to do with a jetliner's interior. there is a piece of jet engine which was inadvertently photographed, and identified as coming from a different and smaller jet engine than that supposedly crashed.
dirtbag

climber
Jun 22, 2010 - 05:31pm PT
the problem with your other premise is that you're assuming there was a jet full of passengers. the great refutation of this is that there was never anything shown in the wreckage to confirm that, except a few items, rather obviously planted, which had nothing to do with a jetliner's interior. there is a piece of jet engine which was inadvertently photographed, and identified as coming from a different and smaller jet engine than that supposedly crashed.

Other than a missing airlineer, a lot of missing people who happened to take a flight on that missing plane, airline parts matching the missing plane, witnesses, etc.

But I suppose Cheney staged that too.

You guys are f*#king delusional, seriously.

There's a reason why you guys have to cite crackpot websites: because no MSM would touch this kookery with a 99 foot pole.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jun 22, 2010 - 05:39pm PT
Apparently the Tin Hatters have a rather inflated sense of their understanding of physics and metallurgy. When you ram aluminum with a few bits of steel reinforcement into a very massive concrete structure at 400 mph and then douse it with 15,000 gallons of jet fuel you'll be lucky to have anything left let alone any of the plane's interior or passengers. There are 128,000 BTU's per gallon of jet fuel - do the math.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 22, 2010 - 05:40pm PT
dr. f--there wasn't an original jetliner hijacked by terrorists, that's the point, the whole thing was planned and staged.

listen up, dirtbag. do you know jacksquat about air defense?
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 22, 2010 - 05:46pm PT
and yet, reilly, we were treated to two months of carefully picking up all the little bits and pieces of people and returning them to their loved ones despite the BTUs. all of which happened behind closed doors, and i don't remember a single press report of a "loved one" receiving their little package from the government.

the engine part i mention is the clincher, however. just the wrong part. too bad, it got on film.

Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jun 22, 2010 - 05:55pm PT
So Tony, what do you say to the family members who have lost their Husband, fathers, wives, and children....? Are they making it up too?
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jun 22, 2010 - 05:59pm PT
Apparently the Tin Hatters have a rather inflated sense of their understanding of physics and metallurgy. When you ram aluminum with a few bits of steel reinforcement into a very massive concrete structure at 400 mph and then douse it with 15,000 gallons of jet fuel you'll be lucky to have anything left let alone any of the plane's interior or passengers. There are 128,000 BTU's per gallon of jet fuel - do the math.

"truthers" often note that the engine fans are made of titanium and melt only at extraordinary temps.

Also strange that people were photographed standing in the holes made by the planes in the towers. How could anyone do that if the fire was so hot that it brought down the building?

http://thewebfairy.com/911/edna/index.htm

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/fires.html

Peace

Karl
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jun 22, 2010 - 06:19pm PT
Also strange that people were photographed standing in the holes made by the planes in the towers. How could anyone do that if the fire was so hot that it brought down the building?

Karl,
That is an example of the strand of straw driven through a tree by a tornadoe; it happens all the time. It is also what happens when you shoot someone - a nice clean entry hole. Elementary physics.
I'm well aware that the fan blades weren't going to burn. Your point is?

Tony,
Do provide us with the proper engine part numbers, I'm all ears. By the way, the compressor section is the big front part. The combustion section is half the diameter of the compressor section so get your tin hats bolted on properly before you try to get overly technical. Without a tape measure held up in front of said engine part I think you are going out on a very thin limb claiming it is from a 'smaller engine'. Camera lenses do strange things also especially without accurate perspective and reference.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 22, 2010 - 06:31pm PT
"doesn't look like part of a rolls-royce engine i ever saw"--said the man at rolls-royce. just off my head here, this stuff overloads easily, and i frankly haven't kept up on it for a few months. it's a big cat-and-mouse game, and the cats don't play fair.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 22, 2010 - 06:35pm PT
you'll find the engine bezels and so forth in the loose change DVDs--i assume you've seen them because they've been pretty popular. now you're telling me the camera lens distorted them--always something, no? but i don't think this particular item has been attacked. there's really too much of it for it all to be attacked. at a certain point anyone looking into it just gives in. but the little hot buttons are what keep beginners in line.

Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 22, 2010 - 06:38pm PT
i brought up air defense and that fellow went out to lunch. the pentagon was struck 45 minutes after the towers were hit. why wasn't the air over washington dc full of f-16s scrambled from andrews? think about it for a minute. maybe you need to think about it for a few years.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jun 22, 2010 - 06:52pm PT
Karl,
That is an example of the strand of straw driven through a tree by a tornadoe; it happens all the time. It is also what happens when you shoot someone - a nice clean entry hole. Elementary physics.
I'm well aware that the fan blades weren't going to burn. Your point is
?

I'm not getting your point. If the Gov says the towers fell because of the amazing blaze set by the plane's jet fuel burning, how come it's cool enough to stand where the plane hit but before the towers went down?

If the fan blades don't burn, where are the pentagon fan blades?

Still, I think this "Demolition Stuff" is a dumb distraction that leads us away from getting to the bottom of the war games, money, and other bs that makes 9-11 stink

Peace

Karl
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 22, 2010 - 07:06pm PT
you're kinda right about that, karl. the group i worked with got way into the demolition stuff and it easily became the sole focus.

the plane in the field in pennsylvania is another one--a tiny hole in the ground immediately closed off by security, debris spread across the landscape for 8 miles--this is an airliner crash? how dumb do they think we are? probably pretty close.

"coincidentally" there were more war games and emergency drills scheduled for 9/11 than took place on any prior day in history. the war games are the answer to the air defense question--most of those f-16s were sent to northern canada to pretend defending us from russia. after so much of it, you just give in and learn to live with the new world order. eat sh*t, serfs and slaves, take what we give you, don't expect it to make sense, we don't owe that to anyone.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jun 22, 2010 - 07:13pm PT
Since I've never really spent much time on this reprise for me what
every crime must have: a motive. The Bush administration didn't need
anything this elaborate to justify invading Iraq. All they needed were
phantom WMD's. Bill Clinton didn't need this to launch cruise missiles
against Bin Laden. So what is the motive for all this? Wouldn't one of
the Twin Towers sufficed? And why would the nefarious types at the
Pentagon want to hit themselves? They're not that crazy!

Second, how many people would have been needed to pull this off and
keep it quiet with the emphasis on the latter? When is Deepthroat going to speak?

ps
So was the security camera that showed the plane hitting the Pentagon faked? I've seen quite a few staged crashes by NACA, the FAA, and the Air Force, and it sure looked real. But then I gues Steven Spielberg is prolly in on this especially since he's a Jew.

And how do you address all the drivers on the nearby highway who saw it?
Are they all part of the conspiracy too?

And if planes were good enough for the Twin Towers why wasn't one good 'nuff for the Pentagon?
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Jun 22, 2010 - 07:17pm PT
Hey everything is a government conspiracy.

BHO has his own.

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Obama-Administration-Knew-About-Deepwater-Horizon-35000-Feet-Well-Bore.html


Can't leave him out now!
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 22, 2010 - 07:44pm PT
reilly, thanks for an open mind.

the pentagon hit, i think someone mentioned, was in an area vacated for construction, as far as possible from donald rumsfeld's office. just another coincidence of course.

the motive can be found in the PNAC document--project for a new american century--mostly neocon stuff, calling for "a new pearl harbor" to galvanize america so it can go out and take advantage of the great opportunity provided by the end of the cold war. basically to control the whole world. isn't that what we've been doing? david ray griffin's first book is "the new pearl harbor".

i think that motive is only a partial one. i think the web goes quite beyond the borders of america. it's only a myth that we're separate countries with sovereigty. if you don't know about the so-called bilderburg group, take a look at that. these people meet annually and secretively and they're the most powerful people in the world.

the pentagon released four frames after being nagged for two years. people already knew what the frames would show, the footage had already been leaked, and they didn't show much more than fuzzyness and explosion. you won't see a commercial jetliner. the frames were from a camera planted low behind an obstruction, aimed for a quick sideways shot. the pentagon has hundreds of security cameras. if you've got what you say you've got, you just show it to people. if you're lying, you dodge around, bluster, make excuses, temporize to change your story and manipulate the evidence, and just plain don't answer the phone.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jun 22, 2010 - 08:15pm PT
Tony,
I do have an open mind and nobody mistrusts the government more than me
but this is just too much for those tards to pull off and keep secret;
THEY AIN'T THAT GOOD!

WBraun

climber
Jun 22, 2010 - 08:19pm PT
Reilly

You really are naive.

And there's no secret .....
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jun 22, 2010 - 08:55pm PT
Take the Air Force send them on a mission to Canada

What, the whole Air Force? Hahahahaha! I can assure you we've never sent more than a couple of fighter squadrons (out of 130-odd) at any one time to Canada because that is about all the Canucks have. So that would have left about, oh, 100 fighter squadrons (deducting 30 to be generous for foreign deployment) to defend the Heartland.



Banquo

Trad climber
Morgan Hill, CA (Mo' Hill)
Jun 22, 2010 - 10:39pm PT
See Occam's Razor at Wikipedia

1) Bad Guys hijack planes
2) Bad guys fly planes into buildings
3) Buildings fall down

Americans are ignorant and self focused. Since 9/11 between 100,000 and several million people have died in Iraq and who knows how many in Afghanistan. About 3000 died in 9/11 - a lot of people but it was a small event in the big scheme of things. Don't you wonder what a million dead people looks like?

I studied structural engineering. I teach structural engineering at a good university. I used to work for a reseach company that blew up and studied blowing up buildings. I say KISS.

drinking red wine before dinner causes me to rant, sorry.


Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 22, 2010 - 11:43pm PT
occam's razor is no substitute for careful thinking. the razor comes when you cut through material you know well, not when you simplify and turn your head. i like to drink red wine too.

the planes that were scrambled to the pentagon were sent from airfields relatively remote to washington dc, not andrews afb, and they flew much slower than their top speeds, getting there well after the strike. as i say, the pentagon was hit 45 minutes after the first tower was hit. alerts happen pretty fast in the u.s. they say fighter jets are scrambled around 100 times a year to cover air traffic irregularities "just in case"--this happened regularly before and after 9/11. who was that golfer who died with his plane on autopilot? less than 15 minutes and he has an escort all the way to a crash in north dakota. yes, lots of incompetents in the military, but it's impossible to imagine letting the guard down on washington dc in this way. it's as imaginable as mighty buildings coming down at freefall speed without preset demolition. put that razor in your pipe.

but fellas, there's yet further confirmation of it all. dick cheney was holed up in his fuhrerbunker and right next to him was u.s. secretary of transportation norman mineta. mineta delivered this testimony to the 9/11 commission, but it was not published in their report. a young officer kept coming in saying "the plane is such-and-such minutes out" as it got closer, and finally he asked "do the orders still stand?" and mineta said cheney whipped his head around and said "of course the orders still stand". that motherf*@cker is good at whipping things around, like shotguns at octogenarians.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jun 23, 2010 - 12:17am PT
The real and provable conspiracy was to invade Iraq under the pretext of WMDs when they knew it was BS. This killed and cost more than 9-11.

Still, nobody was caught, prosecuted nor impeached. Why thing 9-11 will get straightened out when the trillion dollar death machine of Iraq was swept under the table when PLENTY of people in high positions and low have provided evidence that the WMD thing was BS from the beginning

peace

karl
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 23, 2010 - 12:56am PT
what 9/11 did was put the public in the right mood--then they stampeded. remember, they went to afghanistan first, supposedly trying to get osama out of a cave. can you imagine some yahoo being able to escape all our air power and helicopter capability hiding out in a cave? you guys go into the mountains. it's fantasy.

but once you go to war and get one american dead body coming home in a casket, the whole thing becomes sacred. it's even more sacred to the families who lose soldiers because they want them to have died for a good cause. suddenly a lot is riding on superficial patriotism.

jon krakauer has a book out now on the pat tillman case. it appears tillman was probably done away with because he had such a high profile and was about to go public against the war.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 23, 2010 - 10:33am PT
jolly roger doesn't want to hold the hot potato.

"is life so dear and peace so sweet to be purchased with the bonds of slavery?" said patrick henry.

i hate to tell you one thing, roger. we really aren't destroying the planet that badly. if you think so, you haven't spent enough time outdoors. nature has a built-in resilience to it and recovers quite quickly given half a chance. environmental devastation is part of the control myth, and it's an edifice of policy built over time by controlling cliques that stay in bed with each other. their policies produced this crap in the first place. people are cooperative--they recycle and want to buy electric cars. they've even learned to use condoms. the cliques don't know how to do anything well except maintain control, and they do that murderously. we'd have much better public policy and international relations if we had honest debate and genuine information.

reilly, i've come to think it's right there on the dollar bill: the all-seeing eye on top of the power of the pyramid. that isn't the eye of god up there. the power is the power of chain of command and the power of the paycheck. i know quite a bit about how the media work, having worked as a reporter and editor on small newspapers for 10 years. no matter how good the story is, if the publisher quashes it, that's the end of it. and i've seen even little stories quashed for no good reason except the boss's political comfort, not the public's right to know.

good point about ragheads in caves. do you go fishing, walleye?
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 23, 2010 - 12:08pm PT
the pilots for 9/11 truth website will tell you otherwise. our commercial airliners had many built-in safeties against hijackers long before 9/11, in response to the petty hijackings which took place in the 60s. none of these safeties were even activitated. i understand it would have been as simple as the pilot switching over to put the plane under control by air traffic control. we're talking about four hijackings using utility knives. one out of four maybe? two out of four? but four out of four?

it was impossible to use cellphones then above 5,000 feet, and yet all the phone reports which fire the imagination supposedly came from cellphones--not airphones, but cellphones.

and you guys just don't get it, no scramblings, no intercepts. except maybe over pennsylvania, where the plane was brought down by a warthog, seen by many on the ground, because the situation may really have been getting out of control. the debris from whatever happened there was spread out over 8 miles of pennsylvania countryside. no one will argue with that. but the pubic was shown a meager smoking crater in the ground, not allowed to get close, and told the plane went in there.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 23, 2010 - 12:47pm PT
because it's the patriotic thing to do when your country is at war--you don't change horses in midstream.

except kerry won that election, just as gore won the one before. they worked felonies on the results in florida and ohio. both gore and kerry knew they should concede and not contest if they know what's good for them. that's how this 800 lb gorilla works.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jun 23, 2010 - 12:56pm PT
i understand it would have been as simple as the pilot switching over to put the plane under control by air traffic control.

What, ATC has the ability to beam someone up to the cockpit to fight off the highjackers?
Only drones are controllable from the ground, so far.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jun 23, 2010 - 01:23pm PT
ATC flying a plane???

Holy crap, Tony. You are an ignorant fool.

Have fun in Klimmerville.
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jun 23, 2010 - 01:51pm PT
Reilly, you don't understand. ANYTHING is possible in Klimmerville.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jun 23, 2010 - 01:56pm PT
You want life? It already has shown it has legs!




philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jun 23, 2010 - 02:11pm PT
Well, let's see, other than all the goodies they got by being able to crush dissent and start two illegal yet oddly profitable wars, how about the missing Trillion and a half in gold bullion for motivation?
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 23, 2010 - 03:16pm PT
havta admit, you guys got me there. i did read something about how a takeover can be foiled by in-cockpit technology, but i'm not finding it in my reference or on the web. there is a note on one of the official air safety websites that remote control for hijack situations has been suggested but not developed. we'll see--can't remember everything.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 23, 2010 - 03:18pm PT
these bimbo legs are okay, but the best inspiration so far is that first pole vaulter, poised and intent. i wonder if i even would have appreciated her when i was in high school.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 23, 2010 - 10:19pm PT
doc, look at that website i mentioned, pentacon.com.

here's a scenario: yes, there was a jetliner that came in there. it looks like it might have pulled up and flown over the pentagon. there is evidence that the light poles had charges in them to make them fall down as though they were clipped by the plane. many witnesses have attested to an entirely different approach path than where these light poles lay. the jetliner may have been coordinated with some sort of missile and explosives planted within the building. the fellas who did pentacon.com have spent a lot of time interviewing witnesses. don't expect it all to be laid out for you, but you will start to see that things are not right.

by the way, an early report i heard said that many of the people on the flight list were navy personnel, ironically some of them with offices in the pentagon which were hit. i'd be surprised if you can find that information now. stuff gets taken off the web. nobody can keep up with it.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 24, 2010 - 08:35am PT
just a few notes today--dunno if anyone's even checking. wish someone would post more legs.

that's 51 minutes, not 45 minutes, between tower 1 strike and pentagon strike. this is from the meticulously compiled the terror timeline by paul thompson, a depiction of modus operandi in action.

a taunt to all the military patriots who log in here and think i'm some kind of cockroach:

read this book. you guys, at the very least, ought to be ashamed of yourselves and every one of your comrades. we on the taxpaying end have borne an astronomical burden for the best defense system with the latest technology in the world, and the one day in my entire lifetime that it was really needed to defend our home turf, it failed miserably.

of course, that's not really the way it worked, and if you have a military background, you ought to see it right away. when someone flubs up bigtime, they pay for it bigtime. in the case of 9/11, all was forgiven and forgotten from the get-go. i can cite examples of where the very people responsible got medals.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 24, 2010 - 05:27pm PT
whoa--you're blowing me away, rox. yes, those are the four frames i referred to.

have you seen the pentacon.com website? the two guys who did it are young men from orange county, one of them a drummer in a local band. they felt that so much had to be followed up on around the pentagon situation that they wound up taking several trips to washington dc and interviewing as many eyewitnesses as they could get ahold of.

the gas station next to the pentagon is a crucial focal point. if the jetliner approached on the left side, as so many witnesses, including a couple of dc policemen, said, it couldn't have knocked down the light poles on the freeway. it would have had to have approach on the right side to do that. the speculation is that these light poles were just planted with cutting charges for the event. there's also some confirmation of such skulduggery.

the "pentacon" guys--they call themselves the "citizen investigation team"--also nailed down a witness from the far side of the pentagon who testified that he saw a jetliner fly over him. that would mean it didn't crash into the building. the scenario, as i said, is that the jetliner came in and overflew, pulling up to clear the building. at the same time the pentagon was struck with a missile similar to what you show. about the only confirmable debris is that of the bezel array from its jet engine, much smaller than the array from the jetliner engine in question. then a grand explosion went off, the main subject of the four released frames that you show, "confirming", for the public hoax, that this jetliner spewed so much fuel.

there is one photo that was widely circulated by the government showing a chunk of airliner exterior with a piece of the logo of the airline involved, positioned neatly on the green, green lawn of the pentagon, with nary a scratch or scorch on the grass.
pa

climber
Jun 24, 2010 - 06:36pm PT
Besides...not that it's evidence, but it is telling:

Look at George W's eyes, as he is sitting in the schoolroom, when the news is being whispered in his ear, that very first gleam. It's not shock, it's not surprise, it's glee, it's a look of triumph.

That was my first suspicion. But then, I read Macchiavelli in my teens. Wars are started over money, always. And they are sold to the public as crusades, always.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 24, 2010 - 07:00pm PT
with what (i think) i know, i've developed a surprising take on george jr. he's into this skulduggery third generation. his grandfather, prescott bush, then a u.s. senator, had his fingers slapped in 1942 for trading with the enemy. his wall street firm, still in existence, was basically in bed with the nazis. but my view of the nazis themselves has changed as well, and i come from a family of italian resistance fighters.

george jr. is in it up to his floppy ears, but i think he did the world a public service. how's that? he dragged his heels. this came out in an important transmission on 9/11 itself, expounded on by 9/11 researcher webster tarpley: "angel is next". "angel" is a well-known code name for air force 1. bush himself was being threatened that day, possibly for some weak resistance to scripted events.

at one point a couple years ago, the buzz was that dick cheney was itching to nuke iran. report after report came out on this on the internet, and there were many public cries to try to prevent it. bush junior wasn't gung ho about it, and i think he probably did what he could to prevent it, and it never happened. i think we all dodged a bullet with that one.

of course, this is all "from where i sit". i've floated the idea of amnesty for those really responsible for 9/11. capital punishment is something they've all promoted, as a run-up to the fascist state they're seeking to establish. i just want to see them all in zoo cages where they'll have to meet face-to-face the public they've been screwing, until it becomes so old we don't care about it any more and can go on with a real future.
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Jun 24, 2010 - 07:00pm PT
I wouldn't trust ATC to fly a plane, belay or rappel sure, but fly a plane?

If there was any truth to the 9/11 conspiracy theories every media outlet would be on it like flies on sh#t because an expose would be one of the biggest stories of all time. All they'd need is one informant and... Oh wait, maybe they're in on it...
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 24, 2010 - 07:03pm PT
the only plane "scrambled" at the time was a C-130, a four-engine military transport often used for electronic battlefield support. the DoD said it was being sent up "to intercept". it was observed making strange aerobatic maneuvers. hoo-ah.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 24, 2010 - 07:07pm PT
fet, i worked as a newspaper journalist for 10 years. i've watched newspapers shrink and lay off people, and i've also seen them become dumber, less inquisitive, as airheady as the evening news. nobody on the l.a. times is going to do any kind of expose that will disturb the universe, believe me. the best journalists get fired--it happens time and again. you'll find the ones who can scrape together a little support publishing on the internet.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 24, 2010 - 07:10pm PT
a newspaper is only as good as its publisher. the top publishers belong to the same gentleman's club as the politicians and wall streeters who are really in control. get a close look at it and you'll puke. throw that faith in the media into a good subduction trench.
Mustang

climber
From the wild, not the ranch
Jun 25, 2010 - 02:04pm PT
So what is anybody going to really do, revolt, protest, or just keep blabbing about this and living our lives in complete unconscious denial?

Will you stop paying income tax in protest? Will you stop supporting multi-national corporate America? I don't think so, we've all become too soft to give up our cushy lives and see real change as too difficult in adapting our lazy, consumer driven, immediate gratifying lifestyles for a greater cause. And guess what, this is why sh#t like 9/11 happens,,, cause it can.

Mass tax revolt and mass corporate consumer boycotts would be the only way in this day and age to have a voice, send a message, play their game, because the game is about money, power and greed. It was what this country was founded on, remember U.S. History, 101? Do the above, and you begin to combat money, power and greed. Do nothing and it will continue as it conveniently has with conspiracy websites popping up like asian poppies in Afghanistan, creating endless jibber-jabby and taking focus away from the real issue of the few who wield complete control.

Do you know that personal income tax actually only pays the interest on the nat'l debt, nothing else, as we are not told to believe, yet the gov't just keeps borrowing more, with no possible way of actually repaying, as the Federal Reserve, a private corporate bank, keeps cashing in on mass government borrowing for ludicrous expenditures. Is anyone aware that corporate income increased exponentially in the past many decades, as corporate income tax has decreased exponentially as compared to employee wages that have remained flat for about 35 years, as budgets for much needed public programs such as education, infrastructure upkeep, environmental protection and other important programs keep getting slashed?
And the debate in congress now is possibly raising taxes on the middle class, while American multi-nationals considered 'too big to fail' get billions more in corporate welfare. What the hell happened to the 'trickle down' theory of tax cuts for the wealthy? What a sham.

How much is a trillion dollars anyway? what the hell does 13 trillion dollars look like? If a gallon of water represented each dollar of the national debt, how much of america gets flooded in 13 trillion gallons? Would you have to start the Nose route from a boat at ECT?

Another clear observation since 9/11 is that we now live in a near police state since 9/11 and the patriot act. Anyone experience this 'new order' with law enforcement lately? It's f@#king atrocious and f@#king scary, the lack of restraint and pure intimidation law enforcement now has towards citizens of 'suspected behavior'.

As in Nazi Germany, freedom was slowly and quietly taken away from citizens bit by bit until there was a complete dictatorship and millions of people were persecuted because of their ethnicity. A lie was begun, perpetuated in the media, a lie so big that no one would believe it, unless complete control of the media assured the continuing telling of the lie. Are we not headed in that same direction when the main stream belief being perpetuated in the media towards muslims is that they are all out to kill Americans? Is this history not repeating itself?

be afraid people, be very afraid,,,,

rant over:)
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 25, 2010 - 09:23pm PT
here's something you can do, mustang--give a little money to this guy or help out with his defense somehow:

http://free-bruno.org/

i know the guy personally, have never gotten along with him, but he's been out in front of a lot of truth confrontations in l.a. he got arrested recently, some kind of edgy exchange with a cop, and they're throwing the book at him. reportedly the judge screamed that he's a terrorist, way out of line for a guy who just tries to present information like i do and exercise his right to free speech. he plays by the rules, but he doesn't stand down easily. there's an international movement to raise money for his defense. it's a question of using our rights, or they will atrophy. don't take my word for it--i hate to give money myself, and i'm just trying to be helpful lining up a good lawyer.



dirtbag

climber
Jun 25, 2010 - 09:30pm PT
So what is anybody going to really do, revolt, protest, or just keep blabbing about this and living our lives in complete unconscious denial?

Me, I'm laughing.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jun 26, 2010 - 12:52am PT
Tony,

Thanks for letting me know about this activist. I will try to send him some $. Very important cause. He speaks the truth. "They" don't like that. "They" don't like the truth.

WeAreChangeLA Organizer Faces Terrorist Charge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hlmGhM1qBQ&feature=player_embedded

Alex Reports WeAreChangeLA Organizer Bruno Bruhwiler Faces Terrorist Charge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV0c_FO_NOY&feature=player_embedded



This sort of thing can happen to any of us now. Police and judges abuse their positons of power and lie.

Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 26, 2010 - 08:27am PT
they say politics makes strange bedfellows, and you won't find stranger than in the 9/11 truth movement. i think the one thing we all have in common is good antennas, but with a good antenna often comes a quirky personality and involvement in interests beyond being a soccer mom or a nascar dad. probably the foremost person in the movement is david ray griffin, that philosophy professor largo feels has "gone south" with all this.

i've come to distrust just about everyone i've been involved with, and i'm taking a step back right now to think. i read a book called beyond bullets a couple years ago. it's an academic, well-documented account of how the feebs have messed with every dissident group to come down the road in our lifetimes. they infiltrate and do all kinds of dirty tricks to make people distrust each other. it's a matter of course, our tax dollar at work and their way of imposing control. i'm sure some of them think they're real heroes. others just want the smart money and the winning side, ethics be damned.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 26, 2010 - 11:29am PT
here's a report on a conference held recently on the whole kaboodle. it's no accident that emeritus professors get involved on this--they no longer have that ring in their noses for someone to yank:

http://cms.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/310-911-truth-movement-reaches-critical-mass-at-santa-cruz-deep-politics-conference.html

there are conclusions and suggestions and reports of schemes and strategies, none of it very exciting. i wanted to go to this thing, but i don't think i missed much. you really can't beat a good war machine.
quietpartner

Trad climber
Moantannah
Jun 26, 2010 - 12:19pm PT
Crap, Rokjox, those four frames are amazing!
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jun 26, 2010 - 01:23pm PT
Yes Tony, take a step back, relax the mind. Let your agendas and fears take control

Gaze abstractly to the sky and the chemtrails will appear.

Then come back here and post some sheep and nazi pics.
turd

climber
Jun 26, 2010 - 01:58pm PT
Wow, check out this thread. Intelligent and otherwise rational people choosing to believe something highly implausible, despite a preponderance of evidence to the contrary. When their logic is challenged, they get defensive and condescending.

Kinda reminds me of the religion thread, what do you think Tony?
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jun 26, 2010 - 02:12pm PT
OK, here we go again . . .

What we were actually shown and what was actually released by the Pentagon . . .


What we were told: This is AA Flight 77 slamming into the Pentagon.



Wow! Really???


Shouldn't it look more like this? Isn't this what we should have seen but didn't?

(Notice: This is not real. This is a to scale computer animation/simulation of what we should have seen, but we didn't see.)







What we actually saw after the impact . . .











"The Amazing Pentalawn" after AA Flight 77 slammed into our Nation's Top Military Command . . .









What was actually witnessed by many very credible witnesses . . .









What we were told . . .










MIHOP
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 26, 2010 - 02:24pm PT
here we go. klim's got the goods.

inadvertently, largo offered a ton of help with the following observation on other matters in the god thread:

"in psychology, there is a thing called 'information bias.' we filter out whatever does not conform to what we think is the truth ... we literally will not consider or be open to contrary information, or else we will alter its value or definition so as not to threaten our preconceived notions or given criteria."

also from largo, same thread:

"My adviser at Claremont was John Cobb, who I did all my grad Whitehead/Process studies under (Oral exams on Process and Reality from Prof. Cobb were no cake walk), and many of the hardcore philosophy classes I took were from David Ray Griffin - a sharp dood, but he went south with all that 9/11 conspiracy jibberish."

largo's a sharp dood too, but i don't take his word on everything. make up your own minds, but do the homework first.
turd

climber
Jun 26, 2010 - 02:54pm PT
"What kind of man choses to call himself Turd?"

I dunno - what kind of man choses to call himself "Rokjox"?

It's OK if you want to get all worked up by my made up internet name. WB apparently can't get around it either.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 26, 2010 - 03:08pm PT
btw, the homework currently involves a whole concatenation of disinformation artistry by people with credentials who have sold their souls. the first version of "why the towers fell" involved a theory by an MIT structural engineering professor--how can you get any higher in the pecking order of professionalism?--who theorized that the twin towers "pancaked". this fell apart within a year, an absolutely laughable explanation. no one subscribes to this any more. now they're trying to revise the building code, according to a posting rrradam put out here, to put concrete around all structure for fire protection. you won't be able to build a skyscraper over 50 stories if you do that. you will find this sort of disinformation going on relentlessly in all areas of 9/11 research. come back when you've reviewed it.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jun 26, 2010 - 04:30pm PT
Rokjox,

We are in agreement. I was trying to let the obvious sink-in to some minds who maybe don't know yet. But perhaps that just doesn't happen often enough.

We'll keep trying.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Jun 26, 2010 - 05:19pm PT
And beware of those killer nine volt batteries!
turd

climber
Jun 27, 2010 - 04:38pm PT
I guess I'm just not as emotionally invested in my choice of internet nicknames as you, Rokjox.




Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jun 27, 2010 - 07:34pm PT
It's not surpising that the same folk who believe in a moon arc and bible codes also believe in 9/11 conspiracies. Further confirmation that its the same BS, repackaged.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jun 27, 2010 - 09:09pm PT
Port,

3 seperate issues.

Although from the NWO perspective 2 are very related, the non-disclosure of UFOs/and that Aliens are already here, and 9-11 was MIHOP. It is about power, control, and greed. They have it. They want to keep it. And they want to take any of it, or all of it, away from all of us. The Rich Elite of the World (the NWO), look upon the rest of the people of the World (you and me), as viruses, chattle, canon fodder.



MSNBC In Cover-Up Of Manifestly Provable Population Control Plan
http://www.prisonplanet.com/msnbc-in-cover-up-of-manifestly-provable-population-control-plan.html






GOD doesn't see us that way. If fact he sacrificed a great deal for all of us. He came down, taught us the way to live, and sacrificed all for you and me to bring us back to him. GOD tells us -- the GOD honest truth. He lets us know what's up so we are not fooled. Pretty cool really. He looks out for us. He loves us.

So don't be fooled. You might want to listen up and stop the ad hominem attacks. When people are calling to you and telling you that you're driving off a cliff that is up-ahead that you can't see at the moment, you might want to listen.

I'm not asking you to take it hook, line, and sinker. Just listen, look into it, and keep your eyes and mind open. Look at all sides to the story. You might be very surprised what you find.





Revelations Chapter 9, ELS every 11 letters. In ELS Bible Code, those phrases or terms that are close or meet have very high significance and are usually very related and relevant. Notice that "Star House" (the Pentagon), "Missiles," and "Spies Knew" all intersect. That means MIHOP.

Say what you want, but it is beyond statistical chance. GOD speaks in mysterious ways. He prophecied in the Good Book that he would in the last days. He said it would be locked up (sealed) until the end, and then and only then would we know.

Well, we didn't discover Bible Code until the personal computer came along. Newton looked for it but didn't find it. Well, GOD is now doing what he said he would do. Amazingly it has been there all along, just waiting for us to discover it.

GOD is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and he has Omniscience.

Truth is sometimes very incredible and hard to believe.

Faith is based on some evidence and trust. The more you look into it, the more of each you will find.

Well, there you have it.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 27, 2010 - 09:46pm PT
fyi, port, i believe in neither moon arks (i think you misspelled it there because i think they're all in cartwheels about a noah's ark-type thing) nor bible codes.

i see that poor klim here has his own version of these things. we've differed on other threads, and although i think he's rather a nice and fairly intelligent fellow, he's also a professional schoolteacher by trade and i wouldn't trust my kids' intellects with him in a classroom.

i don't trust alex jones and his prisonplanet either, but we all have our own particular takes on these things, as i'm sure you do on the things you're interested in. however your thinking about these matters is totally prejudiced if you go solely by the people who are saying something about them. i suspect rokjox is somewhat further to the "right" (whatever that means) of me, but he's got an open mind to this stuff too. don't cherry-pick people, look into the prime matter for yourself, and come back when you can begin to be conversant.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jun 27, 2010 - 11:22pm PT
TB,

Boy you must think I get up there in front of the class and just let it all out, and just speak my mind without reserve! No, we are all very reserved in public. I'm sure you are also, no doubt.

Here on ST we can let it out, talk, discuss, argue, etc. We all have a very private world and a public world. But in public it is very, very different.




My Public Persona --

I get all kinds of questions from students . . .


Q: Mr. S what about 9-11? What really happened? What do you think?

A: We can't really talk about any of that. Check it all out on your own time. Have an open mind. Look at all sides of the issue. But we can't really talk about it. People/teachers get fired from their jobs over that question and discussing it openly. Really.



Q: What about 2012? I hear we are all gonna die.

A: Well, I have heard by now everything is gonna happen just as you all have. I watched the movie, "2012" and laughed. I thought it was a psuedoscience comedy. Hilarious. It can't all happen and all at once can it? Maybe nothing will happen. I don't know. Makes for good movies, and interesting reading. One thing we do know will happen -- Solar Maximum of the 22 year Solar Cycle is due 2012. That is all I know, and perhaps some of the planets will be in some kind of alignment. Dun know more.




Q: Are UFOs and Aliens real?

A: Well, it looks like the evidence for cryptoendolithic microbial life on Mars is stacking up. The research team led by NASA PhD McKay has looked at the Mars meteorite ALH84001 again and have invalidated all abiotic means of producing the nanomagnetite crystals found within, leaving only biotic means. So yes, there looks to be good fossil evidence for life having been on Mars in the past. It had a more favorable atmosphere, oceans, perhaps more moderated temperatures in the past.

However, there are many positive indicators for life possibly being there now: water in the form of ice, vapor, and liquid (droplets). Plenty of evidence of concurrent fluvial erosion. There is a massive seasonal release each year of Nitrogen near the Mars equator during Mars Spring - Summer warm season. The evidence keeps stacking up for life. So yes, maybe there is at least cryptoendolithic microbial life on Mars.

If true, does that mean there are Aliens? Yes, at least in the form of microbial life.

Hey, many scientists do speculate further and we can speculate also. Personally, I think that in the vast Universe the possibility that there is intelligent life off of Earth, I think is very probable, very real. That is about as far as I can go. Check it out on your own. Stephen Hawkings has just come out and said, that we should stop calling for ET, because if they are there, they probably want our resources. Kinda the same thing that happened to the Native North Americans when Columbus arrived. It didn't work out to well for them.




Q: How come we don't talk about GOD in science class?

A: Because Science is about Cosmic Order and can only answer What? and How? questions. Science uses the tool called the Scientific Method and can only deal with Scientific Hypotheses. They must be testable. There must be an experiment that can attempt to invalidate the hypothesis.

Religion and Faith, Logic, Philosophy are all about Cosmic Purpose, and can answer Who? and Why? questions. Science can't answer these questions since they are not testable.

Both are very different questions, and use very different tools to attempt to answer them. However, they are both compatible human endeavors, though very different.

Hey, we went over this in fine detail in Chapter 1: About Science, in our Pual Hewitt, Conceptual Physics text when we learned all about the Scientific Method. Do I have to go back over this again? Apparently I do.





We all have a public persona.


In my own life I can open my mind freely and discover truth without criticism. Thank GOD we have this freedom. At least for now.


I apologize for the F-bomb in the following graphic, but it gets the point accross. This is how some people and goverments view our freedom of speech . . .





This is what is happening to our freedoms . . .




Thank GOD we still have the Constitution and Bill of Rights for at least a little longer. I appluad the ACLU and send them money as often as I can.



Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jun 27, 2010 - 11:46pm PT
By the way, this is how most people view 9-11 Truth . . .





But more and more people are pulling their heads out, and waking up.

Good.

It is a painful process no doubt.

We are better for it. Our eyes are open and we know now to question and look carefully at everything. Harder to pull off "false-flags" when you are very aware that they do indeed occur, and they do indeed do this.


The Truth Will Set You Free.


Your mind is no longer manipulated by the powers that be.


That is freedom; a very, very, important kind of freedom. You can't be fooled again.
WBraun

climber
Jun 28, 2010 - 12:00am PT
You can't be fooled again.


Don't be so sure .....
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jun 28, 2010 - 01:03am PT
WB,

You are right.

Let's just say, we now have a much better way of looking at things and asking the right questions. A better, a more balanced approach.

One of them will always be, "Is this a false-flag, an inside job, MIHOP?"

We will now always be able to ask that question and seriously speculate, and immediatley look into the facts. We won't be blind to this specualtion or to this possibility. Where as someone else who has not come to this truth can not even begin to speculate this way.



I'll be honest. With the Gulf spill I thought this shortly after the seroiusness of the spill was known. I do not think it is. It is truly an accident based on greed and not ever having drilled this deep before in the ocean. Russia has only gone this deep on the Continental plates, not Oceanic plates. Way too much can go wrong with a moveable platform at sea etc. It dramatically increases the risks.



Here is a really good discussion on that from Pastor Lindsey Williams, and talking to his Oil Elite contact that is very much a part of the the NWO. Here is what he has to say about all of this. I recommend a listen. Very eye-opening as to what this all means. But it truly was an accident that came about by greed, lack of experience, rushing things and not taking precautions etc. But the seriousness of this dissaster is Orwellianly dark . . . I hope we can stop it. I don't know. I can't imagine what will happen if we can't. I do not think a Nuclear blast to seal it is an option. It might make it even worse. They need to start sucking all of it up and let tankers just come and fill up. Capture all leaks at the actual leaks.

I do not agree with the use of fossil fuels, but now we have a massive outflow of oil going into the eco-system of the World's oceans and atmosphere with no way of stopping the flow. Capture it and use it.

There is no Peak Oil at this time. They have discovered vast oil reserves very deep now. This is beyond biotic fossil fuels. Yes, fossil fuels develop biotically, that is proven and true. But there is now new discoveries so deep that biotic origin just doesn't explain it. The geochemistry and developement of oil this deep, they are specualting is abiotic in formation. This is changing everything we know about oil, especially deep oil.

I highly recommend a listen to all 8 parts:

Lindsey Williams Returns to Update Us About Toxic Gases Spreading into Florida on Alex Jones Tv 1/8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAPSOeBdSDA&feature=related


R.B.

Trad climber
Land of the Mud Flow
Jun 28, 2010 - 01:21am PT
You all are on Crack!

I think about 5.9 OW (that is)
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 28, 2010 - 01:52am PT
got any kids, wade?

klim, my problem with your approach to teaching is that you don't speak your mind and you don't think you can. most of the school system is like this. you are forced to homogenize everything controversial. kids come away with a fairly uniform groupthink from this.

my wife and i understand the bad things that are going on in the world, and we can't even talk about them around the dinner table with our own children, now into their 20s. information bias at work again, and at least part of it comes from a steady diet of half-truths. even if you're wrong in what you teach, i'd rather have my kids pick up on it and discuss it at home. they'll learn when someone is sincere. the message you're giving with all that equivocation is "i can't do anything and someday you won't be able to either".

i have a brother who's been a history teacher in public schools for more than 30 years. we disagree on plenty, he hates the school system too, but he showed 9/11 truth videos in his class until the principal begged him to stop. not ordered, but begged. he is also notorious for teaching the u.s. constitution from cover to cover and instructing students as to their rights as jurors if they get called to jury duty. if you don't know about the jury nullification question, that'll get you out of jury duty right away. but if you understand it, you'll probably want to serve.

btw, my brother put me onto that lindsey williams stuff and i also recommend it be listened to. looks like they decided to sit on mega resources so they could create false energy crises.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jun 28, 2010 - 02:59am PT
TB,

Much of what you just said is deep and true. I will respond in depth later. I'm getting tired.

But I just can't win here at ST.

Some think I'm way too contraversial and out to lunch and shouldn't be a public school teacher, and then others are saying I'm not contraversial enough and should just speak my mind, and feel free to talk about these issues. I can as it relates to science. The environment, resources, our reliance on non-renewable resources, the possibilty of ET life and many contraversial issues as it relates to modern physics what we should be doing and the Physics and the Earth Science related in all of that I passionately talk and demostrate about that in depth.

Well, there has to be an honest, decent middle ground. I'm here to teach science. I have to teach topics within the State Standardized Curriculum for Physics and Earth Science from A - Z by a certain time of the year and get the students ready for the CA State Standardized tests by a certain mark or time in the year. There isn't room to wiggle much. It is busy, busy, busy.

I do try to instill in my students the ability to learn and how to learn. I also teach them and show them many common held everyday misconceptions and prove them wrong through science throughout the entire year. I rewire their realities as far as that goes. I also try to instill in them a fascination about the natural world around them, and to make observations and to ask questions; the basis of the scientific method, to learn new knowledge. I also try to instill in them the fact that what we know is so little in comparison to what there is to know. What we know is like the thickness of polish on a bowling ball of all knowledge and discoveries to be made. We are just beginning.

We can talk about contraversial topics in passing. I encourage them to look into them deeper on their own. I tell them to question everything, and do not be afraid to look at all sides of an issue. And to do anything less is intellectual dishonesty and bias.

It isn't perfect, but we all got to work and earn a living. I enjoy teaching. I want to be able to teach for a long, long time.

You are right. There are limitations. All teachers sense this. Sad but very true. Most jobs you can't freely speak your mind without worry of retribution or being fired.

You said you notice it with your own grown children. You can't talk about 9-11 truth I suppose because it will get heated and your own grown kids will think you are bat-poop crazy? I'm just speculating based on what you said. Is this true?

turd

climber
Jun 28, 2010 - 07:09am PT
None of the truthers are inclined to respond to being compared with religious nuts?

Here's my surprised look.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Jun 28, 2010 - 01:12pm PT
got any kids, wade?

32 this semester. And 40- 60 parents who want to hold me responsible for shaping their 20 something kids' already fully formed intellects. I don't teach Theology, Philosophy or Natural Sciences and don't have a dog in any of those races. I convey information apropos to the curriculum and try to, above all give them the opportunity to think for themselves.

I'm curious/confused by this:
my wife and i understand the bad things that are going on in the world, and we can't even talk about them around the dinner table with our own children, now into their 20s. information bias at work again, and at least part of it comes from a steady diet of half-truths.

Are you saying that you refuse to discuss the bad things happening?
Are you saying that your kids refuse to discuss the bad things happening?
Are you saying that your kids don't know about the bad things happening?
That they are deceived by steady diet of half-truths?

As for this:
even if you're wrong in what you teach, i'd rather have my kids pick up on it and discuss it at home. they'll learn when someone is sincere. the message you're giving with all that equivocation is "i can't do anything and someday you won't be able to either"

How does this square with not trusting your kids intellects with X teacher?

Interesting discussion.

Going to be a hot one today. You a baseball fan Tony?
couchmaster

climber
pdx
Jun 28, 2010 - 05:24pm PT
Damn, I wish I hadn't posted up there. Reilly, you should consider starting a new upskirt (OT) thread. These beauties will get lost here.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 28, 2010 - 06:47pm PT
i meant kids of your own, wade.

you probably won't think i'm very special either, but one night at the teacher conferences my wife and i told the english teacher she could just take a break for our time and relax and talk about anything she wanted. i think i saw tears in her eyes.

if i didn't explain it well enough, our kids don't want to hear about a whole list of subjects that are currently off the dinner table. we trusted their intellects to homogenized curricula taught by the timid, and that, with lots of help from peer pressure, made them into rosy-sunglassed yuppies. i'll grant you that it isn't healthy for the young to be too cynical. god's in his heaven, all's right with the world, as a seven-year-old sweatshop worker once put it. and things change. i can actually talk to my son now about a few of those subjects privately. it took a small crisis to get there.

the kids did come away from lausd with a valuable life skill. when things got out of hand, they'd get pretty thick with their peers. they learned to work the shortcuts and not take any of it too seriously.

baseball indeed. i do mountain sports, a little woodworking and some amateur music scholarship. scholarship here doesn't mean money to pay to teachers. it means investing in the pleasure of your own learning, which is probably the furthest thing from anyone's thoughts in that sweatshop called school. learning? pleasure? gimme a break, right? i read books on a variety of subjects, but not sports trivia, which i leave to the great intellects for which it is intended.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 29, 2010 - 03:57pm PT
wade, little queries like that one about baseball, with a major sermon attached--a great classroom technique, i'm sure, but it irritates fellow adults to no end.

i'll be frank. i think you've developed a major attitude problem about parents. i don't know the first thing about what you teach and how you teach it, so let's assume you're one of the best in that way.

klim and i go back a bit on these threads. klim has rather strange beliefs from my point of view, but we agree on the basic premise of 9/11 truth: it was a false flag-type operation, something with much precedent in history, involving the top levels of our government. google operation northwoods, such things have been cooked up before.

klim teaches public school science in spite of personal belief in things like bible codes and aliens hovering around the planet, toying what we do. correct me if i'm wrong, klim. i don't have much use for that stuff. klim is also a devout christian and he subscribes to an interpretation of evolution which he can't really broach in a public school classroom.

this is an important issue. my kids had a pretty good biology teacher in high school who confided that the sharp kids of fundy parents were driving him nuts. i think i was able to help him a bit with my knowledge of teilhard's scientific process theology. i also put him on to stephen jay gould, for which he seemed deeply grateful, and ironically, several years later here, it looks like the gould/conway-morris debate might be just the ticket for defusing this hot little potato. if you guys have the guts to get into it, that is.

it may take klim awhile to catch up on all this, so i've suggested that in the meantime he stop walking his uncomfortable tightrope and seek out a good christian school where they'll be comfortable with him and maybe he'll be able to grow a little better both as a teacher and a philosopher. just a suggestion, of course. i get the feeling he gets a bit frazzled. and the cut in pay might be one of biblical proportions.


Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 29, 2010 - 07:16pm PT
not at all, wade. i wasn't going to make a point of the issue, but you're pressing it.

and always remember, everyone is welcome here on 9/11 tintime. tell your friends to log in!

now let's see if i've got this right. you as a teacher are generally blaming parents for not assuming enough responsibility for the upbringing of their kids. you're trying to tell us that parents expect too much of teachers. i'm assuming this is because of the hard times parents have given you.

i've tried to explain what i said to klimmer, but you want to grind the ax some more, so here we go. i've had occasionally positive interactions with so-called certified teachers, but not a few negative ones as well. "attitude" is something one expects of adolescents, but it shows up in teachers a lot. hey, it rubs off of the kids. i wouldn't want your job. i try to understand. i think it's a nasty, out-of-control system in which education suffers and kids hardly ever learn that important lesson that there is pleasure in learning. i wonder whether you've learned it yourself.

you've made a career of other people's kids, and you've chosen to have none yourself, in the name of population reduction. that would all be well, but i think you picked up a chip on your shoulder in the process. zpg, the way it was originally conceived, was an advocacy of zero population growth. that doesn't mean population reduction, which is what china's going after, and probably high time. for your information, my wife and i adhered quite intentionally to the zpg ethic in having two children. when we die, we shall have left two children behind, which is zero population growth. if it's a worthwhile ethic, perhaps our kids will be interested as well. it's one of those things you teach by example, an important part of parenting. sometimes you don't have to say a word.

i don't think it's possible to be a very good critic of the fears and concerns and emotions of parenthood without experiencing them yourself. what you've been experiencing is understandably wearing you down because you're on the receiving end of the negative aspects of those things. the fact that you can't seem to tolerate the irrationality speaks to your lack of understanding.

school ought to be about learning, not babysitting. if you want that to back that up a little, get parents to do more of their own babysitting, i'll agree wholeheartedly with that. in order to do that, you'll have to reorder daily routines quite a bit through some truly bold reforms. where there's a will, there's a way, but there isn't a will right now. my suggestion, on education and a lot of other issues, is the up-ending of a basically oppressive, recalcitrant and irrational system of power masquerading as democracy. and the key to that, wade, might be found in doing a little homework on the subject of this thread.

since you seem to think you've trespassed over here, do us a favor and answer a question, just as a thought experiment, if it's possible. try to assume that we 9/11 cranks have found some truth in what we're talking about. what would your reaction to that be, as a teacher? ignore it? proclaim it and lose your job? i know a prominent teacher who has. tone it down and feed it with lots of sugar? is that even possible?
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 29, 2010 - 09:34pm PT
rok, i think most presidents commit treason. it goes with the compromises they have to make in coming to power, keeping that power, all the dirty crap they learn about and keep silent about, and responding to the broad pressures of geopolitics. they don't act for america--there's a secret international system going and most americans, whether they're in the heartland or not, just don't want to take a look at it. the proverbial elephant in the living room.

fdr allowed the pearl harbor attack so that we would be drawn into the war, calling it a "day of infamy" that would live on. oh, yes. john kennedy, on the other hand, tried valiantly to fight the system. he knew the risk he was taking coming down on operation northwoods, and he paid for it. give the poor guy an A for the best effort in our lifetimes.

i know all about the liberty incident. i have a good friend who demonstrates for it in front of the israeli consulate. johnson is rumored to have said, "i want that ship on the bottom of the ocean" with all its sailors giving their lives so as not to embarrass israel, or whatever the dark motive was, which i doubt we're going to determine for awhile, if ever.

how do you teach such things? i was hoping (not too much) to hear from wade. some manage, up to a point, my brother among them, as i mentioned. it isn't easy, but i don't think you should be in a classroom, middle school or later, if you're afraid of controversy.

one of the problems with the unnatural shelter given the teaching profession is that they've developed a sense of entitlement to their jobs which the rest of us don't have. you can't fire a teacher for being a lousy teacher, or just because you want to hire a better one. you sure can do all that in the private sector. i've had my sorry ass fired many times. it helps you figure out what you're really good at and what you need to learn.

i mentioned the fella who lost his job, and it bears some detail here. stephen jones was professor of physics at brigham young university. he's a devout mormon and i certainly don't share his religious beliefs, but he knows his science and it's probably all the more careful because of sincere religious beliefs which he knows are not shared by everyone. he's been prominent in physics, having published an article with colleagues in scientific american on the variations of cold fusion, helping to sort out that little flap of 20-some years ago. jones has some of the most sophisticated evidence out there on the wtc, the use of nanothermite, the presence of iron microspheres, the analysis of metallurgical issues. byu came down hard on him.
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jun 29, 2010 - 10:06pm PT
Glad to know you've got it all figured out Tony.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Jun 29, 2010 - 10:08pm PT
you're assuming a great deal Tony.
Rock!...oopsie.

Trad climber
the pitch above you
Jun 29, 2010 - 10:24pm PT
More legs, please. This thread is becoming worthless as it goes on.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jun 29, 2010 - 11:47pm PT
Hey guys,

I mean . . . really . . . thanks for all the career advice. I mean REALLY . . . THANKS . . . (dripping sarcasm). Can we stop now?

I'm very happy teaching in public school. Everyone walks a tight-rope no matter what job they do. (By the way, I have a slack chain in my backyard that I hop on often so I'm pretty good at it.)

By the way Tony, teaching at a religious University, and being a devout Mormon didn't help PhD Steven Jones at BYU, when he came out with 9-11 Truth and discovered and announced incendiaries and controlled demolition brought down the WTC towers. He had to take an early retirement.

Tony, I'm very content with Theistic Evolution. I talk about the mechanics of Evolution just the same as a Darwinian Evolutionist. No different. Yea, I can't come out and say I think GOD controls it and manipulates it, but that is the only difference. Besides, as I explained many, many times before, science can only deal with Scientific Hypotheses. They have to be testable. The last time I looked, or checked, GOD isn't gonna come down and allow himself to be measured, tested, and studied.


Back to what this thread is about . . .


By the way, John Bachar would have posted this image in this thread at some point in time. Sure miss him. In honor and memory of JB . . .






Now, no matter who you are, whether you are a teacher or not, everyone needs to be taught this first and foremost, and then they need to do it!

WBraun

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 01:40am PT
The last time I looked, or checked, GOD isn't gonna come down and allow himself to be measured, tested, and studied.

You completely contradict your self.

God can be measured although the measurements will be unlimited.

God can be tested.

God can be studied. If you can't study him how will you ever know him although you will never come to a complete end to know him.

If these can not be done then you might as well say there is no God.
Prezwoodz

climber
Anchorage
Jun 30, 2010 - 03:08am PT
One thing that can be frustrating with people who seem to actually scream "think for yourself" is that they are normally calling me an idiot for thinking differently then they are.

Thinking for ourselves means believing what we wish to. Personally I think that whole "Think for yourselves" bit contradicts everything you've spoken about religion. You follow "his" words, the book, and prophets or pastors. Who are you to tell someone to think for themselves?
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 30, 2010 - 08:52am PT
klim, i knew you weren't going to take my advice. it's fun trying to make you suffer. i'll get better at it.

btw, they work darn hard at measuring god at fermilab and cern. einstein tried to know god's thoughts and no one seems to think that was blasphemy. god gets studied into the ground at every church, synagogue, seminary, temple, mosque, sunday school and bible class in the world. and god gets tested every time you pray.

bachar was into 9/11?
pa

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 10:09am PT
"bachar was into 9/11?"

Very much so...as well as the Federal Reserve/J.P. Morgan/Rockfeller complex.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jun 30, 2010 - 11:23am PT
The last time I looked, or checked, GOD isn't gonna come down and allow himself to be measured, tested, and studied.



You completely contradict your self.

God can be measured although the measurements will be unlimited.

God can be tested.

God can be studied. If you can't study him how will you ever know him although you will never come to a complete end to know him.

If these can not be done then you might as well say there is no God


WB,


I think you know what I mean.

GOD does not abide by what the scientific community would want him to do to validate his existance. They usually say things like, "Unless I can see him for myself and emperically measure and test and prove GOD, then I'm not going to ever believe." GOD doesn't work that way. He requires that we exercise faith. But he does provide evidence. Evidence that the scientific community can not dispute, but that they have an incredible hard time wrapping their brains around, and therefore try to dismiss it out of hand, but can't.

Outside of doing that, yes, there are many ways to validate GOD and prove he is whom he says he is: his Word "The Good Book," fullfillment of Prophecy, Bible Code, the Shroud of Turin and the actaul face of Christ (see the History Channel special called: "The Real Face of Jesus", truly an amazing program based on science. It is a very powerful witness), "The Star of Bethleham" an amazing discovery within the world of Astronomy and using Keplar's Laws of Planetary Motion and a computer program called "Starry Night." Also the amazing discoveries within the World of Biblical Archeology also validates the historical accuracy of the Word of GOD. More evidence and revelation continues day by day, and year by year. Much more prophecy to be fulfilled in the coming near future.

I personally am more than convinced. Yes, I have to exercise faith, but a great deal now is also based on incredible but real evidence that I can not dispute. Therefore, I believe. In fact, so much so, that I cannot ever go back. For me not to beliveve in GOD and beliveve in his Son Jesus Christ, my personal Lord and Savior, would be impossible. I know and have experienced far too much, thankfully and happily I might add.



OK, so back on topic:






Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 30, 2010 - 11:37am PT
any old bachar posts on ST about that?
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jun 30, 2010 - 11:46am PT
Tony,

Type "Bachar" into the search engine for ST at the top right corner.

You are gonna have to scroll through many posts until you get to one by Bachar himself. But once you find his actual last posts, then click on his name and you should now be able to see his archive of all his posts.

I'm hoping it is all still there.

This is a very good tool and why I like ST so much. You can actually search someone's posts and see what stories they have told through time here in ST. Prety cool.

I would think that Chris Mac would leave Bachar's posts here on ST so we can all go back and read them.

His last post was about the US's poor treatment of Native North American's. I think it was that day or the next and he left us sadly.

So, maybe search Bachar and Native American's or something like that and you should find his last posts and then you can go from there.



Edit:

I found Bachar's last post and thread he started: "4th of You Lie"

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=895048&tn=140

Then click on Bachar's avatar:

http://www.supertopo.com/inc/view_profile.php?dcid=Ozk6Pzw3PiY,

Now you can search Bachar's posts.


Chris Mac thanks for this tool. One of the best things about ST!
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jun 30, 2010 - 12:02pm PT
I love the claim that "no steel-framed building has ever collapsed from fire".
Duh, no steel-framed building has ever had 20,000 GALLONS of jet fuel ignited inside it.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 30, 2010 - 12:10pm PT
back up there midway through klim's last post, reilly. that's building 7 going down quick. no jet fool.

i love that babe, but i found out she's a russian olympian, not jailbait at someone's high school track meet. russian olympic women's shot put contestants have a hard time making it into largo's hot female athlete thread.
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jun 30, 2010 - 12:15pm PT
And if it wasn't Jet fuel........

Was it explosives?
Who put them there?
When did they put them there?
Where did they get the explosives from?
Who ignited the explosives?
How were the explosives placed?
What kind of explosives were used?
How much explosive material was used?
Where did it come from?
Is anyone missing tons of explosive material?
How was it transported to the World Trade Towers?
Who paid for the explosive material?
How long did it take to place the explosives?
How many people were involved in placing the explosives?
How many people were involved in the conspiracy?

I'd love to know.....


Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jun 30, 2010 - 12:18pm PT
Reilly,

Yea, but there have been high-rise steel buildings engulfed in flames, where the entire structure burned for an incredibly long amount of time, and yet the steel frame still stood. Google is your friend.

Steel high-rise buildings, they do not fall/collapse due to fire. The jet fuel burned off very quickly. Yet for the first time in history 3 buildings miraculously all do, and all on the same day! (Wow, miracles do happen and the laws of physics do get suspended, but only when the powers that be want them to. Truly incredible.)

What are the odds of that? Tower 7 wasn't even hit. Even the original impact holes soon after had people standing in the massive holes looking out from them. (Very sad to know that soon after that, the towers would come down.)

Why do we have to keep going over the same stuff round and round? Purposeful amnesia?




Port,


We would all like to know.

We can easily invalidate the OCT of the US Government. That is not hard to do. Easy in fact.

But we can not answer the questions you ask. We would like to.



That is why we have to . . .






And this time do it for real. No white-wash as done by the official "9-11 Commission Report."



The 9-11 Commission Report is pure . . .


100% USDA Grade Bovine Dung.


And many of the original Commission officers now agree. It was compromised.

Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 30, 2010 - 12:24pm PT
the american indian movement is not an unrelated issue. if you check out the murder of anna mae aquash, there are two possible explanations:

she was killed by the fbi

she was "snitchjacketed" by the fbi and killed by fellow aim people who suspected her of being an fbi mole.

the big trial of anna mae's accused killer is coming up. i've come to suspect the same sort of thing going on all over the 9/11 truth movement, where people behave strangely and scuttle things which begin to get traction. labeling us as flakes generally works a charm, but then there was the strange murder of michael zebuhr, a graduate student of engineering professor judy wood.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jun 30, 2010 - 12:25pm PT
In that very brief and poor shot of building 7 it looks to me like there
was damage on the side nearest the Trade Center - jess sayin'.

And 20,000 gallons of jet fuel will burn for quite a while plus it will
bring everything else to flashover so everything burns at a much higher temp.
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jun 30, 2010 - 12:26pm PT
the jet fuel burned off very quickly

What is your source? How do you know this to be true?

none of you have provided a single bit of DIRECT evidence that explosives were used. And don't give me that nanothermite BS. Its been debunked. I want DIRECT EVIDENCE.

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
dirtbag

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 12:28pm PT
the big trial of anna mae's accused killer is coming up. i've come to suspect the same sort of thing going on all over the 9/11 truth movement, where people behave strangely and scuttle things which begin to get traction. labeling us as flakes generally works a charm, but then there was the strange murder of michael zebuhr, a graduate student of engineering professor judy wood.

And yet,millions of folks like you are still free to bend your brains and print whatever you like about the matter.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 30, 2010 - 12:29pm PT
port, get off your sorry posterior and find out and then come back here and tell the rest of us.

you must have grown up with daddy answering everything for you. when it got past question number three from me, my dad always said, "it's that way in order to make little boys ask questions."
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 30, 2010 - 12:32pm PT
it'll come down to a fight, dirtbag, that's for sure. it'd be nice if it could just be a couple of us climbers trying to shove eachother into the campfire.
dirtbag

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 12:34pm PT
I hope you don't lose any sleep over this.
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jun 30, 2010 - 12:35pm PT
You're the one making unsupported claims, not me. Its your job to support them.....so get off your "posterior."
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jun 30, 2010 - 12:38pm PT
Port,


It hasn't been debunked.Thermate/thermite is there throughout the dust samples tested. That is physical empirical evidence. It is there.

Even the USGS admits to finding the FeO microspheres in the 9-11 dust from the WTC towers, that we now know are are a by-product of such explosive incendiaries.

The only thing that has truly been debunked over and over is the 9-11 OCT of the US Government.

You do realize that if you can invalidate any of the OCT, that is is all bunk right? The OCT is a house of cards. We have blown it down a long time ago.
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jun 30, 2010 - 12:56pm PT
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And claims that the attacks on 11/9/01 were made by the US government, and not Saudi/Islamic terrorists, are certainly extraordinary. Delusional may also be applicable. The overwhelming body of evidence - hard, physical evidence, not manipulated, distorted or hearsay - supports the theory that it was indeed Islamic terrorists. If you want to claim something else, be prepared to provide consistent, objective, thorough evidence that not only refutes the widely-accepted 'theory', but that also proves your theory. Minor inconsistencies or gaps in the government theory don't prove anything.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jun 30, 2010 - 01:12pm PT
Oh, Mighty, another naive ostrich!
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jun 30, 2010 - 01:14pm PT
MH,

why provide hard evidence when you can spout off fantasy on the internet? if these delusional conspiracy theorists start listening to you i see a whining windbag of a megathread in the future from them....oh wait, this one already is headed that way.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 30, 2010 - 01:36pm PT
here's a little extraordinary proof for you, MH, about saudi terrorists.

on 9/11, as we all recall, air traffic shut down completely throughout the u.s.

on 9/12, the only planes flying were carrying members of the bin laden family back to saudi, so they wouldn't have to answer questions here. of course, obama was the black sheep of that crew. all the rest were quite closely connected to bush family oil interests and given this preferential treatment.

hey, i quit. there is a good explanation for everything, and i just didn't realize it. and, geez, i knew it all along.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jun 30, 2010 - 01:51pm PT
Thats BS Tony. You suck down everything a truther site spews.

Looks like gullibility runs in your family since your brother shows cdroid vids to his students.
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Jun 30, 2010 - 02:16pm PT
Before 911 few people had ever even heard of the cult-like splinter sect within Sunni Islam called Wahabbi, and indeed, previously they had been responsible for the deaths of more moslems than those of other faiths.

But they have been around for a couple of centuries, and even managed to kill a famous englishman, Gordon of Khartoum, 125 years ago when they sacked that city and killed thousands.


Those that are too busy to study history find it easier to invent boogey men of convenience,..
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 30, 2010 - 02:27pm PT
i'll admit it's controversial, mono. globalresearch, a fairly unflaky canadian thinktank, has this:

“Even though American airspace had been shut down," Sky News reported, "the Bush administration allowed a jet to fly around the US picking up family members from 10 cities, including Los Angeles, Washington DC, Boston and Houston.”

“Two dozen members of Osama bin Laden’s family were urgently evacuated from the United States in the first days following the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington,” CBS reported.

“Most of bin Laden’s relatives were attending high school and college,” the article continued. “Many were terrified, fearing they would be lynched after hearing reports of violence against Muslims and Arab-Americans.”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15186

the snopes "debunkerama" site agrees with you, citing official sources (they always tell the truth so openly) and, of course, the 9/11 commission report, which ignores building 7 completely, and which keane and hamilton themselves have admitted was "a failure".

hey, i'm just pulling the fire alarm. i smell smoke. you decide if you want to go back to sleep.
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jun 30, 2010 - 02:33pm PT
Its been debunked, Jolly.

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm


And I hardly think a site called "rumor mill" is credible. Why do these conspiracy sites always look like a 3rd grader put them together?
WBraun

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 03:21pm PT
Port

Nothing has been debunked.

That site theorizes the same way the so called conspiracy sites do.

But it has been proven the govt. was involved.

The proof is in the US govt. documents themselves.

Obviously some of you people believe everything you read on the internet ....
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jun 30, 2010 - 03:22pm PT
Please post the proof.
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Jun 30, 2010 - 04:12pm PT


Werner gives us a cross between the X Files ("the truth is out there") and A Few Good Men ("You can't handle the truth!!")




LOL
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jun 30, 2010 - 04:15pm PT
The 16 foot hole was on the second floor, dumbass, right about where the tail would go thru.

Truthers like to show the pic that has the huge first floor hole covered by smoke and firefighter water.

Seek and you will find many pics and composite pics that document the huge hole that is wide enough for engine-to-engine entry on the first floor. Also visible is wingtip damage.
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jun 30, 2010 - 04:22pm PT
Official Conspiracy theory

wait, there is an official conspiracy theory? where do i find it?
dirtbag

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 04:23pm PT

This is often used to disprove the fact that a plane was involved.

Notice on the right side of the first frame, below the sky, there is an object that is apparent there above that brown box thing, but not later on, as if it moved out of view.

It sure looks like a tail to me.
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jun 30, 2010 - 04:24pm PT
The Official Non-Conspiracy Theory is presumably in the 9/11 commission report.

The Non-Official Conspiracy Theory? Well, for that one, you just have to believe. Believe really really hard.
dirtbag

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 04:31pm PT
Plus, they managed to get the military establishment, ordinary soldiers, the MSM, etc. etc. go along with it without anyone ever saying a word.

Cheney and Bush and Fattrad must be extraordinarily competent.
dirtbag

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 04:42pm PT
The passenger's families are part of the conspiracy too, no doubt.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jun 30, 2010 - 04:52pm PT
The 16 foot hole was on the second floor, dumbass, right about where the tail would go thru.

Truthers like to show the pic that has the huge first floor hole covered by smoke and firefighter water.

Seek and you will find many pics and composite pics that document the huge hole that is wide enough for engine-to-engine entry on the first floor. Also visible is wingtip damage.

Monolith,

That is a monolithically wrong answer and observation. You can't be more delusional.






Now, tell me. Just how does this AA Flight 77 go through this small hole again? That is an amazing feat of magic and David Copperfield like illusion that massive jet did and the US Government wants you to believe in.

So, now we suspend the laws of physics? So, solid can go through solid now? Amazing how those windows right above the small hole the fuselage just barely squeezes through are not broken from the massive tail. Wow, the wingtips go beyond any of the damage also. Not to mention the massive jet engines. Like Rokjox said, it must have folded up like oragami and just slid through! Or perhaps it acted like a massive retractable umbrella?

It's MAGIC!


dirtbag

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 04:54pm PT
An airliner would look LARGE and TALL next to a 40-50 foot tall building. THAT image is about 12 foot tall tail. Mas o minos ...

It wasn't next to the building in that shot.
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jun 30, 2010 - 04:57pm PT
Only believers from the inner sanctum know the answers to such questions.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jun 30, 2010 - 05:00pm PT
Rok,
Didn't you read my post a few pages back about the straw being driven into a tree by a tornado? The converse is true also. Shoot some aluminum at 600 ft/sec into a massive reinforced masonry structure and it will shred faster than you can say "It's all a neocon conspiracy!" But just because the wings and tail get sheared off doesn't mean they're not dragged into the inferno inside.

By the way, your vid clip is about 4 frames/sec and the jet was moving at least 600 ft/sec and it was 200' long so it would only have been on 1+ frame. That vid is seriously bad quality.
dirtbag

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 05:07pm PT
Does the actual photo frame in the .gif look like it is ANYWHERE NEAR THAT TALL??

Yes. In the photo, the tail is about 1/2-3/5 tall as the Pentagon. (hard to tell from the angle.)

In the gif, even at that distance from the buidling, it looks about 1/2 as tall.

And, it looks like a tail. It was there before, but then it is gone. Why? Because it was moving.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jun 30, 2010 - 05:10pm PT
Yes, conspiracies do happen. People do conspire to do wrong, evil, and crime. Yes, the story about the patsy Arabic box-cutter knife wielding terrorists is "The Official Conspiracy" as told by our Government in the 9-11 Commission Report.

Once again you guys don't know how science works. All you have to do is just invalidate one piece of the OCT as set forth by the US Government and all the house of cards of the OCT fall down.

We have done that over and over.

So, in other words, the OCT can not be correct. This demands a new investigation. The 9-11 Commission Report is a white-wash compromise, designed not to find fault with anyone or any agency. Many of the Commissioners have said publicly it was compromised.

We do not have to answer all the billion other out-lying questions that no doubt we all have. Those must be answered with a true 9-11 investigation. One has not been done yet. Why?
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 30, 2010 - 05:21pm PT
sorry 'bout the slip, doc. don't know how i could get them confused like that.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jun 30, 2010 - 05:25pm PT
All False-flag black-ops have one thing in common purpose . . .

To fool the masses on a grand scale and convince them of doing something . . .

That something is WAR.

And as Major General Smedley Butler, USMC said, WAR IS A RACKET.

Listen to his speech:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4377.htm


Get educated. Watch the video "Why We Fight"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9219858826421983682#


Hermann Goering, quotes about Nazi:
Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_about/nazi

Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jun 30, 2010 - 05:37pm PT
Rok,
As I stated the wings and tail would have had no little inertia and though
sheared would have continued into the hole created by the fuselage as they
are attached to the planes's frame by structural beams.

As for kerosene/jet fuel not being explosive apparently you haven't seen many videos of planes exploding. Any flammable fluid is explosive with the right fuel/air ratio. Go try dumping 12-15,000 gallons in a confined space and seeing if you don't get an explosion. Go search the web for the controlled crashes conducted by NASA and the FAA and see what a nice big bang results out in the open.
dirtbag

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 05:39pm PT
That is about as childish a statement as I can imagine.

Given a quarter of a second later it was...

Why childish?

You said if it is next to the Pentagon then it should be about the same height. Well, it wasn't next to the Pentagon. It was farther way, so they should look different.

The height of a 757 tail is 44 ft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757#Specifications

The height of the Pentago is 77 ft.
http://www.aviewoncities.com/buildings/washington/pentagon.htm

So, the tail is a little less than 3/5 the height of the Pentagon. Again, from the gif, assuming the plane is flying low, and given the perspective, 3/5 looks about right.

And just what do you think that large tail looking thingy is, if it isn't actually a tail?
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jun 30, 2010 - 05:41pm PT
Dirt,
your ht is based on a wheels down scenario. Pretty sure the ragheads didn't go "three in the green, down and locked". Subtract about 10' for a belly-in.
dirtbag

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 05:41pm PT
Again, first frame:


Sure looks like a tail of about the right height for a 757.

If not, then what is it? It was obviously moving.
dirtbag

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 05:43pm PT
Dirt,
your ht is based on a wheels down scenario. Pretty sure the ragheads didn't go "three in the green, down and locked". Subtract about 10' for a belly-in.

Good point.

So...slightly less than half the height of the Pentagon (34 ft. 757/77 ft Pentagon).

Still plausible.
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jun 30, 2010 - 05:45pm PT
I like how everyone thinks they're an expert in engineering and physics.....its ridiculous.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jun 30, 2010 - 05:51pm PT
Rok,
Enought with the gel! This isn't "Something about Mary"! Jet A is not gelled! You might be confusing it with JP-7 which the SR-71 used but jet A aint't close to that.

"Commercial jet fuel, known as Jet-A, is pure kerosene and has a flashpoint of 120 degrees Fahrenheit (49 degrees Celsius). It is a high-quality fuel, however, and if it fails the purity and other quality tests for use on jet aircraft, it is sold to other ground-based users with less demanding requirements, like railroad engines. Commercial jet fuel as well as military jet fuel often includes anti-freeze to prevent ice buildup inside the fuel tanks."

It goes boom reel gud!

monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jun 30, 2010 - 05:51pm PT

I do admire your persistence RokJox, but you should quit while you've got a head, brainless as it is.

Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jun 30, 2010 - 05:53pm PT
Coz,

Read all about "Operation Northwoods" from the official Gov archives. It has now been released. I think you will find your answer and what they are willing to do, and capable of doing.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf


If we were willing to do that in the 60s, you think we were willing to do something like it on 9-11-2001?

No doubt. The powers that be have gotten even more evil.
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jun 30, 2010 - 05:53pm PT
you would think that as smart and knowledgeable as RJ is about everything he posts on here that he could at least find a job.
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jun 30, 2010 - 06:02pm PT
Klimmer, you have provided no explanation to account for the observation that Coz produced (Cuba has nothing to do with this conversation and does not support you hypothesis) . Once again, where are the passengers and why was DNA from the passengers in the Pentagon?
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jun 30, 2010 - 06:10pm PT
yeah, it does.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jun 30, 2010 - 06:14pm PT
...and it was skidding along the ground when it hit. (oops, there goes the head)
dirtbag

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 06:15pm PT
and it wasn't 45 plus landing gear, it was 45 - landing gear (look at the diagram you provided)
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jun 30, 2010 - 06:16pm PT
Ya didn't subtract 10' for the bogies and it was plowing dirt at impact.
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jun 30, 2010 - 06:17pm PT
Which mountain range is below the 757 in the photo that RJ posted? It kind of looks like the North Cascades, doesn't it?
dirtbag

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 06:20pm PT
That's what I was thinking MH
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jun 30, 2010 - 06:21pm PT
Klimmer, you have provided no explanation to account for the observation that Coz produced (Cuba has nothing to do with this conversation and does not support you hypothesis) . Once again, where are the passengers and why was DNA from the passengers in the Pentagon?


Port and Coz,

I can't keep holding your hand and leading you to answers. Yes, it is pertinent to the conversation. If you would read it you would understand what they are willing to do to get rid of bodies.

Why do I bother talking about this anymore. You obviously are stuck in denial, and as we know it is a very loooooooooooooooong river.

Got things to do.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jun 30, 2010 - 06:22pm PT
Looks like the area just east of Snoqualmie Pass.
Could be a bit farther north though.
Note his altitude of 17,000' to stay below controlled airspace, right Rok?
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jun 30, 2010 - 06:30pm PT
yea, you've got it all figured out and know EXACTLY what happened, while we're just a bunch of idiots.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 30, 2010 - 06:32pm PT
here's an idea for us, klim, rox--

let's even the game a little bit. these guys gang up on us, start hammering us with questions. some of them are worth the trouble, some aren't. we do what we can.

but let's ask some questions back. only fair, right?

so--reilly, dirtbag--whoever wants to take it on--

we've got four itty bitty frames here of something hitting the pentagon. three of the frames show nothing but explosion, one of them shows something, can't really tell what it is.

but--this was the only surveillance camera the pentagon had going? positioned at the profile, showing very little, and very fleetingly? it took years to get the pentagon to release this, and everyone had seen it beforehand because they had leaked it anyway. i know this from personal experience--have been chasing down their lies for the past six years.

there's gotta be hundreds of security cams. i saw a photo once of them positioned all along the roof, maybe 50 feet apart. get real now, we're talking the u.s. pentagon here.

we've had consistent reports that, immediately after the hit, government agents showed up at the nearby citgo station and sheraton hotel and confiscated all security cam footage that would have shown the strike. why would they do that?

that old pollo loco commercial, if you've heard it: what are they hiding?
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jun 30, 2010 - 06:42pm PT
I bet port was talking about RokJox.

The posts are flying faster then a monkey throwing....

You sound very reasonable to me Coz.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 30, 2010 - 06:44pm PT
as far as the dna goes, yes, this was in the news for two months afterward.

but what was in the news? well, they had a big government warehouse somewhere and were meticulously going over all remains, to be returned to the families.

that's about all i remember, but i'm going to ask you guys to chip in here, and let the chips fall where they may.

i was in the news business for 10 years, reporter/editor for little, insignificant newspapers around the country. when something like this would come up, we'd send human interest reporters out to be all over it. for something like this, we'd be at the doorstep of bereaved families, interviewing them on their loss. photographers would be taking pictures of the sad containers of the bits of identified remains. it would be all over the front page.

does anybody remember anything like this?
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jun 30, 2010 - 06:48pm PT
Coz,

Im on your side of this thing..... I was referring to Rox, sorry. The problem I have with these conspiracy theories is that they create more questions than answers, and the authors of these theories don't seem to care. And more importantly, they favor a complicated and impossible network over a more obvious and simple explanation.
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jun 30, 2010 - 06:55pm PT
Passengers? Better question try and find out who they where, and if they really existed.

You're getting WAY out there....you're accusing these families of faking their grief. Thats pretty messed up.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 30, 2010 - 07:04pm PT
re: what jolly roger mentions about the molten steel.

there's no question about this. the new york times called it the "greatest mystery" at one point.

if the jet fuel scenario were true, we'd have the fuel burning at an optimum temp of about 1800F, weakening, but not melting, the steel structure of each tower and causing them to come down catastrophically. just to be extra nice guys here--don't hate us 'cause we're beautiful--we're leaving building 7 entirely out of this scenario. but don't forget that either.

structural steel--iron alloyed with chromium--melts at 2750F. takes a lot to get up there from 1800F. large pools of very hot liquid steel were found weeks afterwards as they cleared the debris. this indicates some rather extraordinary energies involved.

there is no doubt about this aspect of the evidence. this is another question from our side of this issue. occam's razor's answer: thermite.
Mimi

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 07:07pm PT
Hurry! Fetch more koolaid. Why, oh why, did this topic deserve another thread? Woe is us when nellie is them.

Truthers = Fools = Gihugic Fail
dirtbag

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 07:24pm PT
As far as the video goes. Please! No where near the hieght nor length. I see the tail.....good job.....I can also see where it impacts....I thus can judge the hieght to be approximately 30ft. (Per Video) I also notice I have no problem picking up white anywhere in the Photo. Funny that I have never really scene a black commercial airliner. At least not one so dark. But I digress....the official story does say they pulled of an insane turn, and sorry no belly skid. So with the wings up, why can't I see them?

It was offered as evidence by truthers of no plane.

Okay, I spotted what looks like a plane in the video. Right size, right shape. But of course, it must have been planted, even though you have no evidence of that.

dirtbag

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 07:28pm PT
i was in the news business for 10 years, reporter/editor for little, insignificant newspapers around the country. when something like this would come up, we'd send human interest reporters out to be all over it. for something like this, we'd be at the doorstep of bereaved families, interviewing them on their loss. photographers would be taking pictures of the sad containers of the bits of identified remains. it would be all over the front page.

This is about the stupidest god damned thing I've read.

Seriously, look it up, news business man. 5 minutes of googling outta do it. Even someone with 10 years of experience in little/insignificant newspapers can do it.

If you find nothing, write a damned story of it. There's a pulitzer waiting for you. There's a reason NONE--not ONE--major newspaper, TV, or internet site has ever ran a story on this. Because it's WHACKED. And NOT because they're indifferent, lazy or conspiring.
Mimi

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 07:31pm PT
JR, it's not about being in denial or not thinking this through. I know this is an old saw, but do you honestly believe that out of all the people necessary to pull off such a stunt, none of them have come forward?

Do you belive the Pentagon hit was a plane or a missile?
dirtbag

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 07:42pm PT
Crackpot sources don't count.

No missing/deceased people, huh?

Why hasn't NBC covered this? The WA post? Wall Street Journal?

Why?

It would be easy enough to verify that no one was actually killed in the crash, and boy would it reveal a tangled mess. The mother of all f*#king stories would be written. Easy, too! Low hanging fruit.

Money, fame, all that good stuff for a news organization and half-way ambitious reporter.

Why?

Because, in fact, THERE WERE PASSENGERS/CREW/TERRORISTS KILLED ON THAT PLANE THAT CRASHED INTO THE PENTAGON.

Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jun 30, 2010 - 07:47pm PT
That is a cheap shot, make by a puny knothole f*#ker.


Something like 1 in five men are currently out of work, working out of their field, or underemployed in Idaho.


I happen to be wealthy enough and have the support of enough people that I am not dying from a lack of work.

I can go on like this for years.



I must have been pretty smart at some point, I have managed to be unemployed a LONG time, and I still am drinking beer, riding two thousand dollar mountain bikes, and taking trips everywhere from New York to Yosemite.

Can you say as much?






Personal attacks at me are not going to disprove the Pentagon attack issues that are being raised here.

yes,

just keep the old lady working while you play intellegentsia on the interweb. whatever gets your Rox off.

the sorry thing is you aint smart enough to see what a true waste you are.

now back on topic, you guys are whacked. did the cow jump over the moon?
dirtbag

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 07:49pm PT
Do you belive the Pentagon hit was a plane or a missile?

Mimi you forgot to mention the Plutonium Q26 Space Modulator as a possibility. It's just as plausible.

Mimi

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 07:56pm PT
No, I believe it was an Illudium PU-36 Space Modulator.

White smoke at the airport?!
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jun 30, 2010 - 07:57pm PT
Anyone for a Throopian Negategrator?
dirtbag

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 07:58pm PT
Ah, my bad. You're right Mimi.
Mimi

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 08:01pm PT
It appears that there was also a Q-35 Space Modulator. Looks like there was a regular one and an explosive model. Who knew!? LOL!
dirtbag

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 08:04pm PT
Who knew?

Cheney did.
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jun 30, 2010 - 08:06pm PT
And lets not forget, the rest of the WORLD is in on this story. MANY articles have been printed in international publications and some entire nations flat out say we are lying

yeah, but you fail to mention those nations are Iran and Venezuela.

Mimi

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 08:07pm PT
Here's the one we all remember. The Q36. Where's Bugs when we need him!

Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jun 30, 2010 - 08:09pm PT
i guess no one's taking up the challenge to answer my questions, and no one has any specific recollection of the stories surrounding the dna testing. making a lot of noise, tho.

and now we have someone named mimi, "climber" from nowhere using abusive guy-language like dirtbag, who i know is for real. anyone know mimi here?
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 08:10pm PT
Wow. There's a bunch of kooky people out there.

Now dontcha think that if there really was a conspiracy to do all of this damage for whatever reasons "they" had, they would've done a better job at figgering out what they would have to cover up and taken measures to do so in the first place to eliminate just the very speculation that's going on?

We're talking about some pretty intelligent people with some impressive resources on hand. Least they could do is hire a couple of physicists to work on blast dynamics and melting points, etc. And how about planting some creatively edited videos in the surveillance cameras to support their story?

Your theories make these people seem like idiot savants.
Mimi

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 08:17pm PT
Tony, I think I've been around here longer than you. I do exist. People that post here actually know me. And so could you if you weren't too lazy to do a quick search.

I painfully read your previous posts. Since you are obviously a Truther, I have very limited patience for your inane questions or comments.

Pay close attention, Tony. This is what happened. Really. Notice no presence of thermite.

Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jun 30, 2010 - 08:26pm PT
rox.

for you the truth is in the toilet bowl, really. sniff, touch taste. yep. same sh%% as you guys are spouting.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jun 30, 2010 - 08:32pm PT
Maybe it was an inside job, or maybe they let it happen after finding out, or maybe they're just covering up incompetence, but even the 9-11 commissioners themselves have come out against their own report, stating they ignored things for political reasons.

THerefore, real questions about Atta, money, the war gamees and such haven't been asked nor answered officially.

Why did Bush and Cheney have to testify together, not under oath, and not recorded?

BS

PEace

karl
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jun 30, 2010 - 08:42pm PT
Perhaps a Vorpal Sword was used.
dirtbag

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 09:08pm PT
Did I say 5 minutes of googling?

I came up with a list of Pentagon crash victims in about 12 seconds.

Here you are, with photos even, courtesy of the Washington Post.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/911victims/


And hey, there are even profiles of each person.


Prove those people weren't on that flight. Go ahead.

Unless you truthers think WaPo is in on it.

Oh, and Tony "The profiles in this feature were written in the months following Sept. 11, 2001."

So yes, reporters did seek out info on the victims.

It's all there.
dirtbag

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 09:16pm PT
Where's Bugs when we need him!

Pssst...that Wascally Wabbit was a conspirator too.
Mimi

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 09:16pm PT
Rok, there was a recent documentary, Attack on the Pentagon (Discovery Channel), that explains much of what you are questioning.

Just found this. Has several eyewitness accounts of the JET crash. For crying out loud, the Solicitor General's wife was on that plane. Remember that office? Your pal, Kagan, served in that position.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2004/110804factsstraight.htm
Mimi

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 09:44pm PT
Put together the whole story?

We got sucker punched. Face it. We have been in this war since before 1979. This has been going on forever and thanks to irresponsible population growth, it's getting worse. Checked out Kingdom of Heaven, Director's Cut (Ridley Scott) this week. Good movie and fair perspective. Not about population growth BTW. God forbid, the subject no one can handle.
Mimi

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 10:03pm PT
No I'm Mimi's Steve.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jun 30, 2010 - 10:23pm PT
This has been going on forever and thanks to irresponsible population growth, it's getting worse. Checked out Kingdom of Heaven, Director's Cut (Ridley Scott) this week. Good movie and fair perspective. Not about population growth BTW. God forbid, the subject no one can handle.



Mimi,

Oh you mean this kinda population growth?

MSNBC In Cover-Up Of Manifestly Provable Population Control Plan
http://www.prisonplanet.com/msnbc-in-cover-up-of-manifestly-provable-population-control-plan.html




Yea, welcome to the NWO. Enjoy your stay until we don't want or need you anymore.

Hey, at least they were honest and told us they would do this way back in the 70s:







American Stonehenge: Monumental Instructions for the Post-Apocalypse
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/17-05/ff_guidestones

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones




Gee, doesn't that sound nice?





http://www.prisonplanet.com/msnbc-in-cover-up-of-manifestly-provable-population-control-plan.html

Listed below is a compendium of quotes from elitists who have time and again expressed their intent to see humanity culled by 80 per cent or more. Some come from the progenitors of the eugenicist movement and others from elitists and organizations who are still very much active and in positions of influence.

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”
John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control.”
John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.”
John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”
John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”
John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.”
John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”
John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated.”
John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“The resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
 Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind

“In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it.”
 Jacques Cousteau, 1991 explorer and UNESCO courier

“I believe that human overpopulation is the fundamental problem on Earth Today” [and] “We humans have become a disease, the Humanpox.”
 Dave Foreman, Sierra Club, co founder of Earth First!

“We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”
 Margaret Sanger

“MAINTAIN HUMANITY UNDER 500,000,000 IN PERPETUAL BALANCE WITH NATURE”
 Anonymously commissioned Georgia Guidestones

“Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind”
 Theodore Roosevelt

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
 Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal”
 Ted Turner, founder of CNN.

“And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”
 The Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, p. 60, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz

“Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.”
 David Rockefeller Banker, Honorary director of Council on Foreign Relations, honorary chairman of Bilderberg Group & founder of Trilateral Commission. Member of Bohemian Club, praising Chairman Mao, whose policies killed at least 30 million people.

“Every one of you who gets to survive has to bury nine.”
 Eric Pianka

“[Disease] will control the scourge of humanity,”
 Eric Pianka

“I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.”
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), Philosopher

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
 Margaret Sanger

“Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need … We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.”
 Margaret Sanger

“Eugenics is… the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.”
 Margaret Sanger

“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many”
 Sir James Lovelock

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
 Dave Foreman, US environmentalist and co-founder of the environmental movement Earth First!

“The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.”
Christopher Manes, Earth First!

“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to itizens chosen for childbearing.”
 David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

“I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding”
 Theodore Roosevelt

“The Puerto Ricans are the dirtiest, laziest, most dangerous and theivish race of men ever inhabiting this sphere… I have done my best to further the process of extermination by killing off eight and transplanting cancer into several more.”
 Dr Cornelius Rhoads (1898-1959) | Rockefeller Institute, Rhoads also headed two large chemical warfare projects, had a seat on the AEC (Atomic Energy Commission), and he headed the Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research

“I have studied with great interest,” he told a fellow Nazi, “the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
 Adolf Hitler

“While we were pussyfooting around…the Germans were calling a spade a spade.”
 Whitney, executive secretary of the American Eugenics Society, declared of Nazism

(referring to sterilizations) “The Germans are beating us at our own game.”
 Joseph DeJarnette, superintendent of Virginia’s Western State Hospital, 1934

“From an historical point of view, the first method which presents itself is execution . . . Its value in keeping up the standard of the race should not be underestimated.” “Applied Eugenics” also devoted a chapter to “Lethal Selection,” which operated “through the destruction of the individual by some adverse feature of the environment, such as excessive cold, or bacteria, or by bodily deficiency.”
 In 1918, Dr. Paul Popenoe, the Army venereal disease specialist during World War I, co-wrote the widely used textbook, “Applied Eugenics”

“Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague.”
 Thomas Malthus

“Englishmen Francis Galton to describe the “science” of bettering human stock and the elimination of unwanted characteristics… and individuals. Galton proposed societal intervention for the furtherance of “racial quality,” maintaining that “Jews are specialized for a parasitical existence upon other nations” and that “except by sterilization I cannot yet see any way of checking the produce of the unfit who are allowed their liberty and are below the reach of moral control.”
 Francis Galton

“The Aids epidemic, rather than being a scourge, is a welcome development in the inevitable reduction of human population… If it didn’t exist, radical environmentalists would have to invent [it].”
 Dave Foreman, the founder of the environmental group EARTH FIRST!

Francis Crick, who together with James Watson is credited with the groundbreaking discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA, declared at a conference shortly after receiving the Nobel Prize that the “reproductive autonomy” of human beings could not be tolerated in the future. Among other things, Crick suggested the idea of adding a chemical to public water supplies, that would make men and women sterile; only those who qualified for a “license” to produce children, would be given an antidote drug.

“We have to take away from humans in the long run their reproductive autonomy as the only way to guarantee the advancement of mankind.”
 Francis Crick

Alexander Graham Bell advocated passing laws (with success in some states) for compulsory sterilization of people deemed to be, as Bell called them, a “defective variety of the human race.”

“If the youth is content to abandon his previous associates and to throw in his lot whole-heartedly with the rulers, he may, after suitable tests, be promoted, but if he shows any regrettable solidarity with his previous associates, the rulers will reluctantly conclude that there is nothing to be done with him except to send him to the lethal chamber before his ill-disciplined intelligence has had time to spread revolt. This will be a painful duty to the rulers, but I think they will not shrink from performing it.”
 Bertrand Russell, “The Scientific Outlook”, 1931

“The first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size.”
 Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb





People losing their lives on 9-11-2001 meant nothing to these people (the NWO). In fact it serves their purpose. They want more 9-11s not less. They want more WAR, not less. WAR is about population control and big-business. These are 2 things they are very much into.



But how will a good deal of people respond including some here on ST?


Mimi

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 10:28pm PT
The over-population concern that I'm referring to is from ecologists, not politicians, social elitists or racists.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jun 30, 2010 - 10:32pm PT
The over-population concern that I'm referring to is from ecologists, not politicians, social elitists or racists.



Mimi,

Oh you mean this biologist/ecologist, my bad?:


http://www.prisonplanet.com/msnbc-in-cover-up-of-manifestly-provable-population-control-plan.html

Genocidal Population Reduction Programs Embraced By Academia

One such individual who embraces the notion that humans are a virus that should be wiped out en masse for the good of mother earth is Dr. Eric R. Pianka, an American biologist based at the University of Texas in Austin.


Dr Erik Pianka, the American biologist who advocated the mass genocide of 90% of the human race and was applauded by his peers.

During a speech to the Texas Academy of Science in March 2006, Pianka advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the world’s population through the airborne ebola virus. The reaction from scores of top scientists and professors in attendance was not one of shock or revulsion – they stood and applauded Pianka’s call for mass genocide.

Pianka’s speech was ordered to be kept off the record before it began as cameras were turned away and hundreds of students, scientists and professors sat in attendance.

Saying the public was not ready to hear the information presented, Pianka began by exclaiming, “We’re no better than bacteria!”, as he jumped into a doomsday malthusian rant about overpopulation destroying the earth.

Standing in front of a slide of human skulls, Pianka gleefully advocated airborne ebola as his preferred method of exterminating the necessary 90% of humans, choosing it over AIDS because of its faster kill period. Ebola victims suffer the most tortuous deaths imaginable as the virus kills by liquefying the internal organs. The body literally dissolves as the victim writhes in pain bleeding from every orifice.



Pianka then cited the Peak Oil fraud as another reason to initiate global genocide. “And the fossil fuels are running out,” he said, “so I think we may have to cut back to two billion, which would be about one-third as many people.”

Later, the scientist welcomed the potential devastation of the avian flu virus and spoke glowingly of China’s enforced one child policy, before zestfully commenting, “We need to sterilize everybody on the Earth.”

At the end of Pianka’s speech the audience erupted not to a chorus of boos and hisses but to a raucous reception of applause and cheers as audience members clambered to get close to the scientist to ask him follow up questions. Pianka was later presented with a distinguished scientist award by the Academy. Pianka is no crackpot. He has given lectures to prestigious universities worldwide.

Indeed, the notion that the earth’s population needs to be drastically reduced is a belief shared almost unanimously by academics across the western hemisphere.
dirtbag

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 10:33pm PT
What NWO?
Mimi

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 10:34pm PT
You must love this one Klimmer. One of my favorites. Did you see that OBL is alive and well in Iran? And his Egyptian surgeon.

Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jun 30, 2010 - 10:39pm PT
This NWO:




Scary. Coming to a nation you reside in -- very soon.
dirtbag

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 10:40pm PT
That's not a NWO. Sorry.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jun 30, 2010 - 10:43pm PT
NWO = Bilderberg's = Foreign Council = G20 , etc. etc.



New World Order
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory);



It does exist. They do have an agenda.

In fact #1 would be:

Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.


They are working on it. A false-flag here, a pre-emptive WAR there, a serious desease way over there etc.
dirtbag

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 10:44pm PT

Genocidal Population Reduction Programs Embraced By Academia

That's one ecologist. Not "Academia."
Mimi

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 10:55pm PT
No, you would respect and acknowledge this man's work. I get his newsletter and it is very progressive from a scientific standpoint. I am very pessimistic about correcting the over population problem anytime soon. He makes it clear how there is nearly zero discussion of this issue on most any level.

http://www.rossmccluney.com/
dirtbag

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 10:59pm PT
He makes it clear how there is nearly zero discussion of this issue on most any level.

So true--sadly.
Mimi

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 11:25pm PT
The concept of any population of organisms becoming extinct if its growth rate drops below 1% is scary since that is what the human pop is supposed to be doing. But then we have the other side screaming about over-population. What gives?
dirtbag

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 11:25pm PT
I've heard that too.

Immigration is expected to keep US population growing.
Mimi

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 11:27pm PT
From what I've seen, over-population is a cultural phenom. I think that is what scares some people. Religion and politics are driving increased fecundity for social gain.
Mimi

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 11:34pm PT
Are you saying those activities lead to offspring?
Mimi

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 11:44pm PT
Water is a more dire resource than energy in the near future.
Mimi

climber
Jun 30, 2010 - 11:52pm PT
Post the countries with higher rates.
Mimi

climber
Jul 1, 2010 - 12:00am PT
No, not birth rate. What about replacement rate? And doesn't longevity continue to increase?
dirtbag

climber
Jul 1, 2010 - 12:01am PT
I'm surprised Iran made the first list. For quite awhile after the Revolution their population was booming.
Mimi

climber
Jul 1, 2010 - 12:04am PT
The last data set is telling and very scary to me.
Fritz

Trad climber
Hagerman, ID
Jul 1, 2010 - 12:06am PT
Rokjox: Great Graph on U.S. birthrate. Answers some questions I was too lazy to look-up.

Thanks Dude!
Fritz

Trad climber
Hagerman, ID
Jul 1, 2010 - 12:12am PT
OOOPs to all. I am not involved in this thread!

I was bored and checked into the most recent posts. My complement to Rokjock: for his posts on birthrates in the world and US.

Otherwise: when I start backing into the thread-----have fun----and have a nice discussion-------and watch out for those "black helicopters".
Mimi

climber
Jul 1, 2010 - 12:21am PT
Rok, the oil crunch isn't happening anytime soon. Water will be what people are fighting over first on a more local level. We're stuck with Big Oil for a long time.

Have you seen Julie and Julia yet? Watching it now. It's great. Hilarious.
WBraun

climber
Jul 1, 2010 - 12:22am PT
I was in Mali.

The mortality rate is 75% up to age 5.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jul 1, 2010 - 12:26am PT
Sadly, Climate change doesn't seem to favor Africa either. The desert is growing there.

Peace

karl
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jul 1, 2010 - 12:26am PT
One of the challenges is that all politicians prefer their country to have a growing population. It means you're at least keeping up with your neighbours/rivals, in terms of raw numbers. It also means built-in steady economic growth. Declining population is a difficult thing to manage.
WBraun

climber
Jul 1, 2010 - 12:27am PT
Politicians are the dumbest idiots on the planet .....
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jul 1, 2010 - 12:32am PT
To add to RJ's comments, a main element in both declining fertility and increased family incomes is education of females.

Edit: The downside to these things being in some places gender-selected abortions, since ultrasound and other fetal tests. Which in turn means huge M/F imbalances in the 0 - 20 year old cohorts in some countries, in the 60-40 range or higher, with unforeseeable sociological and other impacts.
Mimi

climber
Jul 1, 2010 - 12:41am PT
With a decline shown by the data and with other extinction trends, once we drop below 1%, humans will be in danger of extinction despite the current spike in poor pops.
edejom

Boulder climber
Butte, America
Jul 1, 2010 - 01:37am PT
To understand trends for the world an/or society, you must use the best data sets possible and understand the relation among them through the passing of progress.

Start here with Hans Rosling:

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_at_state.html

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_the_truth_about_hiv.html

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_asia_s_rise_how_and_when.html
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jul 1, 2010 - 08:47am PT
OK: Here goes in short form:

Dr. K writes: So if you can't explain something, if the mind is incapable of understanding all, if we can say that there are things unknowable

If we admit that we will never know all, that our minds can only accept logical explanations

Then you have to accept God as well, or it just shows just how closed minded you are,

Is this the Largo argument


Mine isn't an "argument" per se. An argument has to do with quantifiable data or facts or figures that can be arranged in a way in which we can grind with our evaluating minds.

Above, you say that when the rational mind encounters that which it cannot quantify and "know" in the regular way, that you have to "accept God as well, or it just shows how close minded you are."

Here you are still in a very real way insisting that "God" is a "thing," but some kind of unknowable, unquantifiable thing that we have to uncomfortably file, strictly on faith, alongside all the other things in our mind. Problem is, God doesn't fit in our minds.

An "open mind" is still the wrong tool for any of this because what is implied here is that what is open, is our evaluating mind, "open" for anther thing to grasp. It is no fault of "God" that "he/she" is ungraspable, and only underscores the fact that the evaluating mind is the wrong tool for the job. When the evaluating mind starts yelling bullshit and so forth, it is basically demanding that the All take a form and show it's face so we can get hold of the sucker once and for all. An "open mind" here simply the willingness to step beyond this tantrum and grasping.

The All is open to anyone's direct experience but it becomes something different once the evaluating mind tries to lock it down into some particular form or thing. In my experience, this undifferentiated, unborn all, which is also nothing at all or no-thing, is our most basic nature, out of which mind, brain, consciousness and self-awareness all arise. When you consciously become this being or abiding, you are dangling in infinity.

Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 1, 2010 - 10:24am PT
DB, i'm afraid you didn't quite get what i asked for, which was some basic confirmation of the alleged dna-typing operation. as far as the passengers go, there's suspicious stuff there too. obviously many were killed--somehow and somewhere.

this was a war operation. in war, you have collateral damage. many people have come to believe that pearl harbor was intentional collateral damage of our own soldiers in order to draw america into a big war. it worked a charm. that operation northwoods we keep talking about was a very real plan, cooked up by our own joint chiefs of staff, the top people in the military, sworn to uphold yada yada, to stage a 9/11-type attack on our own citizens and blame it on castro, to draw the country into another conflict. we're not making this up. it's now public record, released under the freedom of information act. the u.s.s. liberty incident, which rox brought up, was another case where they tried to kill a ship full of our own sailors--and succeeded to kill some of them--for some kind of coverup of what israel was doing in its six-day war. when you join the service, be prepared to give your life for your country in unexpected ways. jon krakauer has a book out now on how pat tillman did just that.

you've got some good leads there, DB, but it's going to take more than a five-minute google. yes, people died--or at least disappeared. that's obvious because the stories contain real human interest, names and hometowns. my question is whether they received the remains of their loved ones. sorry, but it will be sensitive. maybe you're a good climber, but this will take another kind of fortitude. we're trying to confirm that they received bits of mangled, burned and exploded bodies from the pentagon, pennsylvania and the wtc. and while you're at it, please ask the families how--and if--the government rounded up secondary dna samples from them to compare with the cell nuclei from the human remains. forensic dna work takes quite a bit of time. this would have been nothing short of a nightmare. all i ever saw on the news was an aerial view of the warehouse in which it allegedly took place.

my suspicions about 9/11 all came in retrospect. i'll bet rokjox, klimmer and jolly roger have similar stories to tell. for me, the wtc was the big one because i happen to have a background in construction work. but there were other things too, related to your little assignment here. timing was one of them. on 9/12 we immediately had the faces of 19 hijackers on the front page. such things take longer to round up, i'd say a week, at the least, and since you seem to like lists, you'll find that none of these hijacker characters even appeared on the airline passenger lists. occam's razor? government files.

the other fishy thing was the twin towers. i once covered a disaster where a natural gas explosion went off in a small town restaurant, killing 11 people. i also remember the nimitz bridge collapse in the 1989 bay area earthquake. people get trapped in such situations. it's messy, but usually a few survive and there are frantic and heroic attempts at rescue. none of this at the wtc. occam's razor again: you don't do rescue, or even pick meat, when you use a lot of thermite.
Tobia

Social climber
GA
Jul 1, 2010 - 10:35am PT
edgejom has it right... you can get 10 different data sources with 10 different sets of statistics and projections. You might as well make them up as quote wikipedia...
dirtbag

climber
Jul 1, 2010 - 10:46am PT
you've got some good leads there, DB, but it's going to take more than a five-minute google. yes, people died--or at least disappeared. that's obvious because the stories contain real human interest, names and hometowns. my question is whether they received the remains of their loved ones. sorry, but it will be sensitive. maybe you're a good climber, but this will take another kind of fortitude. we're trying to confirm that they received bits of mangled, burned and exploded bodies from the pentagon, pennsylvania and the wtc. and while you're at it, please ask the families how--and if--the government rounded up secondary dna samples from them to compare with the cell nuclei from the human remains. forensic dna work takes quite a bit of time. this would have been nothing short of a nightmare. all i ever saw on the news was an aerial view of the warehouse in which it allegedly took place.

Oh for Christ sake. You really have no idea how totally absurd and contrived this sounds.

The problem with conspiracy kooks like yourself is that you can never accept it when an idea has been disproven. There is always a chance, in your mind, that the all powerful bogeymen--who or whatever the f*#k they happen to "be"--are concealing or distorting evidence.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 1, 2010 - 11:07am PT
Hey Rokjox,

I'm busy can't contribute much more on this today . . .

But you need to post up all the evidence for the faked phone call from the wife of so and so, for AA Flight 77, if you can. I recall you had this info. You know the one I'm talking about. Yea, the NeoCon who received the faked phone call from his wife before she supposively died on the Flight 77. She probably has a new identity and living it up in some exotic local today. Who knows?


The OCT . . .






And this is beyond weird . . . Certain movie/TV scenes are the calling cards of the NWO. They like to let us know before they do it:












dirtbag

climber
Jul 1, 2010 - 11:18am PT

And this is beyond weird . . . Certain movie/TV scenes are the calling cards of the NWO. They like to let us know before they do it:

No it's just silly.

Watch a million hours of TV or movies and you probably by chance will find a few minutes of something that looks like 9-11 references. It's not like 911 is a bizarre number.

"Terminator 2"? You serious?

And while viewing such films, you will also likely find something listing the batting averages of the entire 1928 Philadelphia Phillies lineup, a hidden message that "Paul is dead," and the answer to how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie pop.
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jul 1, 2010 - 11:35am PT
klimmer, thats bible code logic.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 1, 2010 - 11:40am PT
am i seeing things, or is that a largo belief-in-god post up there?
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 1, 2010 - 12:04pm PT
that's cool stuff, klim, really. sometimes we get along.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 1, 2010 - 12:07pm PT
contrived, DB? you don't remember the supposed big dna operation? were you paying attention to the news then? most of us were.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 1, 2010 - 12:10pm PT
btw, i've got one of those too, klim, which i've mentioned before--obama (not osama) on the mural in the federal building in santa ana, painted in the late 90s before he warnt squat in meruhkan politics.
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jul 1, 2010 - 12:11pm PT
Rox, while it may SEEM unlikely that passports could survive such an impact, it ACTUALLY happens all the time.


NEW YORK (CNN) -- Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle and his flight instructor were killed Wednesday when the 34-year-old ballplayer's plane crashed into a high-rise apartment building in New York, city and baseball team officials said.

No residents at the Belaire Condominiums at 524 E. 72nd Street near the East River were injured.

Two bodies and Lidle's passport were found in the street, responders told CNN.
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jul 1, 2010 - 12:51pm PT
Unexpected things happen all the time. Even though the space shuttle columbia was almost entirely destroyed after reentry, digital video tapes and CDs were found INTACT. This seems even STRANGER than finding a passport at ground zero.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/02/25/sprj.colu.debris/index.html



And WHY would the Gov. need to plant a passport? Its serves no purpose.




Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 1, 2010 - 01:25pm PT
Skippy tried to just tear me a new as#@&%e over that, and we got into such a drag out - knock down brawl that he STILL hates my guts and mean mouths me every chance he gets. He also continues to meanmouth me because I hold an Extra Class Amateur Radio License.

have you ever even stopped to think that he tried to tear you a new one because your existing one is so large that sh&& constantly spews out all over? that in fact he was trying to slow that spew down.

unfortunately its like shutting off the deepwater well spewing oil....

you are one of the biggest f&&&in morons on here. not always from what you say but becuase you have no fricking clue just how big of a moron you are.

and Tony is an expert on skyscrapers falling due to thermite cuz he has a construction background? Tony, building a latrine does not qualify you for anything other than being RJ's buddy so he can fill it up.
WBraun

climber
Jul 1, 2010 - 01:36pm PT
Rox

You have any photos of your antennas?
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jul 1, 2010 - 01:36pm PT
am i seeing things, or is that a largo belief-in-god post up there?
--

You're seeing things, as usual. And give up on that silly 9/11 conspiracy tripe. It's an obsession. Professional help might be indicated . . .

JL
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jul 1, 2010 - 01:37pm PT
He was already confirmed ROx, Atta was seen on airpot surveillance boarding the plane...so AGAIN, why would they need to plant a passport?
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jul 1, 2010 - 02:08pm PT
A bad video of the top of a guys head isn't confirmation

Its clear, Rox, that you have NOT seen the surveillance footage. Its a full body shot with clear resolution. It's 100 percent certain that Atta boarded that plane.

So if you were going to pull off a HUGE conspiracy, why would you plant unnecessary items? it makes no sense!

In fact you're wrong.....a passport is NOT confirmation. Anyone can place a passport anywhere. SURVEILLANCE is confirmation
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jul 1, 2010 - 03:18pm PT
Anyway, I just want to see the shroud's birth certificate. Is that so much to ask? One simple itty bitty piece of parchment, and everything will be resolved.

Plus I want klimmer to show where it is in the bible code.

And if you can show me Jesus' birth certificate, that would be OK too. But the photo on his passport had better show a short skinny guy, with black hair, dark eyes, and a dark skin. And it had better be in Aramaic, or at least Koine (colloquial Greek).
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 1, 2010 - 03:52pm PT
no it's still there, in the batch just "previous" to "last" here.

quick, largo, the thermite!
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 1, 2010 - 03:57pm PT
yep rox, same criticism i've heard of the atta footage, and if you like concocted footages, look at all that crap they came up with to keep bin laden going. also, none of the hijackers appear on the flight manifests. was this guy heading for a broom closet? also a report that atta's dad had a telephone contact with him the day after 9/11 and atta was (for some reason) worried as hell.

this stuff is pretty old 9/11 news. the hot stuff now is nanothermite.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 1, 2010 - 05:19pm PT
You're seeing things, as usual. And give up on that silly 9/11 conspiracy tripe. It's an obsession. Professional help might be indicated . . .

JL

largo, and i'm quite serious about this, what you said up there constitutes a slander and it will be remembered. coming from the casual loudmouths here, i can put up with it for awhile. some of them hide behind other identities anyway. but you're not a nobody in climbing and you seem to have stepped forward as the star armchair philosopher in a long tradition of armchair philosophy. i wonder how well you do among real academics, and i also wonder how well you might have done in david ray griffin's class on logic.

9/11 research and debate is about issues of evidence and the use of logic on evidence, which is the foundation of our system of justice. if you're here to give bronx cheers from the sidelines you'll have plenty of company, but i expected a little better of you.

i wouldn't be saying this if the game hadn't just become a lot more serious:

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-06-15/wearechangela-organizer-faces-terrorism-charge

http://free-bruno.org/
dirtbag

climber
Jul 1, 2010 - 05:23pm PT
contrived, DB? you don't remember the supposed big dna operation? were you paying attention to the news then? most of us were.

Contrived, ridiculous, nonsense, you choose, any/all apply.
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jul 1, 2010 - 05:39pm PT
You're the only armchair philosopher here Tony....or in this case armchair scientist. You have somehow convinced yourself that you're an expert. At this point you've swallowed your own BS and that of all the other 911 wack jobs. Just like Klimmer. The two of you are class acts.
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Jul 1, 2010 - 05:50pm PT
largo, and i'm quite serious about this, what you said up there constitutes a slander and it will be remembered.

Oy vey.
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 1, 2010 - 05:56pm PT
port,

dont forget their friend wolfboy in that pack of psychologically challenged whack jobs.

they must have led a rough childhood with all kinds of monsters under their bed....
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 1, 2010 - 05:59pm PT
i guess klim and i will be the only ones left. maybe we'll learn to be nice about religion. but you guys are all giving ad hominems, if that isn't too big a word for you. i do like to stick to the subject. and you're all dropping the subject line like a hot potato, because that's exactly what it is.

as i told klimmer in the shroud of turin mudfling, don't ask me to see all your videos and read all your books so i can think exactly the way you think. if you've mastered that material, you ought to be able to express it in your own words. give me a link or a reference and i can check it if i question it. or read all about it if i'm terribly interested. a series of web links to other people who are speaking for you doesn't do it for speaking for yourself.
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 1, 2010 - 06:06pm PT
some of us have spoken pretty clear Tony.

we recommmend psychological help for you and a psychiatrist may have to prescribe some meds.
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jul 1, 2010 - 06:17pm PT
They mostly used the phones built into the backs of seats, which are designed to work while the airplane is in the air.

That is, unless you believe otherwise. But you have to believe really, really hard.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 1, 2010 - 06:23pm PT
by the way, you can check out largo's post to "dr. k"--i guess he meant dr. f--obviously intended for the belief-in-god thread, mistakenly posted here two "previous" screens back, unless he has removed it out of embarrassment.

since largo has declared the subject of 9/11 false-flag to be "jibberish" and "tripe", would that mean he has enough secret interest in the subject to be lurking here and make that mistaken paste? or has he become some kind of policeman?
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jul 1, 2010 - 06:25pm PT
since largo has declared the subject of 9/11 false-flag to be "jibberish" and "tripe"
A conclusion that most SuperTopians see no reason to discuss, let alone disagree with. But it's fun baiting you whack-jobs.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 1, 2010 - 06:29pm PT
those are airphones, not cellphones, MH, and, it's another old issue in 9/11 truth. cellphones were what was originally reported and i don't think it has been retracted.

glad you're honest about your intentions. i don't mind being in the dog pit for people with nothing better to do. at least you admit you're not above some low-class entertainment.
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 1, 2010 - 06:43pm PT
good job Tony! at least you admit this is low class!
WBraun

climber
Jul 1, 2010 - 06:48pm PT
Anders -- "A conclusion that most SuperTopians see no reason to discuss, let alone disagree with. But it's fun baiting you whack-jobs."

All the information is in these how it was covered up:

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/index.htm

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/

http://www.justice.gov/oig/

Obviously Anders you don't want to spend years of your time going through all these documents to see how it was done.

Instead you just want to talk sh'it as usual and think your so smart .....



Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jul 1, 2010 - 06:49pm PT
It doesn't happen, it can't happen, it didn't happen. No cell phone calls

You don't know this. You BELIEVE it.
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 1, 2010 - 06:50pm PT
Rockjox - where do you get this info?

Airfone was in near universal use across major airlines until Verizon pulled the plug from 2006 to 2008 except for some private and gov't aircraft. I used it regularly until it they did. Do you guys just make this sh#t up?
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jul 1, 2010 - 06:57pm PT
Conspiracy hypothesis 1: The supposed phone calls from the four hijacked planes were faked, because it's nearly impossible to make a cell phone call from a plane in the air. Notwithstanding validated recordings, the dead, etc etc.

Conspiracy hypothesis 2: OK, there were airphones in the headrests on the planes, but none of them actually worked. The airlines went to great expense to install phones that didn't work.

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, 13 passengers from Flight 93 made a total of over 30 calls to both family and emergency personnel (twenty-two confirmed air phone calls, two confirmed cell phone and eight not specified in the report). According to Debunk911myths.org, all but two calls from Flight 93 were made on air phones, not cell phones, and both calls lasted about a minute before being dropped.[119] Brenda Raney, Verizon Wireless spokesperson, said that Flight 93 was supported by several cell sites.[117] There were reportedly three phone calls from Flight 11, five from Flight 175, and three calls from Flight 77. Two calls from these flights were recorded, placed by flight attendants Madeleine Sweeney and Betty Ong on Flight 11.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#Phone_calls
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 1, 2010 - 06:58pm PT
healyje, stop it with the facts.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jul 1, 2010 - 07:00pm PT
Here's one contention that the plane didn't have an airphone installed.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8514

"American Airlines Contradicts Olson’s Second Version

A 9/11 researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, noticed that AA’s website indicated that its 757s do not have passenger-seat phones. After he wrote to ask if that had been the case on September 11, 2001, an AA customer service representative replied: “That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.”8

In response to this revelation, defenders of the official story might reply that Ted Olson was evidently right the first time: she had used her cell phone. However, besides the fact that this scenario is rendered unlikely by the cell phone technology employed in 2001, it has also been contradicted by the FBI."



Some more details that preceeded that

"Olson’s Self-Contradictions

Olson began this process of undermining by means of self-contradictions. He first told CNN, as we have seen, that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone.” But he contradicted this claim on September 14, telling Hannity and Colmes that she had reached him by calling the Department of Justice collect. Therefore, she must have been using the “airplane phone,” he surmised, because “she somehow didn’t have access to her credit cards.”4 However, this version of Olson’s story, besides contradicting his first version, was even self-contradictory, because a credit card is needed to activate a passenger-seat phone.

Later that same day, moreover, Olson told Larry King Live that the second call from his wife suddenly went dead because “the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well.”5 After that return to his first version, he finally settled on the second version, saying that his wife had called collect and hence must have used “the phone in the passengers’ seats” because she did not have her purse.6

By finally settling on this story, Olson avoided a technological pitfall. Given the cell phone system employed in 2001, high-altitude cell phone calls from airliners were impossible, or at least virtually so (Olson’s statement that “the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well” was a considerable understatement). The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004.7

However, Olson’s second story, besides being self-contradictory, was contradicted by American Airlines."

FWIW

Don't know what happened but don't think we got the whole truth

Peace

karl
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Jul 1, 2010 - 07:01pm PT
Werner almost always sounds like such a knowledgeable grounded well meaning individual which is perhaps why his occasional brain-fart postings seem that much more strange.


WTF man? Was your buddy Lobo experimenting with a tazer?
Doesn't your paycheck come from Uncle Sam? Wouldn't that also make you a tacit supporter of the great conspiracy? A cog in their machine?

I'm serious. This is a head scratcher for me.
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 1, 2010 - 07:04pm PT
Rockjox - wait a minute, again, Airfone was in near univeral use on all major US carriers in 2001. Why is it you keep saying they weren't?
WBraun

climber
Jul 1, 2010 - 07:25pm PT
Ron

There are certain people always calling others wack jobs, names and other bullsh'it all the time here.

I give it right back to em, and then they cry foul.

Such pussy ass fuking chicken sh't people.

Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jul 1, 2010 - 07:30pm PT
Hey, I usually only call the conspiracy theory bunch whackjobs, and at that only occasionally. Though it's fun to mock them, I admit it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Anyway, they can call me names all they like, if they want. Water off a duck's back.
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 1, 2010 - 07:31pm PT
from Wikipedia, you can go there and check their references.

After 9/11, cellular experts said that calls were able to be placed from the hijacked planes, and that they were surprised that they lasted as long as they did. They said that the only reason that the calls went through in the first place is that the aircraft were flying so close to the ground.[116] Alexa Graf, an AT&T spokesperson said it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations.[117] Other industry experts said that it is possible to use cell phones with varying degrees of success during the ascent and descent of commercial airline flights.[118] Marvin Sirbu, professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University said on September 14, 2001, that "The fact of the matter is that cell phones can work in almost all phases of a commercial flight."[118]

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, 13 passengers from Flight 93 made a total of over 30 calls to both family and emergency personnel (twenty-two confirmed air phone calls, two confirmed cell phone and eight not specified in the report). According to Debunk911myths.org, all but two calls from Flight 93 were made on air phones, not cell phones, and both calls lasted about a minute before being dropped.[119] Brenda Raney, Verizon Wireless spokesperson, said that Flight 93 was supported by several cell sites.[117] There were reportedly three phone calls from Flight 11, five from Flight 175, and three calls from Flight 77. Two calls from these flights were recorded, placed by flight attendants Madeleine Sweeney and Betty Ong on Flight 11.


and again....
Marvin Sirbu, professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University said on September 14, 2001, that "The fact of the matter is that cell phones can work in almost all phases of a commercial flight

i forgot! an unemployed, ham operator, engineering technician wannabe named RJ is smarter than the Carnegie Mellon Engineering Professor!
atchafalaya

climber
Babylon
Jul 1, 2010 - 07:38pm PT
On second thought, maybe I would support dividing the forum.

One section for climbing, drinking, politics, etc., and another area for speculation on topics by people clearly unqualified to address the subject matter (i.e., 9/11 conspiracies, wolf re-introduction, climbing accident reports...).
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 1, 2010 - 07:46pm PT


Marvin Sirbu, professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University said on September 14, 2001, that "The fact of the matter is that cell phones can work in almost all phases of a commercial flight


man RJ, with your knowledge being far greater than the experts it must be a crime that you can't find meaningful employment.
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 1, 2010 - 07:50pm PT

airplane wreckage on the pentagon lawn. according to RJ little ferries spread this out.

According to Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University, a crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building. When Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, one wing hit the ground and the other was sheared off by the Pentagon's load-bearing columns.[83] According to ArchitectureWeek, the reason the Pentagon took relatively little damage from the impact was because Wedge One had recently been renovated.[86] (This was part of a renovation program which had been begun in the eighties, and Wedge One was the first of five to be renovated.[87])

Airplane debris including Flight 77's black boxes,[88] the nose cone, landing gear,[89] an airplane tire,[90] the fuselage,[citation needed] and an intact cockpit seat[91] were observed at the crash site. The remains of passengers from Flight 77 were found at the Pentagon crash site and their identities confirmed by DNA analysis.[92] Many eyewitnesses saw the plane strike the Pentagon. Further, Flight 77 passengers made phone calls reporting that their airplane had been hijacked. For example, passenger Renee May called her mother to tell her that the plane had been hijacked and that the passengers had been herded to the back of the plane. Another passenger named Barbara Olson called her husband (U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson) and said that the flight had been hijacked, and that the hijackers had knives and box cutters.[5][83][93]
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 1, 2010 - 07:52pm PT

Criticism of the reports published by NIST on the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings plays a central role in theories about an alleged controlled demolition. The picture shows the simulated exterior buckling of 7 WTC during the collapse.
WBraun

climber
Jul 1, 2010 - 07:53pm PT
Hawkeye

simulated is the key word
WBraun

climber
Jul 1, 2010 - 07:54pm PT
Madeline Sweeney started her call at 6:27 about the so called hijacking.

The plane had not taken off until 7:59

What am I missing here?

Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 1, 2010 - 07:57pm PT
werner,


are you trying to tell me that UIAA "simulated" lead falls on ropes are total BS and meaningless?

Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 1, 2010 - 07:59pm PT
RJ, i have experts saying it is possible and then i have an internet windbag saying it aint so.
WBraun

climber
Jul 1, 2010 - 07:59pm PT
I'm not trying to say anything.

I'm asking a simple question since I don't know what to make of these strange time lines.

WBraun

climber
Jul 1, 2010 - 08:08pm PT
By the way Hawkeye

There have been companies that went under because they completely relied on their computer simulations and never checked their real world data from their engineers.
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 1, 2010 - 08:09pm PT
EDITED out another compliment to RJ

back on track, in any event reconstruction there are always things that are not easily proven, identifed etc. take an investigation and event like 911 and of course there will be discrepancies. you ought to be really worried if it were totally airtight.

EDITED out another compliment to RJ
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 1, 2010 - 08:11pm PT
werner, i am sure that you are correct. as a manager with two engineering degrees i constantly face this on very complex systems. it also does not take a compex model to screw it up. i see engineers screw up simple stuff all the time.
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 1, 2010 - 08:16pm PT
here werner from NIST faq's.

Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

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). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.



Diagram of Composite WTC Floor System

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

werner its pretty simple. if my a$$ needed rescue on el cap i would want an expert like you there and not some internet windbag who read a book on SAR. likewise, i would rather believe NIST experts than some dude who built a latrine.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 1, 2010 - 08:19pm PT
you've got old news again, hawkeye. that piece in the foreground has been suspect for quite some time. there's enough left of the airline logo to establish--we suspect quite carefully--the identity of the airline and the plane allegedly involved. you will notice that the lawn in the background is absolutely intact. this debris apparently fluttered down on top of it. yea, fairies--what else could it have been?

rox, you a workhorse.

wow--healyje's back. and i thought he just started this to get rid of us.

as i posted above, the reports made to the public on 9/11 said they were cellphone calls, not airphone. these reports were made officially, and we would assume the telephone company or the airline in charge would be able to distinguish that. it's also much more credible for the official story that they be cellphones--you can picture people cowering in corners trying to communicate as these monsters with utility knives try to keep it all under control. use of an airphone, attached to a seat and much more conspicuous, is also far less credible. but the big thing is that it has already been challenged and not equivocated.

cellphones are also more old 9/11 news. it's all been ratched up to a new level. they are now trying to revise the building code to accommodate the story that steel frame structures are so vulnerable. apparently they want to sheathe everything in concrete, and i'll bet there won't be many new skyscrapers over 50 stories and they'll be expensive as hell. we all have to do our part to tailor the emperor's new clothes.
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Jul 1, 2010 - 08:21pm PT
Werner,
it wasn't name calling it was a serious question;

aren't you a part of that machine?

and if so why






EDIT; calling that lying thieving cripple-macing Lobo names is OK though
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 1, 2010 - 08:23pm PT
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

sorry, here is the source. if you conspirists reads this with an open mind perhaps some light bulbs will go off.
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 1, 2010 - 08:24pm PT
tony,

i would take OLD supported facts over fresh wind any day....
WBraun

climber
Jul 1, 2010 - 08:29pm PT
In a famous book by Antoine de Saint Exupery, a little prince from another planet asks the narrator to draw a sheep. After several unsatisfactory attempts, the narrator simply draws a box and tells the little prince that the sheep is in the box. The little prince then exclaims -- "That is exactly the way I wanted it!"

Just so, the Bush Administration asked its scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for an explanation as to what happened at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11. In response to this request, NIST drew up a series of fanciful stories over a period of years, each story differing from the previous one. Finally, after seven long years, NIST published its last story for WTC 7 by simply saying, in effect: "The explanation is in our computer."
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 1, 2010 - 08:32pm PT
good fairly tale werner.

having used some of the fire and structural analyses from the 911 reports on other projects i can assure you that not all of it is a fairly tale.

but the great thing about america is that you can believe what you want and nobody is forcing you to be confused by the facts. still wondering what your answer to Rons questoin is with regards to working for the evil empire....
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 1, 2010 - 08:36pm PT
your building 7 fantasy falls apart when you watch building 7 coming down. with your own two eyes--unless you happen to be largo, or course--you can see that there is none of this chubby checker twisting going on. you'll find the video of it posted in this thread by klimmer, about 2/5 of the way along.

that NIST report, btw, is a complete crock, speculating that a single weakness in a single post within this grid-framed building caused its neighbors to buckle and bring the whole thing down like a house of cards. this little old steel post--number 27 or something like that, it's so important to give a number because that in itself is all the proof half the people need--was buried in the exact crucial vulnerable spot inside building 7. NIST is so sure of this. but for six years the government story--a hot potato passed to NIST by two other agencies--was "we don't know why building 7 came down".

buildings that crumple and fold in on themselves from some mysterious internal weakness still do it much slower than the 8 seconds or so which was recorded by someone's camera. the twin towers had a revolutionary structure for their day, but building 7 was just a standard, garden variety boxlike 47-story skyscraper, built on the tried-and-true three-dimensional grid of girders. they just flat-out don't come down that fast, no matter what might be going on inside.

there has been some speculation that building 7 was suppose to have been hit by a plane, perhaps the one associated with shanksville. i say "associated" because when you look at that one, it's more of the same--nothing is normal.

Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jul 1, 2010 - 08:41pm PT
The question that draws me to these conspiracy theory threads is to attempt to understand why it is that some people, apparently more than a few, feel compelled to not only believe the stuff, in the face of all evidence, science and engineering, common sense, and Occam's Razor, they feel a need to preach to others about their beliefs. It almost seems that it's a religion to them.

Although all these conspiracy theories have sordid, ugly roots, going back to the so-called Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It's no surprise that many of the World Trade Centre conspiracy theorists also believe that the Jews who worked there were told not to go to work on 11/9, so that relatively few Jews died. A vicious lie, and even if some of the conspiracy theorists don't believe it, some of their brethren do.
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 1, 2010 - 08:49pm PT
Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released for public comment by July 2008 and that the final report will be released shortly thereafter.

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.


Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.


Tony,
the cool thing about your conspiracy theory is getting 200 technical experts to forgo all their training, lie shamelessly about some 3,000 deaths and to all America and their own families.

your belief in evil and or incompetence in people is alarming to say the least.
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jul 1, 2010 - 08:50pm PT
MH,

My experience with the "Truthers" is that they are a loose coalition of paranoids. In many ways they resemble the Tea party..... not in ideology but in their use of misinformation.
WBraun

climber
Jul 1, 2010 - 08:52pm PT
Skip

Maybe you can answer my question.

Madeline Sweeney started her call at 6:27 about the so called hijacking.

The plane had not taken off until 7:59

What am I missing here?
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 1, 2010 - 08:58pm PT
i dont know WB. but clearly she was then willing to give her life to the conspiracy?

and the Olson guy? gave up his wife for the conspiracy?

and all the technical experts lieing? so do you think werner that all these so called experts, government agents are all so evil as to kill their own kind and nobody says anything?

have you ever even considered how hard it would be if your little rescue team if they were forced by the government to lie about someones death, would they could they do it?

i freaking doubt it.

the disturbing thing about all this is not the minor discrepancies in the entire 911 story. it is that the truthers have not considered the "human" element of all that would have to be involved, and then are so jaded as to actually believe all this nonsense...
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Jul 1, 2010 - 08:59pm PT
MH,

My experience with the "Truthers" is that they are a loose coalition of paranoids. In many ways they resemble the Tea party..... not in ideology but in their use of misinformation.

The MSM and both political establishments have attempted to portray the Teapartyers in that light , but it just generally isn't true. Truthers are for the most part either marginalized or ignored. (they do make for good interviews when a reporter can single one out, hanging out at the fringes of an event though.)

And what "misinformation" exactly are the teaparties expounding?

Don't think you've ever met one.

They are mostly housewives and small businessmen.
dirtbag

climber
Jul 1, 2010 - 09:02pm PT

A very good friend of mine was no more than a few hundred yards from the Pentagon when it was hit.

He saw the plane go in.

What am I to make of it? Is he a liar?


Awhile back Chaz said his uncle (I think?) also saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

Can't wait to see the BS response to this too. Actually my guess is they'll ignore you.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jul 1, 2010 - 09:04pm PT
Dirt,
You ostrich, the conspiracy knows no limits.
dirtbag

climber
Jul 1, 2010 - 09:07pm PT
I know Reilly. I'm just a sheeple, blind to the all-powerful NWO and their servant, George W. Bush.

I'm sure that if I watch Simpson's--or maybe Family Guy--long enough that sly NWO will be communicating more messages.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 1, 2010 - 09:09pm PT
Werner, you will find that Truthers have difficulty understanding time zones.

And it was Burnetts call that was made at 6:27 PST, not Sweeney. Sweeney's was at 8:22 EST.
WBraun

climber
Jul 1, 2010 - 09:14pm PT
Ummmm ok you think? This is the supposed actual record?

Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jul 1, 2010 - 09:15pm PT
Haha, good point mono.

And TGT, by misinformation I was referring to those in the T party who claim that Obama was not born in the U.S. They, like Truthers, make things up and rely on peoples stupidity or ignorance.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 1, 2010 - 09:18pm PT
No confirmation of timezone there Werner or who originated it.

Do ya really think the NWO would start making the calls to early?
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Jul 1, 2010 - 09:18pm PT
Again those people are not representative, but they make for great sound bites and a method to marginalize the whole group.

It's effective.

You bought it.
WBraun

climber
Jul 1, 2010 - 09:32pm PT
monolith

Who originated it?

It says:

The start of Amy (Madeline) Sweeney's first connected phone call as reported in the airfone records. (These times are two hours behind those usually reported, presumably because they're quoted in the time zone for American Airlines HQ in Texas: MDT.)
WBraun

climber
Jul 1, 2010 - 09:56pm PT
Is that how the calls back then were transmitted from the airphone?

To low earth orbit Motorola Iridium satellites?
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jul 1, 2010 - 10:17pm PT
I think it's an important point to make that their is PLENTY of evidence we have not got the whole story about 9-11 and that a cover-up is in place. The 9-11 commission members and even commission leaders have admitted such themselves.

That's even if you completely disregard ALL physical evidence regarding how the towers fell, what happened at the pentagon, and so on.

Examples of Issues hidden or unresolved.

Prior knowledge of Mohammed Atta-Able Danger
Atta receiving $100,000 from the Pakistani ISI cheif who was meeting with top Admin officials on 9-11
Details of war games planned and executed on 9-11
Put options on Airlines
Dick Cheney ordering fighters to stand down as testified by Norman Mineta.
Bush lying about seeing the second plane hit the towers on TV when that was impossible at the time
Identities of the Hijackers

and on and on. And why not have testimony under oath by Bush and Cheney separately?

This ain't going away. Sort of like the Kennedy assasination. Maybe space aliens didn't shoot Kennedy out of the flying saucer but it's too fishy to buy the standard story.

The best way to distract people from the truth of a real conspiracy is to inflate it until it's unbelievable.

Buy hey, we love to be in our shell of denial and not take responsibility for our corruption and stupidity.

Cause guess what, there's another conspiracy for which there is PLENTY of evidence and which cost more lives and more money than 9-11 by far, The invasion of Iraq on false pretenses that led to an illegal war against a country that didn't attack us and didn't have WMDs. WTF! Nobody is even having a commission on that crime! We don't want to know even though we KNOW!!

We're prisoners of a status quo government run by a corporatocracy-monied elite. The Sheep will be kept alive for shearing and we sheep like that

Peace

Karl
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jul 1, 2010 - 10:32pm PT
Good summary Karl. Ill let this thread die in peace now.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 1, 2010 - 10:36pm PT
like i say, hawk, it's a flat-out crock. their scenario can only be based on imaginative theorizing based on old blueprints. there was no forensic work done. as i'm sure rox will enjoy telling you, there was a tremendous effort to whisk all WTC debris away swiftly. the steel was shipped to china and smelted. this was all done in complete defiance of ordinary forensic procedure for a crime scene. it's a big reason we're sitting here arguing today, and it isn't an accidental reason.

if we suspend disbelief for a moment and assume the NIST scenario could be true, it falls apart with simple physics. the building fell in something like 8-9 seconds, a second or so faster than freefall speed. nothing like that would fall at freefall speed unless there was somehow an immediate liquidation of its internal structure, letting gravity do what gravity does. the only way this happens in a non-fantasy world is with planned controlled demolition. NIST's little scenario--the failure of a single (!) internal column would still require the haphazard sagging, creaking and groaning, partial collapse, tipping and so forth that would go with such a scenario, and those things add seconds and seconds to the collapse time. and NIST does not address the glaring truth that ought to be hitting everyone square in the face: when an itty bitty part of any three-dimensional grid structure fails--the rest of the structure simply holds it up. the load automatically redistributes. extraordinary collapse requires extraordinary destruction, which is entirely absent in the NIST fairy tale.

you seem to be impressed by large numbers of experts. richard gage, a bay area architect with whom i have worked personally, has persuaded more than 1200 architects and engineers--someone got picky when i mentioned this before because there aren't a lot of high-rise people in there, and we'll have to admit that--to sign his petition to reinvestigate:

ae911truth.org
Mimi

climber
Jul 1, 2010 - 11:13pm PT
Rok, the point I was trying to make with reference to Olsen was where did his wife disappear to if it was a missile strike and not her jet? Someone of that importance and all the other people on the plane didn't suddenly vanish. Not sure why the phone calls were so confused on Ted's part except for the trauma of losing his wife under those horrible circumstances.

Once again, I find it profoundly exasperating that Truthers really believe that the previous administration, in all of their utter incompetance and buffoonery in their estimation, could pull off a conspiracy of this magnitude; one that would not have leaks or would not have a string of suspicious murders to shut people up. I challenge anyone to provide one person who has come forward as a bonafide insider to blow the lid off this thing.

And WB, I know you're surrounded by drones, but why become one of them? LOL!

http://www.debunking911.com/
golsen

Social climber
kennewick, wa
Jul 1, 2010 - 11:49pm PT
Here is where I think Hawkeye was headed in his questions of Werner.

Lets say his SAR team had some motive to want to kill some dude. Do you think all of them would agree? Would they all STFU forever?

Then think about the magnitude of a coverup? Just how many people would have to be involved? You really think that all those people would go along? Forget about inconsistencies, all investigations have those.
WBraun

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 12:02am PT
You people think everything is so simple.

How could so many people cover up something?

Simply just go to a debunk911 site and everything is explained nicely.

Simply go to a truth-er site and everything is explained nicely.

Let's all speculate what Werner's thinking and put him in one of the 2 camps.

But you don't really know which camp I'm in nor do you know if I'm in any of the camps to begin with. It's only based on the assumptions of what's posted here.

It's an interesting experience to see these things play out.

One can learn so much from it ......



Mimi

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 12:08am PT
Werner, you are the bhagwan. Knowing you for so long adds another mirror to your mischief.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Jul 2, 2010 - 12:12am PT
I suppose if we have "Truthers" then the other side of the coin is "Believers."

I find it funny how the Believers always get to the point saying "How could anybody carry this thing off," as if it were proof that nobody on the "inside" could have planned the events.

First thing, find out how the buildings fell down (like, maybe test for explosives? Gee, why not??). After that, try to see how/who.

Proof is NOT saying "It couldn't be done."
Mimi

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 12:39am PT
That's a silly argument.

Watch the damned jets hit the buildings with 25,000 or so gallons of jet fuel on board going +400 mph. Ask any fireman who has seen a warehouse fire with much less fuel that had steel I-beams. They glow red and sag to the floor. Why is this awful event committed by a cadre of weak sauce terrorists so hard for you to accept?

The Truthers are also the Believers. You want to believe this horrible event in our history was actually planned by our own government. How very sad.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 12:43am PT
You know anyway you cut it 9-11-2001 was an Inside Job -- MIHOP

Whether you look at the Means, Motive, and Opportunity massive evidence . . .

9/11 Timeline
Two-page Summary of 9/11 Timeline
To verify 9/11 timeline statements, use links to articles on major media websites
http://www.wanttoknow.info/911timeline2pg


Complete 911 Timeline, by Paul Thompson
http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project


Or you look at the impossible physical evidence that the US Government tries to cram down our throats that completely invalidates their own OCT . . .





































Well, welcome to the Perpetual Matrix of Deniability and Ostridges Anonymous. Enjoy being Naive and comfortably Numb. Please Enjoy your Stay . . .











Oh, and while we are at it, Bush Senior wasn't at the Texas School Book Depository on the Day Kennedy was Assassinated either. Nope, he was somewhere else. Well, at least that is what Bush told us and the authorities . . .








Mimi

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 12:45am PT
klimmer, not even a glimmer.
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jul 2, 2010 - 12:46am PT
My my, we are keeping ourselves busy.

Well, welcome to the Perpetual Matrix of Deniability and Ostridges Anonymous. Enjoy being Naive and comfortably Numb. Please Enjoy your Stay . . .
Put me down for the "Ostridge" team. I'm not quite sure what they are, but they sound like a lot of fun. I hope they don't take themselves too seriously, though.
dirtbag

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:05am PT

Yeah, I do see a 757. Even at that resolution, the circled part sure looks like a tail, as I mentioned earlier. And in that gif of the impact that was posted a few pages back, in subsequent frames, that tail isn't there.

And funny how no toother has responded to Skip's earlier post about his friend's eyewitness account. (Of course, there are other similar accounts available).

And like I said earlier:

Watch a million hours of TV or movies and you probably by chance will find a few minutes of something that looks like 9-11 references. It's not like 911 is a bizarre number.
...

And while viewing such films, you will also likely find something listing the batting averages of the entire 1928 Philadelphia Phillies lineup, a hidden message that "Paul is dead," and the answer to how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie pop.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:19am PT
Dirtbag,

No one is denying something is there, but it isn't a full size Boeing 757. We do know "something" hit the Pentagon, but not AA Flight 77. Something smaller and probably carrying a bunker buster. (I would speculate it was guided in, and not piloted in.)



Once again. This is what we should have seen but we did not. (This is too scale and simulated. Not the real event):






Also, since when does a commercial airliner trail smoke or exhaust that is visible at ground level?

We could also get into the idea that a fullsize commercial jetliner going at the speeds they say it was going at, it would be impossible for it to get that low to the ground due to ground effect. No way to do it.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:20am PT
Klimmer, you forget that the security cam was only 2 or 3 frames per second.

I bet your physics students could school you on the odds of catching the complete aircraft in a single frame, or seeing a partial plane in more then one frame. Might even be possible to not see it in any frame.

Did ya think it taxied into the building?

And you see 'smoke' cause it contacted the ground well before hitting the building. And you can't even be sure about 'smoke', when you only see a part of the plane in one frame.

And the 'ground effect' argument is hilarious.
WBraun

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:21am PT
Hey dirt?

What can you tell me about Dina Corsi, Steve Bongardt, George Tenet, Louis Freeh, Sherry Sabol, Rod Middleton etc, etc.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:30am PT
Monolith,

You see the tail in the "Official" 4 frames yes? So where is the rest of the 757?

The 2nd simulated video of the same 4 frames show you the jet in the same position. The tail would have been protruding higher and the fuselage would be sticking out in front massively and easily seen, as in the simulated video. No way to hide it where the tail sticks up in the released official video. (By the way, this video was leaked at first, they did not want to release it and someone did. Then they just had to anyway again, since it was already out.)

Once again, what ever it was, it was not AA Flight 77, nor was it a Boeing 757.


So it made contact with the ground? Then show me the skid marks in the "Pentalawn." Where are they?







k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:32am PT
Mimi, you say "Why is this awful event committed by a cadre of weak sauce terrorists so hard for you to accept?"

Well, because there are so many inconsistencies in the official story.

Both sides debunk arguments pro and con. Yet, serious questions still go unanswered.

Here's one: Why were the large amount of puts on AA not investigated? It would be easy to follow the money trail.

You have an answer for that? I'd like to hear it.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:33am PT
I don't think it's obvious that's the tail Klimmer.

It's a very blurry pic, can't draw too much from a single frame.

I know you guys love blurry pics, cuz you can make up your own story.

(there's plenty of pics that show the ground contact, and really, you can't even say it was trailing smoke, the pics are so blurry)
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:47am PT
Sorry but all the facts invalidate the OCT.

9-11, it must be investigated. It has not been investigated yet.

The Official 9-11 Commission Report was a whitewash.




We can invalidate nearly all the official story with empirical evidence and timelines and events that completely invalidate the OCT.

Read through Paul Thompson's timeline.

Our Governemnt is lying and covering up. The world knows this.


PNAC called for "A New Pearl Harbor." Well we got it and then we immediatley went to War. Apparently you can not put it together. It's just too much for you. Apparently you can't handle it.


Only seriously deluded people who can't look at the facts and who have their heads so buried deep in the sand can not see it.




monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:56am PT
Klimmer, get your head out of the sand and check out this video. It's a much better resolution video from the surveillance cam.

It's pretty clear you can only see part of the fuselage and only in one frame, no tail at all.

http://www.break.com/index/911pentagon.html

Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:57am PT
Coz,

What don't you get? We don't have to say where the bodies went and what they ultimately did every step of the way. We do not know all there is to know.

All we have to do is invalidate the OCT. We have done this.


So therefore, the OCT is a lie.


Do we know exactly how they did it, every step of the way? No.


But we do know for certain it did not happen as they officially say it happened.

Investigate 9-11.
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jul 2, 2010 - 02:02am PT
I just love klimmer's "ostridge" photo. It's even climbing-related, sort of - in Germanic languages like English, it could be taken to mean "east ridge".
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 02:07am PT
Still a classic after all these years . . .

Pentagon Strike:
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/pentagon.swf
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 02:18am PT
Hey Klimmer, have you been to ground zero?
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jul 2, 2010 - 02:31am PT
So who was it who set Klimmer's volume at 11, anyway?
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jul 2, 2010 - 02:36am PT
We could also get into the idea that a fullsize commercial jetliner going at the speeds they say it was going at, it would be impossible for it to get that low to the ground due to ground effect. No way to do it.

Don't you start with the aviation expert stuff like Rok. How the hell do you think planes land? Ground effect? You know what ground effect is at over 400 kts? A big freaking explosion!

Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 02:40am PT
I have been to the Pentagon and the WTC towers before 9-11-01. But not afterwards.

DC is a really eye-opening city to live near and visit. I was stationed at Ft. Myer, VA, in the US Army Honor Guard for 2 years. It is where I learned to become very politically involved.

One evening I pulled ceremonial guard duty outside a General's office inside the Pentagon as he played host to Central American Military Officers and he told Vietnam War stories, as they drank copious amounts of alcohol.

Being in the US Army in DC was an eye-opener to say the least. Good experience.

Many Vets have their eyes open about 9-11.

You should read Jesse Ventura's Book, American Conspiracies. I highly recommend it. Very well written and researched. He is actually very brilliant in his way. Even though I know a lot about the classic conspiracies, I learned a great deal I didn't know.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 02:44am PT
Reilly,

You do not take off and land at full speed, therefore very little ground effect, although even then it is felt some.

AA Flight 77 was supposively going at full speed.

No way to do it.

Check out Pilots for 9-11 Truth.

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jul 2, 2010 - 02:57am PT
Klim,
You ever flown a plane? You ever studied aerodynamics? You ever taught people to fly? I think not. You read some tripe on the intardnet written by some fictitious whackos and you suck it up like nobody's business. Go read up on spanwise flow, induced drag, aspect ratio, and, most importantly, angle of attack. Then check back and we'll 'talk'.

ps
Even if those 'pilots for truth' really exist whatever you're reading is either taken out of context or completely bogus. There's a lot of people pushing up daisies who wish ground effect could have overcome angle of attack.
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2010 - 10:43am PT
karl,
I think it's an important point to make that their is PLENTY of evidence we have not got the whole story about 9-11 and that a cover-up is in place. The 9-11 commission members and even commission leaders have admitted such themselves.

Karl,
the use of the english language itself can lead one down rabbit holes because of the way things are written. i have been involved in chemical plant investigations and i said earlier that THERE ARE ALWAYS SOME INCONSISTENCIES. ALWAYS. even eyewitnesses.

and yet your statement would lead one to believe that the 911 commission members themselves have admitted a cover-up.

i know you were probably trying to say that thecommission admits there are inconsitencies but i done know of them admitting a coverup, perhaps you can enlighten us...



and Tony,
your statement illustrates your ignorance of how a complex structural steel structure behaves.

NIST does not address the glaring truth that ought to be hitting everyone square in the face: when an itty bitty part of any three-dimensional grid structure fails--the rest of the structure simply holds it up. the load automatically redistributes. extraordinary collapse requires extraordinary destruction, which is entirely absent in the NIST fairy tale.

from NIST
NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower

and your experts? the difference between a run of the mill architect or structural enginer versus a high rise structural guy is like comparing a gym climber to an experienced big wall climber.


Tony,
there was a tremendous effort to whisk all WTC debris away swiftly. the steel was shipped to china and smelted. this was all done in complete defiance of ordinary forensic procedure for a crime scene

and from NIST
Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

yeah, dont bother reading this, when you turn into an ostrich that sand in your eyes might hurt.
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2010 - 10:56am PT
oh, yeah and here, try reading this truthers...

How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.

The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 2, 2010 - 10:57am PT
It make sense Jolly, the NWO flew real airliners into the towers but decided to fire a missile into the pentagon in front of thousands of rush hour commuters a few hundred yards away and fake their eyewitness reports. Good Truther sense that is.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 12:03pm PT
Reilly,


Pull your head out. I fly. I fly paragliders and also teach physics. All aircraft experience ground effect, except those that are designed against it.

Even in my paraglider, coming in low and slow I experience ground effect, and it makes my landing approach just a little longer. Ground effect happens in all aircraft, anything that flies, except those purposefully designed against it, like I said.

Aircraft have to reduce their speeds to get to the point of landing. A Boeing 757 going at cruise speed or high speed is not going to land or come into close proximity of the ground where ground effect is going to take place. It is a force that buoys the craft upward that the pilot or craft cannot overcome. Ground effect has made many a pilot overshoot their landing approach, that is why you have to compensate for it and know about it and land accordingly. Remember, flight 77 supposively came in from a SW direction low over ground for a considerable distance. Low enough to take out many lightpoles! (Yea right) Therefore ground effect would have taken place and flying at high speeds . . . "Flight 77, flying at 530 miles per hour (853 km/h)" it is not gonna happen. Just more miracles on 9-11-01 that can not be explained by the Laws of Physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77


Now a smaller jet with a shorter wingspan, yes it could do it. Remember that ground effect is greatest within close proximity of the ground, "with the most significant effects occurring at an altitude of one half the wingspan." So a small jet could indeed get within a low height above the ground going at high speed. Haven't we all seen this at airshows? Fighters going at near full speed in close proximity to the ground? When have you ever seen a full size commercial jet in close proximity to the ground going at cruise speed or high speed? Never. Ground effect will not allow it. They have to reduce their speed considerably to land or to get within close proximity to the ground. You got to slow it down to get through the ground effect.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_in_aircraft

Aircraft may be affected by a number of ground effects, or aerodynamic effects due to a flying body's proximity to the ground.

The most significant of these effects is known as the Wing In Ground (WIG) effect, which refers to the reduction in drag experienced by an aircraft as it approaches a height approximately equal to the aircraft's wingspan above ground or other level surface, such as the sea. The effect increases as the wing descends closer to the ground, with the most significant effects occurring at an altitude of one half the wingspan. It can present a hazard for inexperienced pilots who are not accustomed to correcting for it on their approach to landing, but it has also been used to effectively enhance the performance of certain kinds of aircraft whose planform has been adapted to take advantage of it, such as the Russian ekranoplans. The first to give scientific description of the ground effect and to provide theoretical methods of calculation of air cushion vehicles was Konstantin Tsiolkovsky in his 1927 paper "Air Resistance and the Express Train".[1][2]
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2010 - 12:24pm PT
is unemployment getting the best of you RJ? it is unfortunate that so much of your self worth is attributed to Supertopo, but i understand how hard it can be for a mental midget when their life didnt turn out the way they wanted.

and klimmer the physics teacher? hahahaha.



you guys freaking crack me up.

i gots some real work today managing the construction of a high rise that has fire protected steel members and analyses performed using knowledge gained from the twin towers accident. i try and learn from history and don't need to project my self worth on the pages of the taco.

if it makes you feel better rox you are the most warped dude on here of late as you are an expert on everything, cry when called out and yet pathetically, cannot seem to find a job. guess what, you wont find a job here.

oh wait, you can possibly set up klimmers HS physics experiments....
WBraun

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 12:32pm PT
Hawkeye

But you are doing that too: "projecting your self worth on the pages of the taco."

Although you can't see your own self doing it .....
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 12:38pm PT
American 77 Flight Path version2 - In 3D
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3752900324142560520#

Does the NTSB report for Flight 77, and the flight recorder for Flight 77 match? Nope.



9/11: PENTAGON AIRCRAFT HIJACK IMPOSSIBLE
FLIGHT DECK DOOR CLOSED FOR ENTIRE FLIGHT
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/american_77_hijack_impossible.html


Could Barbara Olson Have Made Those Calls?
An Analysis of New Evidence about Onboard Phones
David Ray Griffin and Rob Balsamo
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/amrarticle.html





Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jul 2, 2010 - 12:57pm PT
I fly paragliders and also teach physics

I'm supposed to be impressed by that? I'm not going to enumerate all the
powered and un-powered aircraft I have flown both in and out of ground effect as you obviously wouldn't be impressed. As I stated you need to broaden your aerodynamics knowledge and read the whole Wikipedia article you cursorily perused or should I send you a copy of Aerodynamics For Naval Aviators? It is a tad lengthy so to reprise my former advice on taking into consideration angle of attack here is what you ignored from Wikipedia:

The Wing In Ground effect is affected by numerous factors, including the wing's area, its chord length, and its angle of attack as it nears the surface, as well as the weight, speed, and configuration of the aircraft, and wing loading (aircraft weight per unit-area of wing).

I'm not wasteing any more time on this as you are only going to believe what you want to.

Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 12:57pm PT
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/Margulis.html




National Academy of Sciences Member Calls for New 9/11 InvestigationOfficial Explanation a “Fraud”

August 27, 2007 – World renowned scientist, Lynn Margulis, Ph.D., today severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation, “I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken.”

One of America ’s most prominent scientists, Dr. Margulis is Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts - Amherst . She was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983 and served as Chairman of the Academy’s Space Science Board Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution. In 1999, President Bill Clinton presented Dr. Margulis with the National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement, "for her outstanding contributions to understanding of the development, structure, and evolution of living things, for inspiring new research in the biological, climatological, geological and planetary sciences, and for her extraordinary abilities as a teacher and communicator of science to the public."

In her statement on PatriotsQuestion911.com, Dr. Margulis referred to 9/11 as “this new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties”. She compared 9/11 to several self-inflicted attacks that had been used in the past to arouse people’s fear and hatred and justify war, including the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor , the Reichstag Fire, and Operation Himmler, which Germany used to justify the invasion of Poland , the trigger for World War II.

Dr. Margulis credited “the research and clear writing by David Ray Griffin in his fabulous books about 9/11” for providing much of the information that formed her opinion about 9/11. She specifically lauded The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, “which provides overwhelming evidence that the official story is contradictory, incomplete, and unbelievable.”

Internationally acclaimed for her ground-breaking scientific work, Dr. Margulis is an elected member of The World Academy of Art and Science, an organization of 500 of the world’s leading thinkers, chosen for eminence in art, the natural and social sciences, and the humanities. And in 2006, she was selected as one of “The 20th Century's 100 Most Important Inspirational Leaders” by the editors of Resurgence magazine.

Dr. Margulis’ full statement can be read at PatriotsQuestion911.com. More information about Dr. Margulis’ career can be found at http://www.sciencewriters.org.

Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:02pm PT
Eight U.S. State Department Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11
By Alan Miller
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_080104_eight_u_s__state_dep.htm
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:03pm PT
Reilly,

Sorry you can't handle the truth. The points I made are very clear.



Some people stick-up for the Truth and are brave enough to go after it regardless of the out-fall.

Some people are Chicken-hawks and tow the line for the US Goverenment through lies and distortions.

Where do you all fall? What side do you support?



I clearly fall on the side of Truth. I'm with these Patriots . . .

Military, Intelligence, and Government Patriots Question 9-11

http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:07pm PT
Arguing with Klimmer et al about their beliefs is even worse than trying to teach a pig to dance. You waste your time, get muddy, and don't even annoy the pig.

No offence to pigs, of course. Delightful critters.
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:15pm PT
WBraun

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:19pm PT
NIST created 16 separate physics programs to simulate the WTC 1 & 2 collapses and only got 1 to collapse partially.

On the one partially collapse simulation they removed 40% of the structural support.

NIST experts?
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:21pm PT
WB,

True. And even then they had to manipulate the model in unreasonable ways to get the one to collapse.

True.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:23pm PT
Klimmer, you need to read this book.






On second thought don't.

You won't get that it's a novel and we'll have to endure a whole new conspiracy thread.
WBraun

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:23pm PT
Mighty Hiker & Hawkeye worship these so called "experts" ....

The 911 recovery expert said the air was safe to go back to work after the collapse.

So its no surprise to learn that all of the 9/11 rescue and recovery dogs are dead.
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:31pm PT
so werner are these experts lieing? are they just plain stupid? are they involved in the coverup?

there is no doubt our government is capable of doing stupid things. no doubt that a few bad apples exist that may be capable of murder. but i really doubt that there are that many people capable of that significant of a coverup involving the innocent slaughter of over 3,000 americans. sorry, i dont buy it.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:32pm PT
Let's see

Average large breed dog lives 12-15 years

9-11 9 years ago?

Of course most of them are dead by now!
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:37pm PT
werner,

those experts screwed up on not requiring PPE to protect against all the dust and other particles in the air from the building collapse. it was probably one of those cases where the rescuers (desperately wanting to help, hey you ought to get that part of it) put themselves at risk by not fully understanding all of the hazards.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:40pm PT
Why we are in here and suffering in these dark days . . .

Kennedy and Eisenhower explain . . .


Military Industrial Complex
http://www.viddler.com/explore/afteramerica/videos/20/


Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY




The massive conspiracy started and was discussed at length in the Book of Genesis.

The end of this vast and dark conspiracy is addressed and foretold in the Book of Revelation.

We are deep in-between the two, but closer now to the end of this conspiracy. However, it will get worse though before it gets better.

I'm stickiing with the Big Guy upstairs no matter what.
WBraun

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:40pm PT
"those experts screwed up"

"it was probably"

Do you actually think before you write?
WBraun

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:46pm PT
Christine Todd Whitman, head of the EPA said the air was safe to breathe and that people should return to work even though the emissions from the WTC piles were recorded to be hundreds of times above the legal Permissible Exposure Limit as established by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health for more than 2 weeks after 9/11.

Another nice expert to worship.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:48pm PT
I'd like to note that some of the "Anti-Truther" crowd here has been calling names, making unsubstantiated disparaging remarks, and not providing much evidence against the points nor even demonstrating that they read them.

Hardly a good tact when attacking another's credibility. You can't just wave your arms and call another person a nut and make it so when that other person is actually (even misguidedly) using logic and science to prove their point.

Hawkeye wrote

and yet your statement would lead one to believe that the 911 commission members themselves have admitted a cover-up.

i know you were probably trying to say that thecommission admits there are inconsitencies but i done know of them admitting a coverup, perhaps you can enlighten us...

I made my statement because they DID admit a cover-up. They ignored and left out important evidence because they were politically pressured to do so and admitted it.

Do your own research. I'm not confident if I posted something, anyone would read it.

Peace

Karl
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:51pm PT
werener,

i wasnt there and wont make assertions as to what the rescue leads were doing. nor will i second guess them or their actions. i would not stand in the meadow on a stormy day wondering why YOSAR wasnt up risking their lives to rescue some dude as others on this forum have done.
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:54pm PT
They will scream loader and longer than you hawk, just let it go. You won't change their mind and 1000 posts later you will have wasted hours of your time.
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:56pm PT
karl,

i totally agree that it is wrong to leave out evidence. a cover-up in my mind seems to be more sinister than that. and yes, i would read the links.

i actually read some of the links that klimmer the patriot posted on the pilots. interesting stuff. the funny thing about a "fact" is that it can frequently be used in a multitude of ways to present a variety of conclusions.

Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:57pm PT
Werner, I don't worship anyone. (Except perhaps the yogi of Yosemite.) There are undoubtedly unanswered questions about what exactly happened on 11/9, why and how. The investigation and clean-up were undoubtedly flawed, and left loose ends. A few people in government may have had some forewarning, or at least should have been more alert. The government response was for the most part grotesquely inept. It's an imperfect world, and many of the humans involved did imperfect things, at least given 20:20 hindsight. Nothing new in any of this.

It's a very far cry from what happened to fabricate a monstrous and monstrously complex conspiracy about what happened, one that if was even partly true would lead to treason charges against those responsible, and possibly a revolution. Gathering together a few loose ends, and claiming that they 'prove' something, is unconvincing. And saying that the government, or more accurately thousands of individuals in the government, 'could' or 'would' do what is claimed, at enormously high risk of discovery, is hardly proof of anything.

Sorry, you guys are delusional.

As for Christine Whitman, the EPA head? Well, she was a good Republican, and there was enormous pressure to investigate the rubble, find bodies, and clean up. Republicans care little for workers such as those who clean up disasters. (The workers themselves may well have had a choice as to whether to wear protective clothing, use masks, etc.) The situation was unprecedented. No surprise that she gave the go-ahead to the clean up.
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2010 - 02:03pm PT
haha RJ.

i am not certain what could be gained by lieing about my background. hell i definitely could have made something up better than being an engineer/project manager. i mean if i were going to lie i may as well pretend to be an secret agent or something... pretty funny.

Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jul 2, 2010 - 02:07pm PT
Rok,
You and Klim both must think AOA (angle of attack) is the angle at which you sit to the keyboard.
You also think your 'pilots for truth' really exist. You also haven't seen the radar track from the FAA: the 757 was not in a "spiral dive" and a 757, like all commercial jets or any certified aircraft, is not that tough to fly. He prolly couldn't have 'greased it on' but it clearly wasn't too tough to hit the Pentagon; Stevie Wonder coulda done that.

ps
If you and Klim want some 757 sim time I can arrange it at Flight Safety although I'm not paying! :-D
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 02:09pm PT
Rox, Klimmer and Tony. How confident are you about every aspect of the conspiracy you have suggested (meaning a probability)? I'm just curious.
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2010 - 02:10pm PT
oh yeah RJ?
I wonder about EVERYTHING.

you ever wondered about finding a yob?
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jul 2, 2010 - 02:16pm PT
Ok, since you said you'd look.
Everybody should watch this 3 minute video. REally Just this one little video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owJluP_8dcM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owJluP_8dcM


from

http://gheorghealexeev.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/the-chair-of-the-911-commission-admits-that-the-evidence-was-not-the-truth/

"....The chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, respectively Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, assert in their book, Without Precedent, that they were “set up to fail” and were starved of funds to do a proper investigation. They also confirm that they were denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the federal aviation authority; and that this obstruction and deception led them to contemplate slapping officials with criminal charges. Despite the many public statements by 9/11 commissioners and staff members acknowledging they were repeatedly lied to, not a single person has ever been charged, tried, or even reprimanded, for lying to the 9/11 Commission...."

He says they LIED to the commission. WHY? and why let that slide?

From

http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

"August 9, 2006: A shocking new book by the 9/11 Commission co-chairmen Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton says we still don't know the whole truth about 9/11. The book outlines repeated misstatements by the Pentagon and the FAA. Untrue—the military's original timeline of United Flight 93. Equally untrue, the government's timeline for American Flight 77 and details about fighter jets scrambled to intercept it. CNN News anchor Lou Dobbs: "The fact that the government would permit deception ... and perpetuate the lie suggests that we need a full investigation of what is going on." [CNN, 8/9/06 , MSNBC/AP, 8/4/06, more]"

Peace

Karl
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 02:23pm PT
Karl,

Good work :-)) I hope they look into it. Clicking on links is often times beyond them.




Reilly,

Once again I will post the links. Look at the top one. The Pilots for 9-11 Truth do an awesome job . . .



American 77 Flight Path version2 - In 3D
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3752900324142560520#

Does the NTSB report for Flight 77, and the flight recorder for Flight 77 match? Nope.



9/11: PENTAGON AIRCRAFT HIJACK IMPOSSIBLE
FLIGHT DECK DOOR CLOSED FOR ENTIRE FLIGHT
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/american_77_hijack_impossible.html


Could Barbara Olson Have Made Those Calls?
An Analysis of New Evidence about Onboard Phones
David Ray Griffin and Rob Balsamo
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/amrarticle.html



Port,

I'm 100% confident that the OCT as set forth by our US Government is wrong, having been invalidated in so many ways by all the evidence.

Investigate 9-11. That is what we have to do. The World demands to know the truth.



Edit:


OK, I got stuff to do and places to go. Later . . .
dirtbag

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 02:25pm PT
Clicking on links is often times beyond them.

Because all you guys ever post are fringe sites, so why bother?
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2010 - 02:32pm PT
thanks karl.

The final report did not examine key evidence, and neglected serious anomalies in the various accounts of what happened. The commissioners admit their report was incomplete and flawed, and that many questions about the terror attacks remain unanswered. Nevertheless, the 9/11 Commission was swiftly closed down on August 21 2004.

I do not believe in conspiracy theories. I prefer rigorous, evidence-based analysis that sifts through the known facts and utilises expert opinion to draw conclusions that stand up to critical scrutiny. In other words, I believe in everything the 9/11 Commission was not.

The failings of the official investigation have fuelled too many half-baked conspiracy theories. Some of the 9/11 "truth" groups promote speculative hypotheses, ignore innocent explanations, cite non-expert sources and jump to conclusions that are not proven by the known facts. They convert mere coincidence and circumstantial evidence into cast-iron proof. This is no way to debunk the obfuscations and evasions of the 9/11 report.

But even amid the hype, some of these 9/11 groups raise valid and important questions that were never even considered, let alone answered, by the official investigation. The American public has not been told the complete truth about the events of that fateful autumn morning six years ago.

What happened on 9/11 is fundamentally important in its own right. But equally important is the way the 9/11 cover-up signifies an absence of democratic, transparent and accountable government. Establishing the truth is, in part, about restoring honesty, trust and confidence in American politics.


this is from a reference to one of the links you posted.

just to be clear, without having read Hamiltons book (which i intend to), they lacked funding and time for the investigation and did not get the cooperation from other agencies. i dont get where they said their was a conspiracy....i doubt that there are many government projects that will say that they have all the time and $ they need, no surprise there.
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2010 - 02:36pm PT
Rox,
When I go back to work, a lot of people will be disappointed. The stuff I now do for others will have to be subcontracted ...






Its none of your f*#king business what I do you worthless crap. I am independent, a private citizen and under no pressure to do anything I don't want to. I have a life that you can't even dream of jerkwad.


get off it. Your poor attempts at distraction just highlight your own inability to address the actual issues posted on this thread. You don't want to have a discussion on the facts and opinions of this thread, you would do everybody a favor by f*#king off.

there, there rj. it's alright. maybe someone can bump that thanks RJ thread for you, would that make you feel better? hell, if i have time i will bump it just for you so your feelings arent hurt.

but you are onto something. i think you should set up a paypal account and make people pay before they can see your blather and your infinite wisdom. being delusional about 911 is one thing, but your self worth from this site is quite delusional....
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jul 2, 2010 - 02:39pm PT
Wait a minute! I thought you guys have been telling me ground effect would
make it impossible to crash? Can't you make up your minds?
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2010 - 02:47pm PT
The inertia of the airliner would push it into the ground in most cases.

Reilly, it is clear that Klimmer taught RJ some Physics....
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 02:54pm PT
Karl, that was a great video. Thank you. And I totally agree with you.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jul 2, 2010 - 03:03pm PT
Hawkeye wrote

i dont get where they said their was a conspiracy....i doubt that there are many government projects that will say that they have all the time and $ they need, no surprise there.

They said the government stonewalled them and also LIED to them. WHy? And why didn't they follow up an find out why. It's 9-11 inquiry for god's sake. If they asked publically for money and time they would get it. The Gov spent 55 million investigating Clinton's dick

peace

Karl
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2010 - 03:04pm PT
hey, nobody said government funding made sense...
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 03:10pm PT
Gosh I got to get out of here and do stuff but you guys keep pulling me back in . . .

OK, this last post and then I'm going places and doing things . . .


American 77 Flight Path version2 - In 3D
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3752900324142560520#

Does the NTSB report for Flight 77, and the flight recorder for Flight 77 match? Nope.


I'm gonna make it easy for Hawkeye and Reilly,


I'm gonna hold your hand through this.

The actual NSTB report and the flight recorder for Flight 77 do not agree. The flight recorder data shows too high of an approach for the street lights to be knocked down. It would have easily overflown them.

So the flight recorder data proves that Flight 77 didn't knock down the streetlamps. Couldn't have.

Well, the OCT says that it did indeed knock down the street lamps. To do so AA Flight 77 (Boeing 757) would have to be within a height from the ground to experience severe ground effect going at the incredible high speeds it did. Can not happen.

So something small came through that SW approach path that did indeed slame into the Pentagon, and more than likely it had a bunker buster on board. It was not AA Flight 77. That is why you do not see flight 77 in the official released video, but you see something smaller and at near ground level.

AA Flight 77 flew to the North of the Citgo Station and overflew the Pentagon if indeed it was AA Flght 77. They wanted people to see a massive jet but it didn't slam into the Pentagon. It overflew the Pentagon.

Here:





Now, the scenerio I just outlined does indeed fit the evidence that we now know. Do we know every step of it? No. But it does fit all the known evidence.


Here watch the video from this site:

http://thepentacon.com/

The PentaCon (Smoking Gun Version with added subtitles)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5296595694237574426#


http://thepentacon.com/googlesmokinggun.htm
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2010 - 03:18pm PT
AA Flight 77 flew to the North of the Citgo Station and overflew the Pentagon if indeed it was AA Flght 77. They wanted people to see a massive jet but it didn't slam into the Pentagon. It overflew the Pentagon.

then dove into the top secret under the potomac naval shipyard for boeings and then they assassinated all the people on board? ot maybe sent them to a small desert island and they will pop up in a survivor TV series?

great deduction sherlock. i hope to god for the welfare of your students that you dont infect them with this crap....
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2010 - 03:36pm PT
Its hard to do good posting when you are rushing trying to keep up with people who are doing NOTHING to prove their claims but posting their own spew

oh, is it a competition! neato! i like competitions! how do i play!?

if i played by posting all this crap off the internet then could i be a contender?



you really do need to get a life.

Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2010 - 03:37pm PT
oh yeah,

RJ, i bumped your appreciation thread.

if you are feeling down you can always go read that again.
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 2, 2010 - 03:58pm PT
NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room"

06/22/2010 - (PilotsFor911Truth.org) Recently Pilots For 9/11 Truth have analyzed the speeds reported for the aircraft utilized on 9/11. Numerous aviation experts have voiced their concerns regarding the extremely excessive speeds reported above Maximum Operating for the 757 and 767, particularly, United and American Airlines 757/767 Captains who have actual flight time in all 4 aircraft reportedly used on 9/11. These experts state the speeds are impossible to achieve near sea level in thick air if the aircraft were a standard 757/767 as reported. Combined with the fact the airplane which was reported to strike the south tower of the World Trade Center was also producing high G Loading while turning and pulling out from a dive, the whole issue becomes incomprehensible to fathom a standard 767 can perform such maneuvers at such intense speeds exceeding Maximum Operating limits of the aircraft. Especially for those who research the topic thoroughly and have expertise in aviation.

Co-Founder of Pilots For 9/11 Truth Rob Balsamo recently interviewed a former NASA Flight Director in charge of flight control systems at the NASA Dryden Flight Research facility who is also speaking out after viewing the latest presentation by Pilots For 9/11 Truth - "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Retired NASA Senior Executive Dwain Deets published his concerns on the matter at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) as follows:


A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability
Dwain Deets
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Senior Executive Service - retired)
AIAA Associate Fellow

The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won’t publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?

The above entry remained at the moderated AIAA Aerospace America Forum for approximately two weeks before being removed without explanation. Click "Who is Ethically Responsible" submitted by Dwain Deets at the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum for discussion on this entry at AIAA.

Dwain Deets credentials and experience are as follows:

Dwain Deets
MS Physics, MS Eng
Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)
Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
Associate Fellow - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000
Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
- Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
37 year NASA career

It is established based on corroborated expert statements, raw data, and precedent, that the extremely excessive speed reported for the 9/11 aircraft is truly the "Elephant In The Room" and needs to be thoroughly investigated.

For summary of speed analysis, please see article 9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed.

To view the scene from "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" analyzing the reported speeds in more detail, please click here.

For full detailed analysis covering the events which took place in New York City on September 11, 2001, interviews with experts, including analysis of "Hijacker" pilot skill, Black Box recovery and more... please view the latest presentation from Pilots For 9/11 Truth, "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has also analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack and the events in Shanksville, PA. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/join to join.

Comments? Click here for discussion.

Follow-up recorded interview - 06/30/10
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/interviews/Dwain_Deets063010.mp3
10mb download, approx 22 mins runtime.

###
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 2, 2010 - 04:42pm PT
LOL, JohnDoeX is Rob Balsamo. He monitors his access logs and makes visits out to the forums. What a loser. A proud day for Klimmer and RJ though.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=161557&mesg_id=162440



A plane can exceed it's safety limit without breaking up. They are set conservatively. It's gonna catch up to you eventually though. If you are on a suicide mission you don't really care.

Here's a test showing failure at 154 percent of design failure limit. Safety limits are set well below design failure.

http://www.clipstr.com/videos/Boeing777WingTest/

All Boeing airliners are designed very conservatively . The 707 was even rolled in a test flight.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jul 2, 2010 - 05:12pm PT
Hawkeye wrote

hey, nobody said government funding made sense...

That's just a throwaway quote to avoid an uncomfortable admission and you probably know it. The government told lies to the 9-11 commission and they acknowledge that. They also steered them away for whole subjects (like the war games, money trail, and able danger/Atta)

Why? wHy did they need to lie? We don't know if they are covering up incompetance, foreknowledge or complicity. Don't you think we should find out for real?

Peace

Karl
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 2, 2010 - 05:13pm PT
LOL RJ, if he cared for anonymity he would not use johndoeX. Just do a google search.

He's well known as JDX. When I see johndoeX it rings a bell and I do a 5 second google search.

Not that difficult, Sherlock.

And he posted here back in 2006. He has done this for years. He is the ultimate Truther loser.
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2010 - 05:15pm PT
I think a lot.

good for you! bravo! a mastermind! i can see the headlines, "RJ thinks a lot!"

dont know what good its doing but carry on....
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2010 - 05:16pm PT
karl,

kind of late after the fact that these guys call BS on a report they authored, dontchathink? ask RJ he thinks a lot.
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2010 - 05:19pm PT
oh come on RJ, dont get all weepy eyed on us.
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 2, 2010 - 05:21pm PT
Yeah, I'm Rob Balsamo.

I'm not exactly hiding it, just click my username and see my email addy Einstein.

I registered here many years ago, when i went by JDX. (i was surprised i still remembered my password here...)

And yes, we are getting a lot of hits from here. Thanks for those who posted links.

Whats your point "monolith"?

Who are you? Never heard of you before. But clearly you have heard of me... :-)

Bottom line. A slick P-51 breaks up in flight before a bulky 767-200. That is, if you believe the govt story.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=20178&view=findpost&p=10787201
WBraun

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 05:23pm PT
Here's another nice one,

"It has been public knowledge for years in Washington DC that the CIA working with agents at FBI HQ intentionally, deliberately and knowing allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11 which resulted in the murder of almost 3000 people.

It is unfortunately only the Americans public that has not been made aware of this information.

It not like the CIA and FBI HQ actually wanted thousands of Americans to die in these attacks.

But people at the CIA and FBI HQ knew that if FBI Agent Steve Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi was not shut down, and Bongardt ultimately got the photo of Walid Bin Attash taken at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting, Bongardt would have realized that his team investigating the Cole bombing had been criminally obstructed by the CIA and FBI HQ agents and many people at both the CIA and FBI HQ would have gone to prison for many years.

The people at these agencies were just trying to stay out of prison, and it was unfortunate that thousands of Americans had to die to make sure they would not go jail. The CIA tried desperately to keep the fact secret that Walid Bin Attash had been identified in a photo taken at Kuala Lumpur, on January 4, 2001 by the joint FBI/CIA source, and then these agencies carried out many actions to criminally obstruct the FBI criminal investigation of the Cole bombing to hide this information in order to hide the CIA’s culpability in the al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole."

I like how some of these so called people who say it could not possible happen like this keep making excuses for the "experts".

They love experts .....
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 2, 2010 - 05:24pm PT
Hey Rob, did you ever get your medical back?
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 2, 2010 - 05:29pm PT
"Monolith"

See Claim 1 here, Einstein.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=7163

Then try to use some of your research ability, as hard as it may be for you.

You tell us, is my medical renewed?

What is my address? (you can find that too in the above link).


Monolith, are you going to be a typical govt story supporter and only ask questions while evading all those asked of you?

Second time asked... Who are you?

Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 05:29pm PT
You guys are getting your conspiracies missed up.

1.) The Gov intentionally allowed the attacks to happen

or

2.) The Gov. faked the attacks and planted bombs to bring down the towers...and shot a missile into the pentagon.


so which is it?
WBraun

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 05:31pm PT
Number one it is ....
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 2, 2010 - 05:36pm PT
Rob, how many people have you banned from your forums today?
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 2, 2010 - 05:37pm PT
None....

Second time asked -

You tell us, is my medical renewed?

What is my address? (you can find that too in the above link).


Monolith, are you going to be a typical govt story supporter and only ask questions while evading all those asked of you?

Third time asked... Who are you?
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 2, 2010 - 05:42pm PT
None Of The Screeners At Dulles Airport Remembers Handling Any Of The Alleged Hijackers
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 2, 2010 - 05:43pm PT
Sorry Rob, can't reveal that. Part of the deal for working with the NWO.


If nothing else you are persistent, day in, day out, for years. What a sucky life.

I bow to your persistence.

I'm sure the Truthers here have many questions and accolades for you.

Carry on.

Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jul 2, 2010 - 05:46pm PT
Let's find out. we don't really know. I suspect number one but they could have even planted the idea with Al Queda via a mole

kind of late after the fact that these guys call BS on a report they authored, dontchathink? ask RJ he thinks a lot.

So what does that mean. It's a lot easier to blow the whistle or figure out that your lies aren't flying once the president at the time is out of power. You don't mess with this stuff eh?

Some of these guys (like Hamilton) are trotted out any time they need a credible cover-up legislator. They wanted Kissinger to head the commission but the public didn't buy it. Hamilton opted not to investigates arms for hostages with Iran, was on the Iraq Study Group, investigated Los Alamos and they use him when they need a democrat to rollover and ignore corruption

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_H._Hamilton

Here's his article on being stonewalled by the CIA

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html?_r=1

Some excerpts

"..The commission’s mandate was sweeping and it explicitly included the intelligence agencies. But the recent revelations that the C.I.A. destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation...."

"...As a result of this January meeting, the C.I.A. agreed to pose some of our questions to detainees and report back to us. The commission concluded this was all the administration could give us. But the commission never felt that its earlier questions had been satisfactorily answered. So the public would be aware of our concerns, we highlighted our caveats on page 146 in the commission report.

As a legal matter, it is not up to us to examine the C.I.A.’s failure to disclose the existence of these tapes. That is for others. What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction...."

That's just one of the issues and one of the more minor

Peace

Karl

WBraun

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 05:55pm PT
Whistle blowing ......???

"What good would that do?

The Obama administration has said they are not going back to pursue the crimes of the Bush administration. Besides they need Republican votes on some issues to pass the legislation.

And besides this information already has been public knowledge in Washington DC and has been for years. This is all but an open secret in Washington DC. This is how the place works."

"HELLO"
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 2, 2010 - 05:57pm PT
"Monolith" writes - **"Jul 2, 2010 - 02:43pm PT
If nothing else you are persistent, day in, day out, for years. What a sucky life."**

Yet you know who I am on my first post here in almost 4 years, and I havent a clue (nor could care less), who you are...

Go outside, get some fresh air, as clearly you'll never learn anything close to a Vg diagram, let alone aircraft envelopes.

Be sure to keep an eye on the list.,. it grows regularly...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jul 2, 2010 - 06:00pm PT
Anyway, isn't it true that RokJox, Klimmer et al are all in on the conspiracy, and in fact their ranting here is another false flag operation, to distract us from what really happened?

It was, of course, all because of the space aliens in the ark on the backside of the Moon. And maybe the Illuminati.
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 2, 2010 - 06:01pm PT
Rokjox writes -
Do You HAPPEN to be a pilot involved in "Pilots for 911 Truth"?

This is me...

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots#Balsamo

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core#Balsamo
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 06:03pm PT
More importantly....do you climb?
WBraun

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 06:03pm PT
Oh oh .....

"The official story cannot be recreated by any experiment.

NIST is the government agency involved in attempting to model what happened to the world trade center on 9/11, and they fail horribly.

NIST never models what happens after the collapse initiation, and even what they do model before that is easily debunked."

“There's no such thing as a 'pancake' collapse, but there is a progressive collapse”
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 2, 2010 - 06:05pm PT
Port asks - Jul 2, 2010 - 03:03pm PT
More importantly....do you climb?

At more than 10,000 feet per minute at times... :-)
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2010 - 06:32pm PT
OMG! Monolith was RIGHT.
It IS a proud day for me.





The co-founder of Pilots For 911 Truth !!!!

4000TT Commercial, Instrument, Multi, CFI II MEI
Corporate Chief Pilot
135 Capt
121 FO Independence Air/Atlantic Coast Airlines
King Air C-90/200, Dornier 328JET




A Celebrity! And a Pilot of the Big Boys.

i think rj just creamed his keyboard

thanks johndoe for brightening RJ's day. it was getting so sad around here.....
WBraun

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 06:56pm PT
"Giuliani was appointed U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York in 1983. “So he knew a thing or two about criminal investigation procedures."

Knowing that, one has to wonder why he “sent more than 99% of the steel from the WTC to China and Korea in violation of proper chain of evidence.”

Not only that, it was sent overseas at a price undercutting a New Jersey company. A company in New Jersey offered to pay $0.56 per ton, but it was sent out of the country to be smelted before experts could analyze the steel for signs of explosives for $0.50 per ton.

Giuliani is clearly one of the perpetrators behind the crimes of 9/11, and he was confronted recently by a truth squad led by Luke Rudkowski.

They wanted to know why his story has changed five times about his activities on the morning of 9/11."
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 07:10pm PT
JohnDoeX,

Thanks for being here.

Just one question from me (ok, maybe 2) . . .

Q: Can a Boeing 757 going at the official posted speeds for AA Flight 77 on 9-11 fly into the Pentagon along the OCT path through the lightpoles and then eventually and obviously just mere feet above the ground, yet not touch the spot-less "Pentalawn" not be affected by Ground Effect? Or another way of asking, Is it actually possible to cruise a Commercial Airliner at near top speeds just a few feet above the ground where it would encounter Ground Effect for any real distance?
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 2, 2010 - 07:15pm PT
After reading all the Klimmer/Rox links I am so happy government is now in control of our healthcare......

What I don't understand is that if this truther stuff is true why wouldn't people take up arms against their country? According to them our own government committed an act of war against us. Pure and simple.

They even drew first blood.

Are any of you truthers willing to put your money where your mouth is? Or, are you all just part time truthers?


Skip


Well Skipt (comprehension classes), it's not the Government that is evil, corrupt and incompetent, not the whole of it anyway.
I know you TeaBaggers can't get your collective head around the reality-what with the throw all incumbents out mental frothing and all-that most of the people in government are hard working honest folks trying to do the best they can in a good but imperfect system.
We are talking about the reality of a rogue element of very powerful people deep within government actively pursuing their own agenda. They are the ones who need to be exposed and weeded out.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 07:23pm PT
it's not the Government that is evil, corrupt and incompetent, not the whole of it anyway.
I know you TeaBaggers can't get your collective head around the reality-what with the throw all incumbents out mental frothing and all-that most of the people in government are hard working honest folks trying to do the best they can in a good but imperfect system.
We are talking about the reality of a rogue element of very powerful people deep within government actively pursuing their own agenda. They are the ones who need to be exposed and weeded out.

True.

There are indeed good people in all agencies within our government, just doing their jobs and serving the Citizens. But then there are monsters. I agree. They have to be rooted out.





Here is another incredible situation that goes along with and fits right into the Pentagon flyover and that the massive jet was actually seen to go North of the Citgo Gas Station, which completely contradicts the US Government OCT:

Lloyd England and his Taxi Cab
The Eye of the Storm
http://thepentacon.com/eyeofthestorm.htm
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 07:25pm PT
Skipt,


I think you "skipped" reading what I actually said.

Take-offs and landings are all at very reduced speeds, not near top flight speed.

Slow down and work on Reading comprehension. Try it. It works.

johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 2, 2010 - 07:58pm PT
Jul 2, 2010 - 04:10pm PT
JohnDoeX,

Thanks for being here.

Just one question from me (ok, maybe 2) . . .

Q: Can a Boeing 757 going at the official posted speeds for AA Flight 77 on 9-11 fly into the Pentagon along the OCT path through the lightpoles and then eventually and obviously just mere feet above the ground, yet not touch the spot-less "Pentalawn" not be affected by Ground Effect? Or another way of asking, Is it actually possible to cruise a Commercial Airliner at near top speeds just a few feet above the ground where it would encounter Ground Effect for any real distance?



G Forces - Scene From 9/11: Attack On The Pentagon
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=14670
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 2, 2010 - 08:13pm PT
Note to Skippy, they don't land at full speed.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 08:14pm PT
Skipt,

How old are you?

I feel like I'm talking to a HS student or younger, either that or you are old and senile. Which is it?

It is like I'm talking to a rock, and nothing is getting through.

Read about Ground Effect. It is real and it does affect an aircraft in close proximity to the ground. Are you denying this? It's effect is also greater the faster you fly in close proximity to the ground. Hence, the fact you have to reduce your airspeed (and groundspeed) when landing, but not so slow as to stall of course. There is a window, and envelope of speed an aircraft can easily land within where Ground Effect will have minimal effect and it can touch down.

Go too fast at close proximity to the ground and Ground Effect will make it impossible to touch down. At cruising speeds you are going too fast to get into close proximity to the ground. The craft is literally bouyed up and lifted by the effect.

We are not of course talking about plunging an aircraft straight into the ground. There would be no ground effect of course then. We are talking about normal approaches to the ground. The OCT of 9-11 for AA Flight 77 has the jet approaching not far off normal approaches and fairly normal inclines after the spiral dive descent, when it levels out and for a considerable distance, apparently plowing its way through lightpoles. Ground Effect would be a factor then indeed, especially at the official speeds of flight indicated.

The official video released shows something much smaller at ground level leaving a smoke trail. It is not a 757.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 2, 2010 - 08:15pm PT
And when they do go full speed, ya just put the nose down a little to overcome ground effect. You would think it's impossible to crash flying low level fast by the way you guys prattle on about ground effect.

Not that difficult guys.

And Klimmer, flying that low, even the engine back wash will throw up dust.

We have the best cruise missile technology, and our engines are smokeless for good reasons.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 08:23pm PT
It is like talking to rocks . . .
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 2, 2010 - 08:26pm PT
Scene From: "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" - Control
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 2, 2010 - 08:46pm PT
Klimmer,

I am from a prominent Air Force Family. My father was in charge of an important segment of it and my uncle was senior engineer for NATO.

I spent my life in the technical field also working with them and other agencies. You don't know what you are talking about and even funnier you don't understand what the real conspiracy here is.

It is in the telecom area. That is where we haven't been told everything and for good reason.

Klimmer, you are a clown.


Skip


Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret)
30,000+ Total Flight Time
707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777
Pan Am, United
United States Air Force (ret)
Over 100 Combat Missions Flown
Command time in:
 N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
 N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)

Commander Ralph “Rotten” Kolstad
23,000 hours
27 years in the airlines
B757/767 for 13 years mostly international Captain with American Airlines.
20 years US Navy flying fighters off aircraft carriers, TopGun twice
civilian pilot flying gliders, light airplanes and warbirds
Command time in:
 N644AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 77)
 N334AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 11)


Jeff Latas
-Over 20 years in the USAF
--USAF Accident investigation Board President
--Flew the F-111, T38, and F-15E
--Combat experience in the F-15E includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch
--Weapons Requirements Officer, USAF HQ, Pentagon
--Standard and Evaluations Flight Examiner, Command level
-Currently Captain for JetBlue Airways

Guy S. Razer, LtCol, USAF (Ret)
3,500+ Hours Total Flight Time
F-15E/C, F-111A/D/E/F/EF, F-16, F-18, B-1, Mig-29, SU-22, T-37/38, Various Cvilian Prop
Combat Time: Operation Northern Watch
USAF Fighter Weapons School Instructor
NATO Tactical Leadership Program Instructor/Mission Coordinator
USAF Material Command Weapons Development Test Pilot
Combat Support Coordination Team 2 Airpower Coordinator, South Korea
All Service Combat Identification Evaluation Team Operations Officer
Boeing F-22 Pilot Instructor
MS Aeronautical Studies, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Dwain Deets
MS Physics, MS Eng
Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)
Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
Associate Fellow - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000
Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
 Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
37 year NASA career

Field McConnell (Captain Sherlock?)
23,000+ hours
CV580,DC9,MD80,B727,A320,DC10
NCA,REP,NWA
A4,F4,F16 USN,USMC, ND ANG

That is just a sample...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

Skippy, your "experts" mean nothing, till they go on the record.
Mimi

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 08:58pm PT
Sorry if I missed any direct questions; ask again. I've been at work all day.

k-man, regarding stock puts. Show us the data. A lot of that stuff was BS and unsubstantiated. All part of the Truther hysteria.

And I'm personally not relying on any experts. Keep watching the footage of the jets impacting in real time and slo-mo and force yourself to have an open mind. End of story.

As for the Pentagon again. If it was a bunker buster, klimsie, where are the f*#king passengers on that flight?! Did they enter the Twilight Zone or were they abducted by Big Foot? Perhaps a teensy black hole has them.
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 2, 2010 - 08:59pm PT
Jul 2, 2010 - 05:48pm PT
Which one are you, John Doe?

Funny, I don't see that name on the list.


Skip


Ask Monolith...

Or click my username and read my posts and links.

Wow, no wonder why these people blindly support the govt story. They are unable to do any research whatsoever.
dirtbag

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 09:20pm PT
Klimmer,

I am from a prominent Air Force Family. My father was in charge of an important segment of it and my uncle was senior engineer for NATO. I'm trying to tell you over and over I have talked with many people who saw a plane, and yes a 757, fly into the Pentagon.

I spent my life in the technical field also working with them and other agencies. You don't know what you are talking about and even funnier you don't understand what the real conspiracy here is.

It is in the telecom area. That is where we haven't been told everything and for good reason.


Skip

I can only conclude that they consistently ignore the parts where you repeatedly say, " I'm trying to tell you over and over I have talked with many people who saw a plane, and yes a 757, fly into the Pentagon." purposely.

Oh well, you tried.
dirtbag

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 09:26pm PT
Skip, what you posted was so simple. People saying "I saw the plane hit the Pentagon" doesn't get much more straightforward.

Yet they eschew it in favor of some wildly complex and fact-empty speculation that comports with their pre-conceived notions of NWO conspiracies and distrust of Bush and Cheney.

Mimi

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 09:26pm PT
Ditto.
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 2, 2010 - 09:29pm PT
Jul 2, 2010 - 06:22pm PT
I did dirt.

Over and out.

Thanks,


Skip

Witnesses at the Pentagon?

You mean like the Pentagon Police Officers interviewed on location? Who bet their life on the fact the aircraft approached on a path opposite the physical damage and impossible to cause the physical damage? The Arlington National Cemetery Workers, Citgo Gas Station Workers, Navy Annex workers.. et al.. who corroborate their story? These witnesses?

National Security Alert (Video)
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html

Skippy, will you ever provide anyone on the record? Or just people you claim to "know".

(rolleyes)
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Jul 2, 2010 - 09:30pm PT
where are the f*#king passengers on that flight?! Did they enter the Twilight Zone or were they abducted by Big Foot? Perhaps a teensy black hole has them.

Mimi

you mean the passengers of Oceanic 815? they've been on the Island for seven seasons fighting the smoke monster, now they're in Heaven
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 2, 2010 - 09:32pm PT
where are the f*#king passengers on that flight?!


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=7591&view=findpost&p=9458664

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-passengers_and_crew.html
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 2, 2010 - 09:35pm PT
Jul 2, 2010 - 06:33pm PT
Personally, I choose to listen to people who were there.

So, you viewed this video interviewing witnesses on location?

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html
WBraun

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 09:36pm PT
Oh they have their guys, witnesses,

And the other side has their guys, witnesses.

Then there's the guys that witnessed no planes.

Then there's frame missing video's of what it might have been

And are spoiled with disinformation mixed in to boot.

Makes for a very nice mix of nightmares for everyone.

Except of course for those who absolutely know .......
Mimi

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 09:39pm PT
jdx, they were placed in a witness pro program, eh!!!!!!111111111????

Hmmm, somethin' tells me your potato been bakin' too long.
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 2, 2010 - 09:40pm PT
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/official-interviews.html
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2010 - 09:50pm PT
jdx,
They are unable to do any research whatsoever.

if the internet is your idea of conclusive research and proof then you are a whackjob.

thats ok though, you sure blew RJ's load.

kind of hate to see the poor guy melt down so at least you helped his self esteem out.....
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 2, 2010 - 09:55pm PT

Jul 2, 2010 - 06:50pm PT
if the internet is your idea of conclusive research and proof then you are a whackjob.

What is yours? Fox News and CNN?

LMAO!

Actually, I rely on math, physics, aerodynamics, my many years as a Flight Instructor and pilot, the experts who i consult.. etc etc... you would know this if you did some research.

By the way, I was referring to the fact Skippy couldnt figure out who i was on the list at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core. I mentioned it for the past several pages, as did Monolith, this is why i cited his lack of research ability.

Pay attention.
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 10:15pm PT
wow. Good find Skip.
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 2, 2010 - 10:26pm PT
LMAO!

The above is posted by Pat Curley at Screwloosechange.

He is right. He hasnt a clue of math, but will parrot anyone who claims they know what they are talking about and blindly supports the govt story, just like you.

Unfortunately, the person he parroted is Will Clinger. A supposed Computer Scientist Professor at Northeastern University who almost got fired for hosting his erroneous and libelous webpages at NEU.

Note, NEU no longer hosts his BS.

You know why?

Because he hasnt a clue of Aviation and NEU wants no association with his frivolous and libelous claims.

Will Clinger tried to pay an ISP to host his BS after NEU dumped his BS. The ISP also canceled his account, and Will was PAYING for the host.

Now Will Clinger is so desperate, not only is he paying a host, but is also digging further in his pocket to pay a private server and lawyer, to libel me. Too funny...

I would go after him further, but, its just fun to watch him pay to publicize our work. Especially when he screws up so much.

Case in point, Will Clinger thinks Flight Director Pitch is the direction the aircraft is pointing.

I dont expect any of you to understand...

But these people do...

http://pilotsofr911truth.org/core

The list grows.

Finally, if you think trained Jet pilots are "in this for the money", when they give the work away for free, streaming on the web.. .you may want to look in the mirror regarding who exactly is the "wack-job".

Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two, Flight Of American 77
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=7751

Flight Of United 93 Now On Google Video, Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Three
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=10228

9/11: Attack On The Pentagon - Official Release, Full Film Now Available to the Public on Google
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15054

9/11: The North Flight Path (official Release), Aerodynamically Possible - Witness Compatible
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15854

Full Film - 9/11: World Trade Center Attack, Embedded and Streaming here!
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19732

We make a lot more cash flying Jets, Einstein.

Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 10:27pm PT
Mistake 1

Balsamo believes the government's official flight path places the aircraft directly over the VDOT antenna, and supports his belief with a picture provided by CIT. In reality, several eyewitnesses have said the aircraft flew over the Navy annex or the road that lies between the Navy annex and the VDOT antenna. For future reference, let us note that the elevation of the Navy annex is about the same as the base of the VDOT antenna (135 feet above sea level) and that the Navy annex is a five-story building.

So far, the only implausible element of Balsamo's calculation is his insistence upon a flight path directly over the tallest obstacle in the area. All that remains is to calculate lower bounds for the g-load required:

to descend from 304 feet above sea level to near the top of pole 1 (80 feet above sea level) while travelling 2400 feet at 781 ft/sec, and
to continue that descent from near the top of pole 1 (80 feet above sea level) to 33 feet above sea level while travelling 1016 feet at 781 ft/sec.
At 781 ft/sec, the first 2400 horizontal feet would be covered in 3.07 sec, which Balsamo rounds down to 3 seconds. The last 1016 feet would be covered in 1.3 seconds.

The 224-foot drop from 304 to 80 feet therefore occurs in about 3 seconds, and the 47-foot drop from 80 feet to 33 feet occurs in about 1.3 seconds. The average rate of descent during the 224-foot drop is about 75 ft/sec, and the average rate of descent during the 47-foot drop is about 36 ft/sec.

Note that the 36 ft/sec figure results from Balsamo's assumption that the plane flew just over the top of pole 1. In reality, the plane struck pole 1, so the actual drop from pole 1 to the Pentagon was less than 47 feet, and the average rate of descent was less than 36 ft/sec.

Mistake 2

For no reason at all, Balsamo assumes the instantaneous rate of descent at pole 1 is the same as the average rate of descent for the previous 3 seconds. That is implausible, because the plane should be leveling out at the end of those three seconds in preparation for descending at an average rate of less than 36 ft/sec over the final 1.3 seconds.

Balsamo can argue for whatever flight path he wants, but he can't choose one particular (highly implausible) flight path and then argue that the g-loads computed for his particular flight path are the lowest for all possible flight paths. To calculate a lower bound for g-loads, he must consider the flight path(s) whose g-loads are smallest. He doesn't even try to do that.

Mistake 3

Having decided, however implausibly, that the rate of descent is 75 ft/sec at pole 1, he then multiplies 75 ft/sec by 1.3 seconds to get 97.5 feet. That is the vertical distance the plane would descend during the last 1.3 seconds if its rate of descent were 75 ft/sec throughout those 1.3 seconds. That would have put the plane more than 40 feet underground by the time it reached the Pentagon, which did not happen.

Balsamo then resorts to mathematical nonsense: He pretends his calculated 97.5 feet of distance is the same as an acceleration of 97.5 ft/sec2. He then divides 97.5 ft/sec2 by 32 ft/sec2 to get 3 g, and adds 1 g for gravity to get 4 g.

The guy doesn't even know how to check his units.

Mistake 4

However, 97.5 feet vertically is not available.

    Rob Balsamo, Arlington Topography, Obstacles Make American 77 Final Leg Impossible (emphasis in the original)

Balsamo then goes back to treating his bogus 97.5 ft/sec2 as a distance, 97.5 feet. For reasons that he explains (but do not make sense), he then reduces the 47-foot drop to a 35-foot drop. Because Balsamo will use the 35 feet as a divisor, this nonsensical adjustment increased the g-load as calculated by Balsamo.

Mistake 5

Finally, Balsamo divides 97.5 feet (or is it 97.5 ft/sec2 ?) by 35 feet to obtain the dimensionless number 2.8 (or is it 2.8 per second squared?), and for no reason at all multiplies his 4 g by this meaningless number 2.8 to obtain 11.2 g.

Once again, Balsamo doesn't know how to check his units. And yet, in the video, you will hear Balsamo sneering at engineers, scientists, and mathematicians who actually know what they're doing and have performed the calculation correctly.

Balsamo's Mistaken Conclusion

Having calculated a g-load of 11.2 g by making at least five serious mistakes, Balsamo notes that 11.2 g would "rip the aircraft apart", and concludes (incorrectly) that it is "impossible for any transport category aircraft to descend from top of VDOT to top of pole 1 and pull level" at the Pentagon.

The easiest way to refute Balsamo's conclusion is to perform the calculation correctly, and to provide mathematical descriptions of specific flight paths whose g-loads are well within the capabilities of a Boeing 757.
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 2, 2010 - 10:32pm PT
Do you even read what you are posting?

Clearly not.

"Physics Of Conspiracy" Debunked, Flight Path, Virgina DOT,
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18336


Less is more Parrots!

:-)
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 2, 2010 - 10:35pm PT
Did anyone notice that Rob didn't say he DOESN'T take money for his efforts?

Yes Skippy, it takes capital to run a website and organization.

http://www.supertopo.com/reviews/gear.php?cat=1043&c=climbing+helmet
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 10:36pm PT
If you don't rock climb, why are you even here?
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 2, 2010 - 10:36pm PT
Yes, I do. He graduated and this was on his personal website.


Wrong Parrot.

Didnt you say he was a grad from MIT?

Hint, he is a Professor at NEU. He almost got fired.
Mimi

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 10:38pm PT
Rok, please say I'm knott one of the "You have here the 5 or 6 biggest name calling, sneering and impossible to argue with people on Stupidtaco."

WB, OBL knows. And so does KSM.
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 2, 2010 - 10:43pm PT
If you don't rock climb, why are you even here?


Because we are getting a lot of hits from this thread thanks to those who understand rational thought, despite your attempts to obfuscate.

So I thought I'd join in on the fun...

And fun it is...

So far, we have skippy who cant do any research whatsoever, and when he does, he still gets it wrong.

We have you as his cheerleader... going down in flames with him...

And then we have some who cannot even construct a coherent post...

All coming from those who blindly support the govt story.

This is fun... (all my pilot and FA friends here for the 4th weekend are getting a great laugh at your expense as well)
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jul 2, 2010 - 10:45pm PT
Thanks funny JohnDoe

You post just like a regular around here!

;-)

Karl
Mimi

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 10:54pm PT
jdx, I am not trying to obfuscate. And I am not simply swallowing the government's story.

You can continue to belittle those who counter your nonsensical and egotistical cynicism regarding the inside job concept of this crime all you like. You can believe what you want but as soon as you try to establish the truth behind your beliefs, you have an argument. It is incumbent upon us citizens to weigh whatever truth is available to explain what we all observed through the media. Eyewitnesses are unreliable. We all know that. But there are enough witnesses that saw planes and wreckage and knew people who were on those planes.

The hijackers are not having tacos with Carlos Castenada and Jim Morrison down in Cabo.

Doesn't this boil down to people's beliefs rather than something rationally defensible?
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2010 - 10:56pm PT
skipt,

i dont agree with you on everything, but i do agree that JDX is a whackjob trying to gain more hits.

you know math JDX? f%%%, you and RJ learned it off the interweb you clueless mutherf^ucker. i wouldnt trust you to fly my radiocontrolled plane you dipsh&&.


and mimi,

you dont have to carry the honor of being associated with me....but it sure beats being associated with wolfboy.
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 2, 2010 - 10:58pm PT
Its all about the money.


Skip


Skip,

Lets see how intelligent you are with respect to marketing.

Can you answer this question honestly?

How productive/profitable is it when you give your work away for free, streaming on the web?

Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two, Flight Of American 77
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=7751

Flight Of United 93 Now On Google Video, Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Three
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=10228

9/11: Attack On The Pentagon - Official Release, Full Film Now Available to the Public on Google
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15054

9/11: The North Flight Path (official Release), Aerodynamically Possible - Witness Compatible
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15854

Full Film - 9/11: World Trade Center Attack, Embedded and Streaming here!
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19732


You failed to answer this question when asked previously.

Next,

Do you really think pilots trained and employed to fly jets are "in this for the money"?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

If you think that, you are as delusional as your posts imply.
WBraun

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 10:58pm PT
Then?

Let us have plane in this scenario.

Now what?
WBraun

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 11:03pm PT
Oh c'mon guys quit fighting over nothing.

Let's have plane in the scenario.

Now what?????
Mimi

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 11:03pm PT
jdx = massive troll

Have you become bored with your poli blogs and have decided to taint the ST?
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 2, 2010 - 11:05pm PT
You are a poser. Nothing more nothing less.


And yet this list grows with aviation professionals who can be verified at faa.gov airman database.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots

Let me guess, all those pilots above in uniform are photoshopped?
dirtbag

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 11:05pm PT

You go around and spout your nonsense for profit? Is that it? You have a movie that you tout?

Oh man... :-)
Busted!
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2010 - 11:06pm PT
werner,

that dude fles like capt kirk did in the movie (off el cap). only there is nobody there to catch him.



BTW,

everything posted on here including by me is only so much BS> my comment with regards to the internet not being a viable research locale is true. anyone can write stuff on here. there is no PROOF as it were. in order to get proof (for example ) of flite paths you need to ensure that some whackjob didnt alter info and post it on the web. in other words you got to have and ensure that you have the real thing. chain of custody, admissable evidence all that. otherwise all of this is so much crap....

johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 2, 2010 - 11:07pm PT
Hey Skoppy,

Are these people "posing" as Survivors and Family Members as well?

http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html
WBraun

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 11:08pm PT
OK at least Hawkeye is still in the game.

Sh'it I can't fly worth a sh'it.

So maybe I should just STFU ...
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 2, 2010 - 11:09pm PT
oh man busted

Agreed dirtbag...

Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two, Flight Of American 77
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=7751

Flight Of United 93 Now On Google Video, Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Three
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=10228

9/11: Attack On The Pentagon - Official Release, Full Film Now Available to the Public on Google
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15054

9/11: The North Flight Path (official Release), Aerodynamically Possible - Witness Compatible
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15854

Full Film - 9/11: World Trade Center Attack, Embedded and Streaming here!
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19732
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2010 - 11:10pm PT
ah, dont do that werner.

its all good fun.

myself, i got to pack to go climbing in RJ's home state, or perhaps up in MT.

have fun boys and girls....
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 2, 2010 - 11:29pm PT
You know what is funny Hawkeye?

It is when people like Skippy think highly credentialed people such as those listed here...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

and here...

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots

Skippy really thinks those above speaking out against govt corruption and lies have a sole motivation of profit.

I mean is Skippy really that obtuse or what? Wow.

No Skippy, people in such positions find themselves out of work when dissenting against the status quo. I dont expect a parrot like you to understand.

Try researching Nazi Germany... as history is repeating itself today. It is repeating itself because people like you (and admittedly, i) didnt pay attention when others tried to teach us history.

I'm doing something about it now. You are making excuses.

I hope you sleep well at night. I do.

Happy 4th All!
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2010 - 11:34pm PT
well jdx.

just be honest in your quest and dont bs us.

and btw,
i doubt all those guys agree with being on your site have you checked?
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 2, 2010 - 11:38pm PT
and btw,
i doubt all those guys agree with being on your site have you checked?


They dont get listed on our site unless they fill out this form...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/join

And I have personally verified them.

Those who make excuse for the govt story like to play games and lie.

Us (Pilots For 9/11 Truth) and Architects And Engineers For 9/11 Truth learned long ago to verify.

Feel free to check for yourself at faa.gov.
Mimi

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 11:45pm PT
jdx, go back to the hole you crawled out of. Typical internet coward coming on here insulting people behind an anon avatar. Who are you? Social climber? You don't even contribute to climbing threads. You've only posted on two threads; both stupid and political in nature. Take your drivel elsewhere.

Being a pilot or an architect doesn't mean you're not deranged. Whackos cluster easily for a group shot. Credentials my ass.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jul 3, 2010 - 12:03am PT
Give JohnDoe a break. I doubt he would have resorted to attack mode unless it was dished to him first. Ask yourself why you would be so threatened as to angrily insult people on this thread (and I'm not forgetting that they are dishing it back, just that the will for rational argument seems to reside with the "nutballs" on this thread)

It concerns me because I've seen this angry resentfulness before on the "Peak Oil" threads. When Peak OIl was more deniable than it has become today, folks got so threatened that their world-view and lifestyle might change, that they blamed the messenger.

Now It's hard to argue against it, (well, as hard to argue against as evolution)

Lighten up bros. Nobody is trying to diss you or hurt you by presenting this case that 9-11 has serious unanswered questions. Just digest the case and pick apart the flaws. That would serve everyone

Peace

Karl
Mimi

climber
Jul 3, 2010 - 12:22am PT
Karl, haven't I called you a zebra before? Lose the stripes would ya? If everything was gentile around here, it would be dull as hell. Saying that 911 is similar to the peak oil or evolution arguments is absurd. Denial? Gimme a break. Pick apart the flaws? Not possible when you're dealing with an irrational set of beliefs based on pure cynicism. Everyone's arguing that their beliefs are true and valid. That's the central drama here. And pardon my saying so, but you're in the rowboat with one fixed oar like everyone else.
WBraun

climber
Jul 3, 2010 - 12:30am PT
One oar in one boat?

Gimmee back my other oar Mimi .....
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 3, 2010 - 01:15am PT
karl maybe referring to my interactions with wolfboy.

bummer.

you see, RJ and his cronies have little shame in their lack of knowledge, they therefore deserve no peace. if humility and respect is presented, humility and respect will be given.

instead it looks like BS all the way,,,,,,,,,,
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jul 3, 2010 - 02:16am PT
As subtlety clearly isn't working (thanks, Mimi!), perhaps we should get a complete list of the 3,000 or so who died. Virtually all identified, with family, friends, jobs, etc, etc. Then the truthers here can contact the family of each and every one of the dead, and ask where they're being hidden. It defies any logic or sense for anyone to believe that somehow 3,000 dead people aren't really dead, and are being hidden by the government, without even one of them escaping or being found in the last nine years.

Then there are the four mysteriously disappeared planes, all with the extensive provenance of commercial aircraft.

If there really was a government cover up of what happened, they'd have claimed that they were cargo flights, with much smaller numbers of people involved, six or eight per plane. Lots easier to hide or dispose of them.

Anyway, Joseph definitely gets the medal for this thread - lots and lots of bites, more than a few whoppers, and no end in sight.
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jul 3, 2010 - 03:09am PT
Joseph done good. Four posts, including the original one, 636 replies.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 3, 2010 - 03:14am PT
Oh for God's sake Skip to the Loo, you have no idea what a deliberately oppositional ass you sound like. Without proof of any of the crap you present about yourself it's just more idiot wind.
I give JDX great credit for his forthrightness. He has been completely upfront with us here and you and Screemimi jump all over him for exactly the behavior you all have perfected. Who the hell are you Skippy? You must be someone vastly important based on all the boasting you have done about your anonymous bad self.

How many posters here have avatar presences?
Do you jump all over them.
And the "you are not a climb" barfing is absurd in extremes.
Taking the flip side would be...
Skippy poo you are not a pilot you have no right to present your opinion about air flight.
Take two more intellectual viagra limpy.


Edit to add; As far as the "hits = $" issue goes, have any of you condemning JDX considered that this site exists because of "hits"? If JDX was curious about a large number of hits from a particularly curious group it is reasonable that he would check in. Do you realize that the hits from ST that fueled his curiosity also rang up some coin for Chris Mac?
Or do you constantly live in a world of hypocritical double standards?


Edit to also add; JDX'x credibility far exceeds, not only the few oppositional Bush apologists here on ST but the Popular Science drones as well.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 3, 2010 - 04:20am PT
Whoa, boy. I missed it.

Got home late.

Skippy, hawkblind, and Mimi et al. How embarrassing for ST.

Is that anyway to treat a guest? So what if he doesn't climb, he already said he was getting a lot of hits from ST and thought he would come along and see why and contribute. He did say he does climb at 10,000ft/min!

I have never hit those ascents in my paraglider. I'm jealous ;-))

JDX, I'm glad you were here, and are here. These critics can't take it. It is a constant with some of these bozos. And no, they do not ever research or read much, just ad hominem attacks mostly.

I hope you stick around and contribute more. I'm checking out your links.

Thank you.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 3, 2010 - 05:03am PT
9/11: The North Flight Path (official Release), Aerodynamically Possible - Witness Compatible
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15854
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1248677650819981509&hl=en#


Great video. Nice work JDX.

"And it lines up perfectly with runway 15 at DCA."


So the fly-over jet at the Pentagon probably landed at DC Airport. Makes perfect sense to me. Very good work.
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 3, 2010 - 06:06am PT
As subtlety clearly isn't working (thanks, Mimi!), perhaps we should get a complete list of the 3,000 or so who died. Virtually all identified, with family, friends, jobs, etc, etc. Then the truthers here can contact the family of each and every one of the dead, and ask where they're being hidden. It defies any logic or sense for anyone to believe that somehow 3,000 dead people aren't really dead, and are being hidden by the government, without even one of them escaping or being found in the last nine years.

Nice strawman, but no one is claiming people weren't murdered on 9/11.

Matter of fact, many family members and survivors are speaking out. Do you think they are nutjobs as well? Why don't you contact these people and tell them they are chasing a fantasy.

Family Steering Committee - Unanswered Questions
http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

Carol Ashley, mother of Janice Ashley, 25
Fred Alger Management, 93rd floor, WTC Tower One
Hometown: Rockville Centre, NY
Member: Skyscraper Safety Campaign, Voices of September 11th,

Kristen Breitweiser, wife of Ronald Breitweiser, 39
Fiduciary Trust International, WTC Tower Two
Hometown: Middletown Township, NJ
Co-Chair, September 11th Advocates

Patty Casazza, wife of John F. Casazza, 38
Cantor Fitzgerald, 104th floor, WTC Tower One
Hometown: Colts Neck, NJ
Co-Chair, September 11th Advocates

Beverly Eckert, wife of Sean Rooney
Aon, WTC Tower Two
Hometown: Stamford, CT
Member: Skyscraper Safety Campaign, Coalition of 9/11 Families,
Families of September 11th, Fix the Fund, 9/11 Families for a Secure America,
9/11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, 9/11 Families to Bankrupt Terrorism

Mary Fetchet, mother of Bradley James Fetchet, 24
Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, 89th floor, WTC Tower Two
Hometown: New Canaan, CT
Chair, Voices of September 11th
Member: Skyscraper Safety Campaign, Coalition of 9/11 Families,
LMDC Families Advisory Council

Monica Gabrielle , wife of Richard Gabrielle
Aon, WTC Tower Two
Hometown: Manhattan, NY and CT
Co-Chair, Skyscraper Safety Campaign

Bill Harvey, husband of Sara Manley Harvey, 31
Fred Alger Management, 93rd floor, WTC Tower One
Hometown: Manhattan, NY
Member: Voices of September 11th

Mindy Kleinberg, wife of Alan Kleinberg, 39
Cantor Fitzgerald, 104th floor, WTC Tower One
Hometown: East Brunswick, NJ
Co-Chair, September 11th Advocates

Carie Lemack, daughter of Judy Larocque
Market Perspectives; passenger, American Airlines Flight 11
Hometown: Cambridge, MA
Co-Founder and Vice-President, Families of September 11th

Sally Regenhard, mother of Christian Michael Otto Regenhard, 28
Probationary Firefighter, L131, Red Hook, missing at WTC
Hometown: Bronx, NY
Founder and Chairperson, Skyscraper Safety Campaign
Member: Coalition of 9/11 Families, 9/11 Families for a Secure America,
LMDC Families Advisory Council

Lorie Van Auken, wife of Kenneth Van Auken, 47
Cantor Fitzgerald, 105th floor, WTC Tower One
Hometown: East Brunswick, NJ
Co-Chair, September 11th Advocates

Robin Wiener, sister of Jeffrey Wiener, 33
Marsh Risk Technologies, 96th floor, WTC Tower One
Hometown: Washington, D.C.
Board Member, Families of September 11th
Member: Voices of September 11, Give Your Voice,
WTC United Family Group

Bob McIlvaine - "I am 100% positive that our Govt orchestrated the murder of my son..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_t74I-nLas

300+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members Question 9/11
http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html

9/11 Press For Truth - Widows of 9/11 Speak out
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481#

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Sign Affidavit In Lawsuit Brought By Pentagon Survivor
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon_lawsuit.html

Need more?

johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 3, 2010 - 09:07am PT
Actually Skippy, its 6am in NY... (now 9) the world has time zones Skippy. Pilots fly through them often.. For all you know, I could be in London today. Can you guess what time it is? :-)

pilots@pilotsfor911truth.org

I'll be waiting for your email...

Or, you can use our contact page... i'll get that email too...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/contact

:-)

And once again, if we were in it for the money... why have i posted our presentations on the web for free (you seem to ignore this question every time asked Skippy.. not surprised).

Click some links Skippy, go learn something.

Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two, Flight Of American 77
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=7751

Flight Of United 93 Now On Google Video, Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Three
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=10228

9/11: Attack On The Pentagon - Official Release, Full Film Now Available to the Public on Google
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15054

9/11: The North Flight Path (official Release), Aerodynamically Possible - Witness Compatible
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15854

Full Film - 9/11: World Trade Center Attack, Embedded and Streaming here!
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19732

With that said, just as this website sells products to raise funds to operate, so do we. However, we dont use Google Ad's as does this site. We are up against multi-billion dollar propaganda machines such as Fox News and CNN. I'm not surprised you would attempt to attack our support structure as it is clear you cannot debate the facts and data.

Its simple Skippy, clearly you dont agree with our existence, so dont support us, and you can still review our work for free. Those that do agree with our right to question authority, grow, analyze data, and present it, we appreciate and thank you for your support.

And, as the great Judge Judy likes to say:

"If it doesn't make sense, it isn't true."

Agreed, that is why the lists grow with so many professionals speaking out about the fact the govt story of 9/11, just doesnt make sense.

http://patriotsquestion911.com



Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 3, 2010 - 11:57am PT
Here is an inconvient truth and article I found going through PF9-11T Forum, that someone posted. Great resource.


Fireproof DNA found at the Pentagon
“ No Arabs wound up on the morgue slab…”
— Thomas R. Olmsted, M.D.
http://911exposed.org/DNA.htm

PF9-11T:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=7591&st=20
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jul 3, 2010 - 01:08pm PT
Edit to add; As far as the "hits = $" issue goes, have any of you condemning JDX considered that this site exists because of "hits"? If JDX was curious about a large number of hits from a particularly curious group it is reasonable that he would check in. Do you realize that the hits from ST that fueled his curiosity also rang up some coin for Chris Mac?
Or do you constantly live in a world of hypocritical double standards?

Geez, the guy is a professional pilot, a fairly lucrative job and his 9-11 truth postings, if anything, make him a target. He's obviously not doing it "for the money" and there would be plenty of other ways to make extra.

How many extra hits from supertopo would add up to enough to spend personal time posting here? I wanna know, maybe I'll put adds on my site.

Most likely he's a patriot and cares of what happened.

To a pickpocket, the whole world looks like a pocket

Peace

Karl
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 3, 2010 - 01:14pm PT
They don't let him(Rob Balsamo) fly anymore Karl. Not commercially, health problems.

His job 24/7 is to monitor his logs, then make his cut/paste dumps and responses into the forums that are giving the hits. This pumps his cd/dvd sales and hits.

Been like that for many years now.

And that 'patriot' has banned hundreds from his own forum, and the old Loose Change forums.

see:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t4632.html

And just to show im not 'in this for the money'... if i get on The View to discuss PBB2 and the FDR.. .i'll donate all proceeds from the increased hits to John Conner (minus a few duckets to take care of my own supporters who havent asked for a thing) while i live in my shitty apartment with my health problems (man it would be so much easier flying a corporate jet for 100k per year).
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 3, 2010 - 02:04pm PT
Sounded to me like JDX dealt with his health issues and was flying again.
But I have reading comprehension so what do I know?

And he's not even a climber so what does he know?
Mimi

climber
Jul 3, 2010 - 02:08pm PT
Glimmer dimmer and Rok, I don't consider this Rob guy, aka Truther Extraordinaire, a guest at all. Nice try but this is a climbing forum, not high tea.

Rok, sorry if I missed the guy's name. I regret getting on this thread at all and couldn't stomach reading all the posts. Not sure why you don't happen to know who I am at this point.

Hawk, glad we finally agree on something! LOL!
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 3, 2010 - 02:08pm PT
Hardly. The 4000tt hours he lists is from years ago.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 3, 2010 - 02:15pm PT
The "hits" came to him from tacos clicking links other tacos posted.


And as usual you're wrong about public interest in his site.
And you're wrong about the credibility of the people supporting his site.
And you're just plain wrong. Which has been shown to you repeatedly to no avail.

The problem with you and Mimi (and the other apologists for the Bush crimes) is that you just refuse to acknowledge that you could be even a little wrong. That would too seriously challenge the fantasies of your world and domestic view.
Mimi

climber
Jul 3, 2010 - 02:28pm PT
"The problem with you and Mimi (and the other apologists for the Bush crimes) is that you just refuse to acknowledge that you could be even a little wrong. That would too seriously challenge the fantasies of your world and domestic view." philo

BELIEVE what you want. You are wrongheaded in your support for 911Truth, etc. You can't be a little wrong on this one. It's all or none.

Reasonable people who did not support the previous administration agree that this was not an inside job. I'm hardly taking an absolutist position but it's easier for you to characterize my views that way.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 3, 2010 - 02:30pm PT
Skippy,

You are a mean spirited clown.




Mimi,


Anyone can come here and post. It is public not private.

Sure, it would be nice for everyone to have something in common -- climbing. But when we talk about all kinds of unrelated topics as we do here on the SuperTaco, and someone chimes in who is very much involved with the issue, I say welcome.

Welcome JDX. You are indeed welcome here anytime you want to chime in. We all have a lot to learn. Especially, those who don't research, read, or have good reading comprehension (I won't mention their names to not publically flog them or embarrass them anymore. They know who they are, and so do we.)

He did admit he climbs at 10,000ft/min. OK, that is in an aircraft. So, let's just say he "Aid" climbs at 10,000ft./min (lol).

Me thinks a few on ST complain and profess too much. Apparently you all don't like getting "schooled" publically and it shows.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 3, 2010 - 02:36pm PT
Inside job or not, the facts prove the Bush administration's "Official" story- that was force fed to the American sheeple-was a complete fabrication. Even you should be able to see the inconsistencies, improbabilities and in some cases absolute ludicrousness of those claims.
Or, self assured as you are in the sanctity of Popular Mechanics experts, have you never bothered to actually check on any of the alternate information?



Time will unravel more of the deception and some day even you will have doubts.
It's OK, you can then just blame it on Obama.



And Skiptotheloo, you can't handle the truth.
WBraun

climber
Jul 3, 2010 - 02:37pm PT
Why the CIA withheld information on Mihdhar and Hazmi from the FBI Cole bombing investigators
Posted by rschop in September 11
Fri Jul 02nd 2010, 10:09 AM
I am reposting this again so my response is complete on not only as to why the CIA maintained secrecy in this case, but also to show that was possible to pierce this secrecy and find out exactly what had happened at the CIA and FBI HQ prior to the attacks on 9/11 that had allowed these attacks to take place.

“I hate to say it, but unless anyone here can provide any new information and not their OPINION to effectively refute any of the evidence I had obtained, they should politely keep their comments to themselves."

From Thu Jan 14th 2010, 09:43 PM

The CIA and FBI HQ found out that both Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were inside of the US on August 22, 2001, and even knew they were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands. Yet the CIA and FBI HQ deliberately withheld this information from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing.

But the CIA had been deliberately hiding the names Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi from the FBI Cole bombing investigators since the Cole bombing had taken place. When Walid Bin Attash, the mastermind of the Cole bombing, had been identified from a photograph of him taken at the al Qaeda planning meeting in January 2000, and the CIA also had photos of Mihdhar and Hazmi at the same meeting they knew, that these three long time al Qaeda terrorists had been part of the planning of the Cole bombing that had taken place at this meeting. The CIA also knew if the FBI Cole bombing investigators ever became aware of this information, it would expose the CIA culpability in allowing these attacks to have taken place. Just after Bin Attash had been identified at Kuala Lumpur the CIA started a massive wide ranging criminal conspiracy to hide this information from the FBI Cole bombing investigators.

There is direct evidence of the involvement in this conspiracy of Cofer Black, George Tenet, John Gannon, and the CIA Yemen station, the CIA Pakistan Station, the CIA Bin Laden unit with Richard Blee as its Chief, and Tom Wilshire, Deputy Chief of the Bin Laden unit. Wilshire had even been moved over to be Deputy Chief of the ITOS unit at the FBI in mid-May 2001 by Black and Tenet, with the concurrence of Freeh and Rolince, in order to find out what the FBI Cole criminal investigators had found out about the Kuala Lumpur meeting, and if they had found out that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at that meeting with Walid bin Attash actually planning the bombing of the USS Cole.

It is clear from the DE 939 “Substitution for the testimony of John”, aka Tom Wilshire, entered into the Moussaoui trial, that Wilshire in his July 23, 2001 email back to his CTC managers, Richard Blee, Chief of the Bin Laden unit, Cofer Black, head of the CIA CTC unit, and Director of the CIA George Tenet, clearly stated that Mihdhar would be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda attack.

Wilshire had already indicated, according to the DOJ IG report, in his July 5, 2001 email to his CTC managers that he thought at this point in time, that the people at Kuala Lumpur meeting were connected to the warnings the CIA and FBI had been receiving about a huge al Qaeda attack since April 2001.

It is also clear from document, DE 939, that Wilshire had been forbidden twice from giving this information to the FBI criminal investigators, by his CTC managers at the CIA on July 13, 2001, and again on July 23, 2001.

So it is clear the instructions to hide the information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting and the names Khalid al-Mihdhar, and Nawaf al-Hazmi from the FBI criminal investigators came from the very top of the CIA management at the very same time, that they were holding urgent meetings in the White House with Rice and Clarke, on July 10, 2001, and with Ashcroft and Rumsfeld on July 17, 2001 warning them a huge attack was just about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans.

According to Bob Woodward’s book, State of Denial, Tenet and Black had already held a meeting with Richard Blee and other CIA managers earlier in July to ask where they all thought the massive al Qaeda attack they were being warned about would take place. The room went silent when Richard Blee stated, “They are coming here!”

On August 22, 2001, less than one month after Wilshire’s July 23, 2001 email to his CTC mangers on Mihdhar, FBI IOS Agent Margaret Gillespie at the CIA Bin Laden unit found out from the INS that both Mihdhar and Hazmi are inside of the US and took this information to FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi and CIA officer Tom Wilshire. Note on July 24, 2001 Gillespie had already found the CIR on Mihdhar’s travels to Kuala Lumpur and his US multi-entry visa that specified New York City as his destination, written up by FBI IOS Agent Doug Miller at the CIA Bin Laden unit on January 5, 2000. This CIR that had written on the bottom; “Blocked by order of the Deputy Chief” (of the bin Laden unit, Tom Wilshire).

Wilshire and Corsi started to put together the EC to start an investigation of Mihdhar on August 22, 2001. Document DE 469 from the Moussaoui trial is the actual EC written up by FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi, that connected both Mihdhar and Hazmi not only to the east Africa bombings, but also to the Cole bombing.

When FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, supervisor of the FBI Cole bombing investigators in New York, accidentally got Corsi’s EC to start an intelligence investigation of Mihdhar on August 28, 2001 he called Corsi to demand that the criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi go to his FBI Cole investigating team. Corsi told him that he could not investigate Mihdhar and Hazmi due to the restrictions on NSA information going to FBI criminal investigators.

But it is clear from DE 448, the release from the NSA to Corsi, that the NSA had already approved FBI Agent Dina Corsi to pass the NSA information on Mihdhar and Hazmi and the fact they attended the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting to the FBI criminal investigators in New York, on August 27, 2001 in a release that was sent to Corsi on August 28, 2001. The release even listed the recipients as “The FBI criminal Cole bombing investigators in New York”, Steve Bongardt and his team.

Page 306 of the DOJ IG report says:

Bongardt received the EC, Corsi’s EC, on August 28. Shortly thereafter, Bongardt, Corsi, and Rod Middleton, (Corsi’s boss), engaged in a conference call to discuss whether the case should be opened as a criminal instead of an intelligence investigation. Corsi told the OIG that the information on Mihdhar was received through intelligence channels and, because of restrictions on using intelligence information, could not be provided directly to the criminal agents working the Cole investigation. Rod Middleton told the OIG he had concurred with Corsi’s assessment that the matter should be an intelligence investigation.

Corsi with Rod Middleton’s concurrence ordered Bongardt to not have anything to do with any investigation of Mihdhar and to destroy any and all information that he had on Mihdhar. She later tells him, as described in the September 20, 2002 public hearings for the Joint Inquiry of 9/11, that if one piece of paper ever surfaced at the FBI with his name and Mihdhar’s name, he was through as an FBI Agent at the FBI.

Since Bongardt did not see any connection between the NSA information to any FISA warrant, he asked Corsi on August 28, 2001 to get a legal ruling from the NSLU, the legal unit at FBI HQ on this issue, to see if he and his team could take part in the investigation and search for Mihdhar and Hazmi.

On August 29, 2001, Corsi tells Bongardt that the NSLU attorney had ruled that Bongardt and his team could have no part in any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Email, from FBI Special Agent Steve Bongardt back to Dina Corsi, 908/29 8:38 AM said:

Dina- where is "the wall" defined? Isn't it dealing with FISA information"? I think everyone is still confusing this issue. I know we discussed this issue ad nasuseum but "the wall" concept grew out of the fear that FISA would be obtained as opposed to a Title III.

Bongardt even told Corsi when she told him that he could take part in the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, “why do you think they are in the US, do you think they are going to f**king Disney Land!” It is clear that Bongardt knew immediately when he found out that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US that these long time al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda terrorist attack!

Sherry Sabol is the NSLU attorney that Corsi had contacted and from Sabol’s testimony to DOJ IG investigators, on November 7, 2002, it is clear that Sabol had ruled in fact just the opposite from what Corsi had told FBI Agent Bongardt. Sabol had ruled that Bongardt and his team could be part of any investigation and search for of Mihdhar since the NSA information had no connection to any FISA warrant.

Sabol told Corsi said if she was still confused she, (Corsi) could go and get a ruling from the NSA, unaware Corsi had already obtained approval from the NSA to transfer the NSA information over to the FBI two days earlier on August 27, 2001. See testimony of Sherry Sabol, 9/11 Commission report p 538, footnote 81.

According to the DOJ IG report, on August 30, 2001 the photograph of Walid Bin Attash, mastermind of the Cole bombing, taken at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting in January 2000 was sent by the CIA to Rod Middleton, Corsi’s supervisor. So on this date, Middleton has photographic proof that Mihdhar and Hazmi, who also had been photographed at this meeting, were at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with Bin Attash actually planning the Cole bombing. This is a crime and directly connectes both Mihdhjar and Hazmi, who the FBI criminal investigators now knew were inside of the US, to the crime of planning the Cole bombing.

The DOJ IG report had stated that on August 22, 2001, FBI Agent Dina Corsi was already aware that the CIA had this photograph of Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur and even knew that the CIA had been deliberately keeping this photograph and the fact that Bin Attash had been at this Kuala Lumpur meeting with Mihdhar and Hazmi planning the Cole bombing, secret from the FBI Cole bombing investigators in New York and their supervisor FBI Agent Steve Bongardt. This information clearly meant that the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi should have gone to FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his team, since this was the photographic proof that both Mihdhar and Hazmi, known to be long time al Qaeda terrorists connected to the east Africa bombings, had also taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing.

And yet in spite of this information and the fact that on August 28, 2001 Middleton, had been on the phone call with Corsi and Bongardt, shutting down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, Middleton never called Bongardt back to undo the damage he had done in shutting down this investigation earlier.

The CIA working with these FBI HQ agents had not only criminally withheld critical information from the Cole bombing investigators in a massive criminal conspiracy, but had then shut down Bongardt’s investigation when Bongardt accidentally found out that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US and knew these al Qaeda terrorists were here only in order to take part in another horrific al Qaeda terrorists attack.

It is now clear that the CIA working with FBI HQ agents they had subjugated had intentionally shut down the only FBI criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, prior to the attacks on 9/11 that could have prevented these attacks from taking place. Since shutting down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi was deliberate, it is all but impossible to believe that when the CIA and FBI HQ shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that they all, including the senior managers at the CIA and even the FBI who were directing the actions of Wilshire, Corsi and Middleton, did not know that thousands of Americans were going to perish as a direct result of their actions.

See my Journal and/or www.eventson911.com for additional details on all of this, including the documents that actually are the proof for all of this!
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 3, 2010 - 02:47pm PT
And who are yo Skiptotheloo?
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 3, 2010 - 02:48pm PT
Welcome JDX. You are indeed welcome here anytime you want to chime in. We all have a lot to learn. Especially, those who don't research, read, or have good reading comprehension (I won't mention their names to not publically flog them or embarrass them anymore. They know who they are, and so do we.)


Thanks Klimmer.

For those of you who think I have health issues and not flying, please visit...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=7163

See Claim 1 in above link.

I posted this link before for Monolith (and the other doubters), but they get confused with facts.

I haven't updated my totals/employers on the site since I posted them in 2006. The reason being is that the totals/employers listed are sufficient for its purpose, and the fact idiots want to call current employers to harass and attempt termination. Case in point. This from an anonymous idiot who is obsessed with our work.

"He does not have a current Medical Certificate. Believe me, there are plenty of people who will be very interested if he renews it..... "

My medical (Flight physical) was renewed without a hitch. You can check this at faa.gov.

The same idiot then posted...

"He has been quite mum since he renewed his physical, so I don't know what he's doing now, and don't really care. However, rest assured that I along with several others will immediately notify his employer about his activities and lack of good judgment if I find out where he's flying (if, in fact, he is). "

The Nazi's tried the same tactic with their dissenters.

Most likely he's a patriot and cares of what happened.

Bingo



...that is clear evidence that no one really cares about what this clown says.

Then why do these lists grow?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots




philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 3, 2010 - 03:00pm PT
And what about the credible eye witness accounts from the Pentagon?
Skip and Mimi, are you saying you don't believe cops? Are you saying Cops lie?
That doesn't sound like either of you conservatives.

Or are you proving that, to you, the risk of being proven wrong is too great to actually research the facts by watching any of the remarkable links provided to you free?
You guys are Karl Rove's kind of sheeple.
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 3, 2010 - 03:07pm PT
And what about the credible eye witness accounts from the Pentagon?
Skip and Mimi, are you saying you don't believe cops? Are you saying Cops lie?
That doesn't sound like either of you conservatives.

Or are you proving that, to you, the risk of being proven wrong is too great to actually research the facts by watching any of the remarkable links provided to you free?
You guys are Karl Rove's kind of sheeple.


Here is the link again interviewing witnesses on location at the Pentagon.

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jul 3, 2010 - 03:10pm PT
The problem with internet forums is that ANYONE can make a post and claim, or appear, to be an expert. When in reality, their expertise is anything but.

So many of you deny the official 9/11 time line of events, and then whole hardily swallow the conspiracy theory without invoking the same level of critical thinking that you applied to the official 9/11 time line. This is a fundamental problem because you are STARTING with a belief and then looking for CONFIRMING information.

This "confirmation bias," which was incorrectly called "information bias", works BOTH ways, and you are all BOTH guilty of it.


Klimmer...you are NOT an expert. Your opinion is sh*t

Rox.....you are an expert in what looks like HAM radio. Your opinion is sh*t

John.....your expertise is limited to the FLYING of an aircraft.....not engineering, not aerodynamics etc, not anything that a hundred thousand OTHER people aren't also experts in.

I could give a rats ass what you think.....and I trust your links about the same as I trust the Governments official 9/11 story. Both accounts are impossible......and those who completely believe either one are FOOLS.


So who's opinion DOES matter? We'll, only those who are witnesses, and those who were involved (in the cover up....... or the terrorist attack....pick one). And you HAVN'T given a SINGLE source who can confirm your conspiracy theory (i.e. an insider). So I'm calling bull sh*t on you.

Your opinions to me are COMPLETELY irrelevant. You seem to think that by invoking math and logic that somehow you have reached valid conclusions. Your methods are NOT incorrect, but your premises are COMPLETELY flawed, thus resulting in a completely ridiculous conclusion. In statistics we call this "garbage in.....garbage out."

So Im going to say this, and then I'm gone. You DONT know jack sh*t.....so stop pretending that you do.

Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jul 3, 2010 - 03:11pm PT
There is a difference Skip

People ARE persecuted for sharing these views that threaten the highest powers

PEace

Karl
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 3, 2010 - 03:19pm PT
Once again, this man is a fraud.

Skip, each time you post the above, I'll keep asking this...

If I am a fraud, why do these lists grow?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots

Don't let the facts confuse you Skippy.

By the way, My first few posts here were in 2006 when I was anonymous and first started researching 9/11 and founded P4T. My second visit was the other day. After my first post - second visit, Monolith started running his mouth about who I was. I have no problem with that as I readily admitted it and in fact told him anyone can see who I am just by clicking my username and see the mail addys.

With that said, it is customary for members here to post real names of members if in fact a member wanted to remain anonymous? It is against board TOS? If so, it doesn't seem monolith took this into consideration when he started to run his mouth.

If there is a way to change my username, feel free to change it to Rob Balsamo. I tried to look for a signature form to post my name and link to site (as many people do on forums), but there doesn't appear to be one.
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 3, 2010 - 03:24pm PT
lol.. i just went back to see my first post here...

here it is...

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=278574&msg=279577#msg279577

I even signed it...


Rob
Co-founder
pilotsfor911truth.org

Skippy, you're the fraud.

Too funny.
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 3, 2010 - 03:39pm PT
Skippy,

Let us know when you wish to debate the facts and data. Until then, your attempts at character assassination are transparent, typical, and tiring.

Again, click and learn... or not, ignorance is bliss i suppose. But many others are clicking.

Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two, Flight Of American 77
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=7751

Flight Of United 93 Now On Google Video, Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Three
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=10228

9/11: Attack On The Pentagon - Official Release, Full Film Now Available to the Public on Google
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15054

9/11: The North Flight Path (official Release), Aerodynamically Possible - Witness Compatible
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15854

Full Film - 9/11: World Trade Center Attack, Embedded and Streaming here!
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19732

Have a good 4th Of July weekend all! (yes, you too Skippy.. :-)


monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 3, 2010 - 03:41pm PT
More link spamming to his own site.

Klimmer, why don't you toss some more puffball questions to Rob Balsamo?
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 3, 2010 - 03:46pm PT
Just bumping this before I head out since it got buried with all the attempts to obfuscate and character assassination due to the fact people like Monolith and Skippy cannot debate the facts.

NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room"

06/22/2010 - (PilotsFor911Truth.org) Recently Pilots For 9/11 Truth have analyzed the speeds reported for the aircraft utilized on 9/11. Numerous aviation experts have voiced their concerns regarding the extremely excessive speeds reported above Maximum Operating for the 757 and 767, particularly, United and American Airlines 757/767 Captains who have actual flight time in all 4 aircraft reportedly used on 9/11. These experts state the speeds are impossible to achieve near sea level in thick air if the aircraft were a standard 757/767 as reported. Combined with the fact the airplane which was reported to strike the south tower of the World Trade Center was also producing high G Loading while turning and pulling out from a dive, the whole issue becomes incomprehensible to fathom a standard 767 can perform such maneuvers at such intense speeds exceeding Maximum Operating limits of the aircraft. Especially for those who research the topic thoroughly and have expertise in aviation.

Co-Founder of Pilots For 9/11 Truth Rob Balsamo recently interviewed a former NASA Flight Director in charge of flight control systems at the NASA Dryden Flight Research facility who is also speaking out after viewing the latest presentation by Pilots For 9/11 Truth - "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Retired NASA Senior Executive Dwain Deets published his concerns on the matter at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) as follows:


A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability
Dwain Deets
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Senior Executive Service - retired)
AIAA Associate Fellow

The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won’t publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?

The above entry remained at the moderated AIAA Aerospace America Forum for approximately two weeks before being removed without explanation. Click "Who is Ethically Responsible" submitted by Dwain Deets at the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum for discussion on this entry at AIAA.

Dwain Deets credentials and experience are as follows:

Dwain Deets
MS Physics, MS Eng
Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)
Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
Associate Fellow - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000
Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
- Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
37 year NASA career

It is established based on corroborated expert statements, raw data, and precedent, that the extremely excessive speed reported for the 9/11 aircraft is truly the "Elephant In The Room" and needs to be thoroughly investigated.

For summary of speed analysis, please see article 9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed.

To view the scene from "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" analyzing the reported speeds in more detail, please click here.

For full detailed analysis covering the events which took place in New York City on September 11, 2001, interviews with experts, including analysis of "Hijacker" pilot skill, Black Box recovery and more... please view the latest presentation from Pilots For 9/11 Truth, "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has also analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack and the events in Shanksville, PA. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/join to join.

Comments? Click here for discussion.

Follow-up recorded interview - 06/30/10
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/interviews/Dwain_Deets063010.mp3
10mb download, approx 22 mins runtime.

###

Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jul 3, 2010 - 03:47pm PT
You guys still chasing your silly tails here?
dirtbag

climber
Jul 3, 2010 - 03:51pm PT

Reasonable people who did not support the previous administration agree that this was not an inside job. I'm hardly taking an absolutist position but it's easier for you to characterize my views that way.

Yep, that would be me (though the reasonable part is debatable).
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 3, 2010 - 04:04pm PT
Skippy, you don't know anyone that was there. But that doesn't stop you from gargling with the sputum from FoX Noise.



Now however, these people were there and some of them are cops with nothing to gain from lying.
Take their word for it. Or are you too much of a pansy ass to actually watch it? Preferring instead to regurgitate attacks on those with more knowledge and comprehension than you.
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html

Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 3, 2010 - 04:10pm PT
All of you OCTists here at ST . . .

I'm sorry you can't see past your noses and can not think. The NWO order loves your mind think, or lack there of. You spout the party line very well indeed.

George Orwell's 1984 is indeed here and you are deeply embedded in it and enabling it.






Thanks to you, our Country is headed off the cliff to ruin, because you can't possibly see what has happened nor can you see the cliff we are headed toward. Perhaps one day when we all are experiencing the Police State we are headed toward you can commiserate together and say to yourselves, "We never saw it coming."

Which of course is another delusion. Another lie. Because we are showing you and telling you the truth and with verifiable evidence that the OCT is a flat-out lie. Because you can not handle the truth, you constantly lie to yourselves. Keep sucking your thumbs while those of us around you stand-up for the truth that you can't possibly face and fight for Our Country, Our Constitution, and Our Bill of Rights. How brave of you.







You all are good little non-thinking, non-questioning compliant and asleep citizens. Big Brother has taught you well.












Sorry, but Dissent is Patriotic.







Stand Up!
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 3, 2010 - 04:17pm PT
That's funny you talk about censorship Klimmer.

Rob Balsamo has been banning people from his site and the old Lose Change forums for years.

Pull your head out of the sand Klimmer.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 3, 2010 - 04:19pm PT
Why is it more comfortable up the poop shoot like yours is?
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 3, 2010 - 04:34pm PT
Rob Balsamo has been banning people from his site and the old Lose Change forums for years.

LOL... saw this on the way out.

It wouldn't have anything to do with your "debate style", now would it? You're a troll monolith. It's proven in your very first reply after my very first post when I returned.

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1199984&msg=1208714#msg1208714

If only you can debate the facts and exhibit some self control from ad hom attack, character assassination and trolling, perhaps you won't get banned.

You have no self control because you get frustrated you cannot debate the facts... you go on the attack...then you get banned.

Your "debate style" is on display right here for all to see and understand the reasons you, and people like you, get banned elsewhere.

We have many people who disagree on our forum and remain because they are civil. Go look.

We even keep around some token trolls like you to bat around every once in awhile when we get bored -- and to display as an example of those who cannot debate the data can only resort to personal attacks out of sheer frustration.

Anyway.. enjoy your weekend.




Mimi

climber
Jul 3, 2010 - 07:23pm PT
I know Truthers hate these sources, but what about the substance?

http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/May/20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html

http://layscience.net/node/124
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jul 3, 2010 - 11:20pm PT
JDX has FAR more certifications and qualifications to argue the topic than ANYBODY else on this thread that has chimed in.
But Werner said we weren't supposed to trust experts. (IF JDX is one, that is.)
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Boulder, CO
Jul 3, 2010 - 11:31pm PT
Skip is at it again.


philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 3, 2010 - 11:36pm PT
It's all he has. Kind of sad really. Now he is dissin' Coz.
He must think he is special.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 4, 2010 - 12:51am PT
Just another delusion of your reality lil Skipper.
WBraun

climber
Jul 4, 2010 - 12:58am PT
Oh fuk this sh'it and back on topic.

johndoeX is expert who flies the big plane.

Those NIST posers can't be trusted because of their political tie ins.

WE know all their dirty little secrets ....
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jul 4, 2010 - 01:10am PT
Exactly Werner. One line slander wars don't serve anyone. Don't let yourselves get dragged down. THere's always somebody that triggers you.

Peace

Karl
jstan

climber
Jul 4, 2010 - 01:24am PT
When a country gets highly polarized and people are very distrustful of each other the doors are opened to plots, conspiricies and blatant conflict of interest. These adventures become largely risk free. Polarized as we are the smoking gun could be found on 9/11( were there one) and it might still not be taken seriously.

This is how nations cease to function and ultimately die. The education and logical thought of the citizen is the only thing that permits a democracy to exist. If we take this as being accurate, in any situation one has to judge whether the country is capable of examining data. Where you think a country is not capable, we pay a price in heated discussions with no hope of gaining a resolution.

Osama bin Laden has more nearly accomplished his ultimate goal than we realize.

One has to ask. Has the only superpower in the world been laid low by a hundred Saudi's who apparently are deeply upset at the way our oil companies have benefitted from their country's natural resources? They are not fools. When their oil is finally gone they see no reason to believe anyone will feed them more generously than the starving in Africa are being fed..
johndoeX

Social climber
NY
Jul 5, 2010 - 10:00pm PT
From:
"Pilots For Truth"
View contact details
To:
Tony Bird
No need for any super dooper electronic microscope... its much simpler than that.

We have a stat counter embedded on our site. http://statcounter.com.
Supertopo probably has one too. Most sites who have webmaster with the barest understanding of the web, will embed some type of stat counter on their site to monitor traffic.

When someone posts a link from our site, at their site, and someone else clicks the link, we can see the site which it was referred. This is called Hit referral and is associated with Hit counters.

A simple google search will give you the education you are lacking on such a topic.

--- On Mon, 7/5/10, Tony Bird wrote:


From: Tony Bird
Subject: Greetings from SuperTopo Member: Tony Bird
To: pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com
Date: Monday, July 5, 2010, 9:50 PM

Greetings from a Fellow SuperTopo Member!

This message has been sent from a fellow registered SuperTopo climbing member to you.

The message is:
so, john doe x, are you much of a climber at all?

let me get this straight--cofounder of the pilots group, and you've got some kind of scanning electron computerscope that tells you when people are talking about 9/11?

anyway, i do have one question for you, if this gets through.

Sent by: Tony Bird
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 6, 2010 - 11:01am PT
well he didn't answer my question about climbing.

then i asked two questions and he gave me a reading list instead of squeezing his brain cells for a couple minutes to write a reply in his own words. worse than the armchair theologians on here.

now this mother pheasant plucker puts our inane little correspondence up for all to see--a sure way to discourage further correspondence from everyone here.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 7, 2010 - 03:00pm PT
Doubtful Tony.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 7, 2010 - 05:47pm PT
you oughta squeeze your brain a little too, rox. your posts are way too long. if you worked on your writing a little, you might find yourself with more readers. but the first step is making it short

Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 7, 2010 - 07:01pm PT
geeziz rox, drink more whiskey and less coffee. nobody's been paying me either, and you don't tell me much that i don't know.
MeatBomb

Gym climber
Boise, I dee Hoe
Jul 7, 2010 - 09:01pm PT
Keep spraying "BlowCox", I'm sure a check is in the mail, from Obama directly out of the deadbeat fund.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jul 7, 2010 - 09:09pm PT
It is why I say ST has passed its Golden Days. I chose to believe that in the past our Forum's population would have made more of JTX and his visit here, been more inquisitive and respectful. Certainly not less. It would have been hard to show less decency and decorum to anybody than what JTX got from us here and now. He truly is an expert, from the "Con" side of the debate and he deserved more respect.

There have been few golden days on ST. We sometimes shine and just as often suck. Golden as piss is golden. It was actually worse many years ago before you needed to sign in to post.

When the topic become controversial, people get uncomfortable and their ugly side shows

peace

Karl
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 8, 2010 - 10:44am PT
It is why I say ST has passed its Golden Days. I chose to believe that in the past our Forum's population would have made more of JTX and his visit here, been more inquisitive and respectful. Certainly not less. It would have been hard to show less decency and decorum to anybody than what JTX got from us here and now. He truly is an expert, from the "Con" side of the debate and he deserved more respect.

you really are hung up on this respect thing arent you? one needs only go to the golden age thread to see just how much of an issue this is for you.

respect is earned not given away to blowhards. if you had any self respect yourself, it would not be such an issue for you...

Respect yourself and others will respect you. ~Confucius
rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 13, 2010 - 02:48pm PT
Tony said...
now they're trying to revise the building code, according to a posting rrradam put out here, to put concrete around all structure for fire protection...
I said/posted this? Where? Citation please.


... you will find this sort of disinformation going on relentlessly in all areas of 9/11 research. come back when you've reviewed it.
True that... See above quote of you.

I look forward to the citation you provide showing where I posted anything of the sort.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 13, 2010 - 05:09pm PT
rrrad, you'll find concrete sheathing referred to about three minutes into the youtube you linked in the belief-in-god thread on june 22 at 5:41 am, shortly before healyje started this thread to remove 9/11 discussion from the holy of holies.
rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 14, 2010 - 10:29am PT
As I said, link please...

Sheathing steel in concrete is absurd (for the reasons you outlined), and wouldn't have kept the beams in the WTC from weakening, as it would have come off from the shock.

As I also said... The 'fire proofing' we have on structural steel in our nukes is rated in 'hours of protection', in that it gives us more time to put the fire out before the steal weakens from the heat. It is NOT concrete.

Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 14, 2010 - 11:20am PT
you didn't say "please" pretty enough, assh*le.
rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 14, 2010 - 11:36am PT
Fair enough... "Pretty Please".

But if it's the vid I am thinking... It was posted as a direct rebuttle to your (and other truthers) confident statements/beliefs that "no other steel structure/building has ever collapsed from a fire". The vid shows where this has happened more than once (even more recently with the deep water Horizoin, in the Gulf), yet you (and other truthers) keep saying it, even though it is factually false.

Not acknowledging that you were wrong in your statement, and readjusting your beliefs as a result of being shown that you are wrong is what creationists do.

Truthers, like creationists, have a confident belief system built on many factualy false beliefs... And even when shown where wrong, many ignore it, and continue to confidently believe.


As you said, and I quoted:
... you will find this sort of disinformation going on relentlessly in all areas of 9/11 research. come back when you've reviewed it.

Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Jul 14, 2010 - 12:19pm PT
it's called 'Backfire'
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 14, 2010 - 12:46pm PT
still not near pretty enough.

when you lift your larded forearm enough to click that big heavy mouse button and watch this four-minute youtube, you'll find a very interesting admission: the WTC buildings were indeed the first steel-structured skyscrapers to fall due to fire.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 14, 2010 - 12:58pm PT
Wow, this is an incredible program on C-Span, it is a must see. Directly relevant to 9-11 . . .


After Words with Andrew NapolitanoJun 2, 2010

The Libertarian commentator debated politics, history, and what he considers to be the unconstitutional behavior of both the Bush and Obama administrations, with consumer advocate and four-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/225457


Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History [Hardcover]
Andrew P. Napolitano
http://www.amazon.com/Lies-Government-Told-You-Deception/dp/1595552669/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279123537&sr=8-1#_
rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 14, 2010 - 02:34pm PT
when you lift your larded forearm enough to click that big heavy mouse button and watch this four-minute youtube, you'll find a very interesting admission: the WTC buildings were indeed the first steel-structured skyscrapers to fall due to fire.

Yea... Of 'all' the skyscrapers hit by jumbo jets full of fuel, only the WTCs fell. Oh, wait...

Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 14, 2010 - 02:43pm PT
yea ... oh wait ... building 7 ... no jumbo jet ... no fuel ...
rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 14, 2010 - 02:51pm PT
You are moving the goal post... Your statement was in regards to the skyscrapers (the WTCs), as the video shows plenty of steel structured buildings that have collapsed due to fire alone.

So do you concede my point now regarding the Twin Towers?

I doubt it. I think you are just 'Ignoring' it... 'Denying it'. (wink)


You guys use the phrase 'Building 7' like some do 'Grassy Knoll' and 'Magic Bullet'.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 14, 2010 - 03:55pm PT
And ya forget Tony about the leaking diesel fuel in WTC 7. And it was struck by a collapsing skyscraper.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 14, 2010 - 04:12pm PT
fellas, ya havta realize the main argument for controlled demolition. it hinges on two things which are very obvious, which no one can argue with since it's well documented: speed and dust.

speed is the primo. these three buildings each went down at a second or two over freefall speed, the speed at which a bowling ball would fall from the roof. all these silly scenarios have you connecting what your eyes saw with the very weak reasons, reasons which fall apart with even the lightest critical examination, but which you won't let go of because you crave to keep believing everything that's connected to it.

freefall speed means immediate dissolving of all supporting structure. this can only be done with preplanned, preset controlled demolition. anything less than that adds seconds to that freefall time. buildings which have fallen "normally" because of internal weaknesses or fire take lots of time to come down, and it happens haphazardly, not all at once, not floor-by-floor, which is what the videos show. and you will see in some of them the floor-by-floor exploding actually happening faster than the falling debris immediately adjacent on the outside.

dust is the other elephant in the living room here. after the big whoomphs, there is nothing left "except steel and dust", in the words of one of the firemen who had to pick through the rubble. every similar disaster has lots of infrastructure left, lots of people trapped, sometimes more than a few surviving. nothing like that here. you don't even have crunched-up file cabinets or a telephone or two intact.
rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 14, 2010 - 04:31pm PT
So... Let me get this right...

You are proposing that the Twin Towers were not brought down as a result of being struck by two jumbo jets, but instead by preplanned, preplaced explosives in a part of the buildings that were prepaired for demo, and that just so happened to be placed in the exact places that the planes hit, AND that all of the explosives, wiring, and det chord survived the impacts of the planes, as well as the fires to finaly explode "as planned" well after the impact of the planes?

Is that what you believe?



As far as your "speed" thing goes... Do you believe that if you fell from 100 feet while climbing and ripped every piece you had out of the rock, that it would significantly slow your speed?

We've been over this too, yet you have ignored that as well...

If your piece would hold 3 times body weight, yet you fell on it from 10 feet above it, it would rip immediately, and you would accelerate to the next piece, which would also rip.


Buildings are over-engineered, but not normaly above 2.5 times.



Lastly...
you don't even have crunched-up file cabinets or a telephone or two intact.
More than that ACTUALLY, as there was the sound of many of the fireman's personal location devices (PASS devices) that go off after they have been motionless for a certain amount of time. So these devices survived, intact, and still functioned.

So... Now what? Are you going to concede that you are wrong there too? I doubt it.
dirtbag

climber
Jul 14, 2010 - 04:39pm PT
Yep, that's what they believe.

Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 14, 2010 - 04:49pm PT
the current state of controlled demolition art employs radio signals, not det cord. easy to set, easy to set off. the point is that they weren't placed where the planes hit, they were placed all over.

climbing is a good allegory. if you're zippering a bunch of pro, it can slow you down way less than freefall speed, sometimes enough so you can hit the ground without getting hurt.

you're not talking about casually placed pro here but well-engineering buildings. the simple answer is that when a little part of a well-engineered building has something that goes wrong with it, the rest of the building simply holds it up. only a house of cards is engineered so that one little failure will bring the whole structure down.
rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 14, 2010 - 04:56pm PT
Wow Tony... You really have no idea what you are talking about. But what's worse, is that you think you are an expert. And worse still, even when shown where you are wroing, you still cling to it is fact.

Seriously, brutha... How is trying to debate this with you any different than debating evolution or Jesus with a Fundie?

Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jul 14, 2010 - 04:56pm PT
And just how would they have placed a couple of thousand charges
in the two towers without being noticed? Remember, the cleaning
crews are in there at night. And wouldn't most of the structural
joints that would have needed to be targeted been just a teensy bit
difficult to access?
dirtbag

climber
Jul 14, 2010 - 04:58pm PT
And just how would they have placed a couple of thousand charges
in the two towers without being noticed? Remember, the cleaning
crews are in there ar night.

Duh. The Illuminati has a cloaking device. They are all around us, we just can't see them. Piece of cake.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 14, 2010 - 05:01pm PT
all i can say is that you guys are new to all this.

there has been testimony about strange happenings in the twin towers in the time prior to the attacks, including a complete shutting down of the north tower, no one allowed in, for an entire weekend. for an entire year previous, extensive "elevator refurbishment" was taking place. and on the board of directors of the security company in charge of the wtc: president bush's brother and first cousin.
dirtbag

climber
Jul 14, 2010 - 05:04pm PT
Tony, has anyone told you you're f*#king batshit crazy? Completely.

I hope you don't lose sleep over this contrived paranoid gobblygoop.

Lose sleep over this instead...



rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 14, 2010 - 05:14pm PT
there has been testimony about strange happenings...

There has also been lots of 'testimony' in the God thread about 'strange happenings' (E.g., severed tongues miraculously healed, out of body experiences, etc)... Or 'testimony' regarding a giant alien space ship on the far side of the moon has been cited in another thread here.

So, all of that 'testimony' means that Jesus IS God, and that the Earth WAS populated by aliens long ago?

Do you believe all of that too? Or do you only believe what fits nicely inside of you tin-foil hat?

Aagin... What's the difference between trying to discuss THIS with you, and trying to discuss Jesus or evolution with a Fundie?


I'm out dude... Enjoy your delusion.

rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 14, 2010 - 05:40pm PT
The buildings were unique in some ways, built as slender columns of prestressed concrete. Like strings of concrete spaghetti all bound together, and with cables running from each floor to the foundation, sort of like a long bridge stuck in the ground.

Thousands of cables, each holding portions of the load, each to certain floors, all held in tension so it can be transferred to the foundation.


You are mixing apples with oranges here...


This is not how post-tension strands work in concrete... They are placed in concrete, and after it cures, they are tensioned... The tension is lateral for floors of buildings. They are tensioned at the edges of the slab. This is dont to add strength to the concrete, since it has great compression strength, but little shear or tension strength. The are NOT used to transfer any load to the foundation.


Think of it this way...

Take 100 decks of cards, placed side by side... They will will not be abkle to support a shear or tension load, but they can be compressed. Now, if you run a wire through them, and put significant tension on the wire with it connected to the outside cards, it will not be able to support a shear or tension load.
dirtbag

climber
Jul 14, 2010 - 05:46pm PT
Sheeple!

rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 14, 2010 - 05:49pm PT
When it comes to this (9/11) I can sit here and say that you and others that deny any shady, behind the scenes, happenings...
Where have I denied this? I do not deny that there are questions unanswered, and that there may even be some 'shady, behind the scenes, happenings'. I would mostly limit these to what who knew and when, as in who dropped the ball in the intelligence agencies.

I do deny the idea that the buildings were brought down on purpose, by a controlled demolition, requiring a HUGE conspiracy and the murder of thousands of civilians.


It is apparent to me that you understand nothing about buildings or Physics...
Really? That's 'apparent', huh? It's apparent (you used that word), that what is "apparent" to you is pretty far off base.

I've inspected many buildings in my career as an Inspector, even up to x-raying concrete floors of high rises prior to coring so they don't hit a post tension strand, conduit, or to locate rebar. I now inspect nuclear power plants, in fact, I work full-time at one as an INSPECTOR. And guess what I inspect? Lots of structural steel, concrete, and fire proofing, as well as welds and other componants.

Oh, and one of my hobies is physics... Both applied and theoretical, namely, high energy physics, and cosmology.

So, now what?




OK... Now that you know a little about me... What is your background in building construction and physics, Jolly?



Edit: And the 'religious allagories' are accurate here, as gaps in our knowledge regarding 9/11 no more prove a conspiracy than do gaps in our knowledge prove the existance of God. Problem is, some people cite these gaps as the very "proofs".

Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jul 14, 2010 - 05:54pm PT
Now, rrrAdam, aren't you also going to rain on their parade to
the extent that it is highly unlikely that even the floors of the
WTC are even pre or post-stressd? I'm gonna go out on a limb and
hazard a guess that they are just plain old lightweight pans like
most high rises. Can you toss me a rope on this one? I'll use it
to either pull myself back in or proceed with the public lynching.

Oh, and as I predicted on this thread's first page, it has some
serious legs!

rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 14, 2010 - 06:03pm PT
Never looked into it... They likely used the best technology of the time, and even way over engineered it. The floors of the Twin Towers were likely post-tensioned concrete, as generally, pre-stressed slabs are fabricated off site, then lifted into place.

Note that even in the 'pans' that the concrete is poured into for most buidings, they do put tension strans in them, along with rebar prior to the pour, then tension them after it cures... Especially if it is over 4" thick.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jul 14, 2010 - 06:14pm PT
OK, I've no experience in high rises (but i've done pre-stressed) but I think we can agree that
the floors were a deck of cards although I suspect they did add some torsional rigidity.
edejom

Boulder climber
Butte, America
Jul 14, 2010 - 06:29pm PT
I will simply follow Occam's Razor (as is sooo often brought up) and present the simplest explanation that CAN be agreed upon.

Nineteen partying Arabs with box-cutter knives get orders from a rich Saudi living in a cave, and 100k to learn to fly jumbo jets into chosen landmark targets.

They pick September 11th, 2001 (my 37th birthday) which happens to coincide EXACTLY with military exercises scheduled for that day--this includes "stand-down" orders and being absent from the NYC/DC air space.

No jets intercept ANY aircraft of the 4 that day, which were obviously deviating from their scheduled path. 3 of the 4 planes hit their presumed targets, destroying over 250 floors of high-rise buildings AND one side of the NEWLY RE-INFORCED Pentagon.

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

Many other breaches of protocol, mostly governmental were simply NOT followed--not to mention the GOLD bullion reserves lost in the Tower depository, or all of the CIA, FBI, and financial institution records destroyed in Building 7.



Sarcasm here--no holes above in the "Occam" version of the simple story, hahahaha

Too many coincidences happening on a day that some Muslim Arabs picked out for THEIR cause.

I have no answers, only other than "Occam's Razor" is as is any other social theory, FLAWED at times, as it doesn't not account for high-end human deviations.


WandaFuca

Social climber
From the gettin place
Jul 14, 2010 - 06:40pm PT

Too many coincidences happening on a day that some Muslim Arabs picked out for THEIR cause.



Yeeeeaaah . . .

Like maybe they did it because it was your 37th birthday on 9/11 2001.

9+11=20. 3+7=10 which is 01 in reverse. 20 and 01 is 2001. Coincidence, I don't think so . . .
dirtbag

climber
Jul 14, 2010 - 06:42pm PT
It's all in the Bible codes, dude. And "The Simpsons" and "Terminator 2."
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jul 14, 2010 - 06:45pm PT
It just occurred to me that if the towers were part of a
nefarious scheme why did 'they' wait to blow them up until
most of the people had exited them? That seems a rather
shoddy job, doesn't it? 'They' only wanted to kill 3000
rather than 30,000?
edejom

Boulder climber
Butte, America
Jul 14, 2010 - 06:47pm PT
I was walking into the Humbug Spires that morning for a trip up "The Wedge" and "The Edge", so I'm in the clear... No money trail on this end, either.


REALLY simple explanation: 19 men overcame staggering odds to weaken the USA.


I'm still in disbelief of all of the happenings.
rectorsquid

climber
Lake Tahoe
Jul 14, 2010 - 07:11pm PT
It just simply isn't possible without help

Then show your numbers and the rest of your analysis. In other words, I can chew gun and walk at the same time so I think it was aliens. Since I am clearly an expert, you must take my word for it.

So prove it.

Dave
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jul 14, 2010 - 07:14pm PT
My befogged pea-brain seems to recall seeing that at least a couple
of analyses had been done by certificated albeit non-Illuminati engineers.
rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 14, 2010 - 07:18pm PT
I do know for a fact, unless someone can prove me otherwise, that no building can fall that fast, solely due to the loads from the top 30 floors, and straight down for that matter. The building would take the path of least resistance, which means it would fall over once it hit the resistance of the floors below, not straight down at near free fall speed.
You know, for a "fact", unless soemone can prove to you otherwise? The building would take the path of least resistance, "falling over" instead of straight down?


The HUGE dynamic loads due to the EXTREMELY LARGE momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance.

How fast do you suppose it should fall? That is a serious question, as it seems that you and many just "feel" that it should have fallen slower. You have the training, although you may need to get some reference material, to calculate the loads involved, and those loads equal a LOT of inertia to overcome.

Which also addresses your 2nd question... Why if fell straight down, rather than over.

How would ALL THAT MOMENTUM change direction from down to lateral in order to fall over? That's a lot of inertia to overcome, and it would take a lot of "work" to get it to change direction.... Remember, gravity pulls straight down.



Carefully stand on an aluminum can... Then slightly press the sides and you will crush the can in an instant. You won't slowly crush the can, it wil be in an instant... And 'straight down'.

Now, the load of just you is nowhere near the load of 30 floors of building falling an initial 10'(?), as the can is only about 6", but the result is the same... Quick and straight down.

Now, let's imagine you stacked to cans on top of each other, and pressed only the top can... So you think only it will collapse, and the 2nd can will stop you? Or that after the first can, the 2nd can will fall over?





As for an engineer's assessment, there are hundreds of them, all you have tyo do is look brutha.

Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 14, 2010 - 07:22pm PT
reilly has it right--floorpans. prestressed concrete is way too heavy for structure in a 110-story building. the pans were engineered to support a light, poured concrete base for the interior floors.

the towers had a core-and-shell design, innovative at the time but widely copied as one of the reliable engineering strategies for very high skyscrapers. when a building goes over about 70 stories, the common grid structure, as was used in building 7 and most other buildings below that threshold, becomes problematic because of the wind factor. the empire state building has a grid structure, but its high tower is set on top of a massive lower building, making it more of a pyramid than the twin towers and other more recent vertical giants.

the tower floorpans well ought to have pancaked in an "ordinary" collapse. that was the first suggestion, by an MIT prof, but it was quickly debunked. if the towers had pancaked, it would have involved shearing of each floor away from the core and the shell, adding minutes to freefall time. there is reason to assume both core and shell would have remained standing--both were well-designed and redundantly strong. in fact, there weren't even any recognizable floorpans in the debris. a contractor who had brought them to the towers during construction participated in the cleanup, and he couldn't believe not being able to recognize a single one, the destruction was that thorough. we're talking about dozens of floorpan units in each of the 110 stories.
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 14, 2010 - 07:33pm PT
6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

i posted this earlier. you can lead a horse to water but if they turn out to be stupid jackasses they may not drink.

this in reponse to jolly's assertion that the building couldnt fall that fast. guess what, it did!

in other words, the conspirists will believe what they want to.

EDIT:

tony, you clearly have some mental issues.
rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 14, 2010 - 07:49pm PT
Yes, they were floorpans, poured on top of the joists that were connected to the core and the outer walls:


Note - Pictured are the same type of joists that failed, and the knuckles (tops of the joists) were included in the pour. The majority of the floors were 4" thick.


Edit: Anticipating that Tony, or others, may erroneously suggest that the floors should have sheared at the connection points if "pancaking", leaving a hollow tube still standing...

When steel structured buidings are demolished, cables are connected to the outer structure to ensure that as it collapses, it pulls the walls inward so it all falls straight down. The joists did the same thing.




dirtbag

climber
Jul 14, 2010 - 09:29pm PT
Yo, ho, ho,
methinks Jolly Roger has had too many bottles of rum.
rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 14, 2010 - 10:13pm PT

OK... One side of the building collapsed first, initially tilting the top, then ALL sides failed, and it fell straight down.

Seriously dude, since you are an engineer - Where do you suppose the center of gravity/mass is in the top of the building that has failed in that pic? WELL within the building, right? So when the other sides failed, which direction would gravity pull it down?

Also... Can you find another more hi-res copie of that pic, preferably a video of it with that angle...

Notice in the upper left, where the top two floors are, we can see another change in angle, and this is in sound floors, so this begs the question as to whether this pic was "shooped" or not to increase the angle.




Now, you and I both know that both buildings fell, straight down...

So, how about YOU explain how you believe they fell straight down. And please be detailed, at least as detailed as the majority of engineers and scientists who believe if failed due to the fire.

Specifically, the mechanism you believe responsible for its failing the way it did.



And the can is a much more valid analogy than a tree... A tree is not a tube... The Twin Towers were a tube-in-tube design. With a falling tree... The force is directed into the side of the tree that the falling is taking part on, acting like a fulcrum, and the other side experiences tension, which is why it tears apart into splinters. Do you honestly think it should have fallen like a tree?







See... You keep ignoring valid science and evidense that has been posted. How about addressing the very things that debunk what it is that you believe.


I'm sure you are going to say "pot... kettle... black...", but you should realize that many if not most of the issues you and other truthers bring up are addressed in detail, even in this thread... Yet you guys just plain ignore it outright, and ask more questions. How about answering some of ours?


Is that all you have is a belief based on and shored up by questions? Questions that you even ignore the answers to?


As to the rest of your post... Your 'simple logic' is flawed, since it is based on incorrect assumptions and flawed analogies, along with a copious amounts of ignoring direct evidence that disagrees with what you believe.



Jennie

Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
Jul 14, 2010 - 10:48pm PT
I know little about engineering but found this interesting:

Static vs Dynamic Loading(Why the towers fell so fast)

http://www.burtonsys.com/staticvdyn/
rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 14, 2010 - 10:56pm PT
2nd - the Can scenario is not as valid as the tree.
Yes, it is see below.


Yes - it is a so-called tube in tube design. The Main structure was in the core and the Skin. Yet, you fail to awknowledge that the interior trusses act as lateral supports. Not present in a soda can. The compressive loads were handled on the interior core and exterior skin. The trusses provided the connection between the two to #1 provide for lateral support, and #2 carry the floors. A scenario that might be more accurate would be several cans stacked on top of one another. Run that scenario and see what happens.
The lateral loads held by the trusses between the core and the skin have nothing to do with compression at the skin, which is why the can is valid. Again, with a tree, the edge of the tree acts like a fulcrum, and the skin of the Towers was much to weak to do this. And yes, I also suggested more than one can, and whether or not you thought only the first can would collapse, or the force of you coming down on the bottom cans would "pancake" them.




#3 - in that photo it is clear that the center of gravity is off center. You do not need to be an engineer to see this. The moment of Inertia is off center. This means that as the forces are applied to the remaining structural members they will be pulled in the direction of that moment.
Yes, they are off center, but still well within the remaining structure... Once failure of all sides happened, gravity pulled in straight down... This IS hiow gravity works -- On Earth, it pulls everything towards the center of the Earth. (I.e., straight down)



The photo shows it falling to the side clearly. As I stated before, if no other factors were involved it would have continued in that direction, pulling as gravity acted on that body. Somehow, that did not happen. Somehow the Inertia of that mass collapsed all subsequent floors.
"If no other forces" means that all remaing load bearing surfaces remain the same, as in the remaining sides do not fail, and the failing side continues to fail else it will act as a fulcrum. The other sides failed.



#4 - You make reference to the connections on the exterior skin. If in fact the pancake theory is correct as you believe there was enough force to collapse each subsequent floor, with massive amounts of debris protruding outward. If that was the case, then the force was so large that it would have sheared each and everyone of those connections. Yet, what we see is massive amounts of debris exploding outward. The exterior sking should have remained largely intact (Comparatively), as it itself fell outward due to the explosive force of the pancake theory. However that is not the case. The buildings were turned to dust.
Cool, I anticipated correctly... Please see my edit to the post with the pictures of the floors, as this was made well before you made this reply. I whish I could anticipate the winning lottery numbers.

And the buildings weren't turned to "dust"... There was a heaping pile of concrete chunks and twisted metal. How can you even say that?



#5 - Due to research of my own, I am convinced that it was an inside job. I am also convinved that it was a controlled demolition. I posted earlier on this, and provided photo's of columns that were indintical to other columns in controlled demolition. People posted, links debunking the use of thermite, but failed to see tha huge difference between torch cut columns and ones cut by thermite. I also never got a response to the massive molten steel way down below in all the debris that burned for months.
Cool... There are people in the God thread who "due to their own 'research' are convinced they are going to Heaven and everybody else is going to Hell."

I am however interested in the "massive molten steel that 'burned for monmths'... More on this please, I will eagerly look at it.



#6 - Who bought the WTC months prior?
Who cares?
#7 - What security company was hired?
Who cares?
#8 - Then of course explain WTC 7.
It has been explained.

Note that the 3 above are just distractors, as we are talking about the Twin Towers, but then much of your confidence resides in the questions, not the explanations, so the more questions the better, eh?



It's all there, all you have to do is realize we are all being fooled.
Agreed.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 14, 2010 - 11:11pm PT
So Jolly, you seem to think a chaotic event like a building collapse should follow some cartoon like image you have in your mind, and if don't fit, then it's an inside job.

The outer columns peeled outward as the collapsing mass tries to occupy the inside area. It's not surprising that all this pressure finds relief to the outside and debris goes hundreds of yards.

But instead you would have us believe that massive amounts of explosives were used to throw these heavy columns hundreds of yards, yet all we heard was a dull increasing roar. And you are telling us that these explosives had to be planted on the exterior columns to throw them that far. Or do you want us to believe that an even larger amount of explosives was using in the core and these explosives were so powerful they could throw all those exterior columns hundreds of yards.

A conventional demo is loud, and they use very little explosives. Think how much explosives would be required and how loud they would be to do what you are claiming. And the control and timing required and they got it right twice when it had never been done before.

The truth is, the buildings did not need to collapse. 4 suicide hijackings, 500 dead, 3 smoking American icons would have been enough. What kind of a fool risk manager would make such an absurd choice, Jolly?


The answers are out there, but you won't find them on prisonplanet.
edejom

Boulder climber
Butte, America
Jul 14, 2010 - 11:13pm PT
The last photo shows the second tower intact, after the first tower has fallen...




I'd love to hear the engineer's/physicist's view point on indestructible paper after the towers fell:-D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seDzWf76HYA




Edit: I would say that the two towers held up incredibly well after the impact of the jets--the same cannot be said for the newly RE-INFORCED side of the Pentagon.


rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 14, 2010 - 11:21pm PT

I'd love to hear the engineer's/physicist's view point on indestructible paper after the towers fell:-D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seDzWf76HYA
Ummm... The Twin Towers were not 'vaporized', as was posted earlier, things like the firefighters' PASS devices survived the collapse to alert for a while.

Air was compressed in each floor as it collapsed, blowing out the windows along with a lot of other stuff, including paper.

Remember... Just recently, a very large portion of rock fell in Yosemite, and the subsequent compression of air leveled trees. Do you think there was a conspiracy there too? A bunch of CIA agents preplaced explosives on the trees perhaps, timed to go off with the rockfall deliberately initiated by the authorities? Same thing the truthers are proposing with the WTCs.

Sheesh!


Edit: The Pentagon looks to have held up well, especially compared to the TTs. What do you expect, the burnt outline of a plane like in the Roadrunner cartoons?

Sheesh^2!
rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 14, 2010 - 11:50pm PT
The answers are out there, but you won't find them on prisonplanet.
Agreed... No different than a Fundie using answersingenesis.org as an authoritative source.
edejom

Boulder climber
Butte, America
Jul 14, 2010 - 11:51pm PT
"What do you expect, the burnt outline of a plane like in the Roadrunner cartoons?"



I would expect a NEWLY RE-INFORCED building to look better than the 25+ year-old twin towers that "melted and pancaked".



"The Pentagon looks to have held up well.." Both the Pentagon and the towers' photo are within 1 hour of impact--compare the initial damage to the structures and the materials used for making each.

Inspector "Clue-so" rrrADAM
rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 15, 2010 - 12:24am PT
Uh, where's the plane?? Or how about just a piece of luggage? A bone fragment, a tooth, a wing, a tail, a jet engine???? You must have a good explanation of why MY eyes can't see any of that stuff. Please enlighten me. You sound like quite an authority...

Umm... Here's just one montage of pices of plane that were at the Pentagon:

There are a lot more a simple google images search will show.


Lemme guess... You are gonna move the goal post now, and ask for something else, right? Even though that is EXACTLY what you asked for.


rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 15, 2010 - 12:34am PT
Jolly,

I'm not sure how you can say that, as I have directly adressed the points that you've made to me... In fact I even quoted them when I addressed them in my last post.

However, I'm not surprised you may have missed it, as you seem to have missed me introducing more than one can, even though i even told you I did this.

Let me quoute what I said for you a page or 2 back:
Carefully stand on an aluminum can... Then slightly press the sides and you will crush the can in an instant. You won't slowly crush the can, it wil be in an instant... And 'straight down'.

Now, the load of just you is nowhere near the load of 30 floors of building falling an initial 10'(?), as the can is only about 6", but the result is the same... Quick and straight down.

Now, let's imagine you stacked to cans on top of each other, and pressed only the top can... So you think only it will collapse, and the 2nd can will stop you? Or that after the first can, the 2nd can will fall over?
Granted, my spelling sux and/or is sloppy (fat fingers on a small lap-top), as I said "to" instead of "two", but as you can see, I suggested mutliple cans.

Yet, despite this, you seem to believe that you introduced this, meaning that you seem to have missed what I have said. Are you reading my replies in detail, or simoply scanning them? That tends to lead to one having to repeat themselves, or havuing to dispute the samet hings over and over sionce they are missed or ignored.
dirtbag

climber
Jul 15, 2010 - 12:36am PT

Umm... Here's just one montage of pices of plane that were at the Pentagon:


Dude, you're late to this. They all think this stuff was planted...seriously. There's a discussion of this several pages back.

You can't use reason. They are convinced there are bogeymen behind this, hiding just around the corner.
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jul 15, 2010 - 12:38am PT
Dirtbag's right man, let it go. Its like trying to convince someone there isn't a god.
rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 15, 2010 - 12:42am PT
Oh... My bad.

Perhaps THIS is appropriate then:
There are three basic ways to talk to complete idiots.

The first is to assail them with facts, truths, scientific data, the commonsensical obviousness of it all. You do this in the very reasonable expectation that it will nudge them away from the ledge of their more ridiculous and paranoid misconceptions because, well, they're facts, after all, and who can dispute those?

Why, idiots can, that's who. It is exactly this sort of logical, levelheaded appeal to reason and mental acuity that's doomed to fail, simply because in the idiotosphere, facts are lies and truth is always dubious, whereas hysteria and alarmism resulting in mysterious undercarriage rashes are the only things to be relied upon.


Mustang

climber
From the wild, not the ranch
Jul 15, 2010 - 12:57am PT
Why didn't the FBI do the forensics for the traces of thermite? Afterall, under U.S. criminal law, 9/11 was actually an act of mass murder, not just terrorism, thus the FBI should have had lead on the investigation. So why is there no official FBI report on the existence or non-existence of thermite traces in the steel or rubble?

Understanding The Use Of Thermite On 9-11
From Dick Eastman
7-20-9

http://www.rense.com/general86/therm.htm

Kinda dodgy but nontheless, this threads got legs,,,
rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 15, 2010 - 01:08am PT
Perhaps the same question that seperates the reasonable from the unreasonable in religious threads applies here as well...

What would CONVINCE you that you are wrong?

If the answer is "nothing", twen how can you be reasoned with, as literally NOTHING will convince you otherwise.


Now before some 'truther' tries to turn the question on me, I'll answer it upfront... "Clear evidence"... Plain and simple. Not questions, or exagerated and/or manufactuired misinformation. Hell, most tuthers beloieve that the official version is that the "steel melted", so they don't even understand the material themselves.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidense, and the claims made by truthers are very extraordinary, yet lack any credible evidense, just questions (to which they ignore the answers). There are literally mountains of evidense that supports the fact that a dozen terrorists hijacked planes, and flew them into the targets... No (US) conspiracy of an 'inside job' needed, as it is NOT an extraordinary claim.
edejom

Boulder climber
Butte, America
Jul 15, 2010 - 01:15am PT
"There are literally mountains of evidense that supports the fact that a dozen terrorists hijacked planes, and flew them into the targets..."


...as the greatest air defense intercept system on the planet was playing around with games, OUT of the two cities with the best chance of a perceived attack on ANY given day...
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jul 15, 2010 - 01:35am PT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60&feature=related

One minute video with Bush not telling the truth about 9-11. The fact he is mistaken is not open to debate. The question is why?

And why did he refuse to testify alone or under oath to the 9-11 commission?

Peace

Karl
WandaFuca

Social climber
From the gettin place
Jul 15, 2010 - 01:38am PT
I think rrrADAM nailed it with this:


. . . much of your confidence resides in the questions, not the explanations . . .


Y'all take things that don't make sense to you and then fill in the knowledge gaps with sh!t that makes even less sense--with sh!t that's downright insane.
rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 15, 2010 - 11:02am PT
Follow closely here, brutha...


I may have missed your full can scenario, when you first posted, or you edited it after I read it. Not sure? But, my scenario still stands. Use the tape, impact the top one, and see what happens.
As I said, I posted it prior to you, so NO, I didn't sneak it in as an edit. (Or wasd that just an ad hominem?) Also note that you also missed what I did edit in (well before you posted), ANTICIPATING about the shearing of the joists from the skin in a 'pancake'. Point is, it is apparent that you just aren't paying that much attention, and worse, keep going along a line of thinking without addressing what's been said. (E.g., the shearing of the joists from the skin)




Not to beat a dead horse...
To be honest, that's all these discussions do, since you really won't acknowledge when your points have been addressed. (E.g., joists shearing, top of the building falling straight down, speed of the fall, etc)



but if it is clear evidence you want then how about this.
You may wish to look into what constitutes "clear evidence":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence


In your montage, it is clear you/them are representing a engine rotor that is roughly 2-3ft in diameter. You can see a mans leg right next to it.

That there, in and of it's self if clear evidence that it is bogus. Last time I checked a a boeing engine is close to 10' in diameter.
Pay attention here, but you should know this being an engineer, and all...

Yes, the diameter of of the engine is about 10', but a gas turbine engine consists of multiple stages, and and thus have multiple rotors... Each getting smaller as pressure goes up. The low pressure rotors, the biggest of which is on the outside and what you see in the mouth of the intake, is the only one that big. The high pressure turbines are much smaller. Also note that there are blades called fins that fit into channels on the hub, and these would most likely break off upon impact when the impact is as great as with the Pentagon.

Also note that that componant can simply have been misidentified... I just grabbed that montage from google since it had multiple examples of debris. I do not know the 'original' source, nor who identified it as a rotor, do you?

Point is... You confidently latch onto it as proof positive of a conspiracy, when not even understanding that all of the stages of a turbine are NOT all the same size (I.e., 10' in diamter, with blades intact)



But, hey why would I want to actually look into these things when I could just believe their story. Much easier isn't it.

As far as I can see the majority of people posting the questions, and information are using far more reason and logic than the deniers.
OK... Then address my points regarding the the joists not shearing and actually pulkling the walls in as it fell, or, why the buiding fell straight down after initially tilting, or, why it fell so fast... You said that was your biggest problem, you have been given the reasons why it fell so fast, and have yuet to even address it, but have instead ignored it. Not addressing the very things you ask for is NOT using reason and logic, it is just plain ignoring.



On a flip side, what do you believe happened and why? Keep in mind that it is not just one incident, but many throughout that day, and previous months, and subsequent months as well. It is a big deal, and saying it was what they say is a giant cop out.
I've already said this... A dozen funded terrorists hijacked planes, and flew them into targets. There was planning involved, and there were plenty of red flags that the government intelligence agencies missed or didn't address.

The impact of the planes knocked off the 'fire proofing', the heat of the fires, fuled by 10's of thousands of gallons of jet fuel, as well as office furniture, stoaked with pleanty of air from all the knocked out windows, WEAKENED the steel joists enough to initiate a collapse... Once started, NOTHING in the building was strong enough to arrest its fall. The design of the building, tube in tube, with joists tied tio the skin acting like cables, pulled everything in as it fell, straight down.

Why? For the same reasons why they bomb and kill innocents all over the world... We aren't the only ones you know. In fact, Muslims are killing Muslims (Shite vs Suni) just like Christians were killing Christians in Ireland (Cathy vs Protty). Politics, with God being used to get people into the cause.


Now... Think about this... Either way, terrorist conspiracy or inside job, the planning and initiation of this plan started when Clinton was president, not Bush.

So, to keep using GWB as the key to all this is pretty absurd, as do you really believe ALL of that planning, preperation, and execution could have been done in so little time (just 8 months) by this guy?


Is that belief REALLY very 'reasonable or logical'? Nope... Buit it is a CONVENIENT belief.

Point being... Even if Al Gore had won the Presidency, the attack would still have happened. That's 'An Incovenient Truth, huh? (All pun intended)

C'mon now... Apply some reason and logic here, buddy.



And you still haven't answered my simple question...
What would CONVINCE you that you are wrong?


You did ask a question, regarding the speed it fell, and even said that was your biggest issue... Implying that if/when given a reasonable answer, you might reconsider. Yet when given the answer, that agrees with physics and engineering BTW, you just ignore it, never even addressing it.



So... What is it? Can anything convince you that you are wrong?

I'm thinking not... And you must admit, that is the definition of unreasonable regarding this. (I.e., cannot be reasoned with)



You know, I heard this on NPR, and it seems to apply...
"When people internalize things, it can be next to impossible for them to let it go, even when shown they are wrong."



Note - I also told you that I am very eager to look into the "molten mass of steel burning for months" that you spoke of in another reply, but you have yet to supply me with some info on this. I do want to look at it, why are you ignoring this request to provide the info you mentioned?

WBraun

climber
Jul 15, 2010 - 11:45am PT
The stupidest circle jerk ever.

Any time someone says: "What would CONVINCE you that you are wrong?"

That same line would apply to you too rrrrAdam.

Because ultimately you don't know what happened either.

All your arguments are based on theory also .......
rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 15, 2010 - 11:52am PT
Werner wrote:
Any time someone says: "What would CONVINCE you that you are wrong?"

That same line would apply to you too rrrrAdam.


Reading comprehension FAIL... I wrote:
Now before some 'truther' tries to turn the question on me, I'll answer it upfront... "Clear evidence"... Plain and simple. Not questions, or exagerated and/or manufactuired misinformation. Hell, most tuthers beloieve that the official version is that the "steel melted", so they don't even understand the material themselves.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidense, and the claims made by truthers are very extraordinary, yet lack any credible evidense, just questions (to which they ignore the answers). There are literally mountains of evidense that supports the fact that a dozen terrorists hijacked planes, and flew them into the targets... No (US) conspiracy of an 'inside job' needed, as it is NOT an extraordinary claim.


BTW, in science, "theory" doesn't mean 'wild assed guess'.
WBraun

climber
Jul 15, 2010 - 11:54am PT
I'm not truther FYI.

So get off your high horse.

Still .... you're on one huge circle jerk here.
rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 15, 2010 - 11:59am PT
I'm not truther FYI.
Didn't say you were.

So get off your high horse.
I'm not on one, unless Rocinante is a high horse.

Still .... you're on one huge circle jerk here.
Yes, I am wasting my time... But I am stupid like that. Must kill windmills!
WBraun

climber
Jul 15, 2010 - 12:02pm PT
LOL

You're a funny guy ...
rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 15, 2010 - 12:34pm PT
"There are literally mountains of evidense that supports the fact that a dozen terrorists hijacked planes, and flew them into the targets..."


...as the greatest air defense intercept system on the planet was playing around with games, OUT of the two cities with the best chance of a perceived attack on ANY given day...
Just like the defense systems were out of servive or in stand-by mode on the USS Stark when it was hit with to missles from an Iraqi jet...

That's proof that it was an 'inside job', right?
WBraun

climber
Jul 15, 2010 - 12:44pm PT
There are actual government documents that prove 9/11 Commission report was not only a fraud on the American people but was also a criminal conspiracy.

It was to hide what really allowed the attacks on 9/11 to succeed and protect the people at the CIA and FBI HQ who were behind this conspiracy.

This information already has been public knowledge in Washington DC and has been for years, including being an open secret.
edejom

Boulder climber
Butte, America
Jul 15, 2010 - 12:45pm PT
You just keep on believing everything that the Government puts out, rrrADAM, and you'll be fine...

Us wackos on the other side are the ones that the Gov. is TRULY frightened of.
426

climber
Buzzard Point, TN
Jul 15, 2010 - 12:50pm PT
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6632-2004May6

//Six air traffic controllers provided accounts of their communications with hijacked planes on Sept. 11, 2001, on a tape recording that was later destroyed by Federal Aviation Administration managers, according to a government investigative report issued today.

The report was conducted at the request of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) after the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, complained that the FAA had been less than forthcoming in turning over documents and issued a subpoena to the agency for more information.//

I think you got the windmills right keep tilting...I'd pay good money to hear what "actually happened"...it's weird that you blithely dismiss total fail of one of the most restricted airspaces in the world...not that we can even say that (read article)...
WBraun

climber
Jul 15, 2010 - 12:57pm PT
rrrAdam also has no clue who the people were on FEMA during that time.

He's too busy wasting his time reading popular mechanics.
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jul 15, 2010 - 01:00pm PT
Yup, the government is TERRIFIED of you posting their secrets on Supertopo.

I think you take yourself a little too seriously....
rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 15, 2010 - 01:01pm PT
Werener wrote:
There are actual government documents that prove 9/11 Commission report was not only a fraud on the American people but was also a criminal conspiracy.

It was to hide what really allowed the attacks on 9/11 to succeed and protect the people at the CIA and FBI HQ who were behind this conspiracy.

This information already has been public knowledge in Washington DC and has been for years, including being an open secret.


And i posted yesterday:
I do not deny that there are questions unanswered, and that there may even be some 'shady, behind the scenes, happenings'. I would mostly limit these to what who knew and when, as in who dropped the ball in the intelligence agencies.

I do deny the idea that the buildings were brought down on purpose, by a controlled demolition, requiring a HUGE conspiracy and the murder of thousands of civilians.
rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 15, 2010 - 01:04pm PT
Why is it that NOT A SINGLE ONE OF YOU will answer the question:

What would CONVINCE you that you are wrong?


Why? Is it because "NOTHING" will convince you?


Seriously... How can any of you consider yourself 'reasonable' when/if NOTHING can convince you otherwise?

Think about it... As "if" you are wrong, you will never know, since NOTHING will/could convince you of it.


edejom

Boulder climber
Butte, America
Jul 15, 2010 - 01:07pm PT
Port, I think you take me/the internet too seriously...
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 15, 2010 - 01:08pm PT
there was a guy with dark glasses, positioned with his radio transmitter in hand, waiting watching. he knew when the ragheads werre going to hit the twin towers and he knew that the plan was to hit the switch a bit later. besides, his stock broker was in one of those and he didnt like him.

fortunately he was caught on film but it turned out IT WAS A SHE!
WBraun

climber
Jul 15, 2010 - 01:09pm PT
rrrAdam

"I do deny the idea that the buildings were brought down on purpose, ..."

"When the CIA and FBI HQ shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi they knew that as a direct result of their actions that thousands of Americas would perish in the al Qaeda attacks that were just about to take place inside of the US."

You then still deny ......
dirtbag

climber
Jul 15, 2010 - 01:09pm PT
Oh yeah, rrrADAM, I also posted a WA Post article a week or so ago featuring short bios of Pentagon crash victims and interviews with friends and families about their lives...and they still thought it was likely that the victims were all made up by the government.

Because in addition to the wreckage that was found, we also pointed out that there several people who took that flight who are now all dead.

So "What would convince them?" you ask.

Nothing.

They deny even the most fundamental indisputable facts. It's delusional.

Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 15, 2010 - 01:14pm PT
rrradam,

all of these "truthers" are experts. havent you learned at least that one fact yet?

it is unfortunate but your facts will not be believed.

all the experts in NIST were idiots and or conspiring if you believe the truthers.

RJ, the Ham Radio operator is a self appointed expert at cell phone technology and "conclusively" found (using his great intellect) that he is smarter than an internationally recognized expert.

Welcome to the brick wall brother....

rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 15, 2010 - 01:20pm PT
I'll post this again...

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


Now... Think about this... Either way, terrorist conspiracy or inside job, the planning and initiation of this plan started when Clinton was president, not Bush.

So, to keep using GWB as the key to all this is pretty absurd, as do you really believe ALL of that planning, preperation, and execution could have been done in so little time (just 8 months) by this guy?


Is that belief REALLY very 'reasonable or logical'? Nope... Buit it is a CONVENIENT belief.

Point being... Even if Al Gore had won the Presidency, the attack would still have happened. That's 'An Incovenient Truth, huh? (All pun intended)

C'mon now... Apply some reason and logic here, buddy.

dirtbag

climber
Jul 15, 2010 - 01:26pm PT
Yep, that photo sums it up quite nicely hawkeye.
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jul 15, 2010 - 01:35pm PT
Think the Government put this there too?


http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/18th-century-ship-found-at-trade-center-site&no_interstitial/

On Tuesday morning, workers excavating the site of the underground vehicle security center for the future World Trade Center hit a row of sturdy, upright wood timbers, regularly spaced, sticking out of a briny gray muck flecked with oyster shells.

Obviously, these were more than just remnants of the wooden cribbing used in the late 18th and early 19th centuries to extend the shoreline of Manhattan Island ever farther into the Hudson River. (Lower Manhattan real estate was a precious commodity even then.)

“They were so perfectly contoured that they were clearly part of a ship,” said A. Michael Pappalardo, an archaeologist with the firm AKRF, which is working for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to document historical material uncovered during construction.

By Wednesday, the outlines made it plain: a 30-foot length of a wood-hulled vessel had been discovered about 20 to 30 feet below street level on the World Trade Center site, the first such large-scale archaeological find along the Manhattan waterfront since 1982, when an 18th-century cargo ship came to light at 175 Water Street.
rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 15, 2010 - 01:36pm PT
Hmmmmm... You may be onto something, doc:


Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 15, 2010 - 01:51pm PT
after that meting ronnie went out and roughed nancy up to get her in line...
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 15, 2010 - 10:07pm PT
Thanx for the info, I will look through it.

However, you must realize this... Despite what you may think, I have not read one report by the government, but several by truthers... And it is easy to see illogical, unreasonable, and just plain falsities when they present themselves.

The majority of my arguments I post, in my own words, are based on my experience and my understanding of physics, so if it happens to agree with the 'official version', perhaps that is because the official version is the most reasonable... This really isn't rocket science -- Nothing extraordinary. Occam's Razor.

As to the can... I'm not sure wht you are suggesting that I haven't already suggested you do.

And I have directly addressed your points... (E.g., the tree, the can, the speed of the fall, why it fell straight down, the rotor, etc) So to say that I haven't is false, and can even be verified as false by simply reviewing this thread. Where are your couter replies to my points?


And you have been given pleanty of "evidence" as to why it fell so fast, and you have not even attempted to dispute this evidence, but have just ignored it, maintaining that "it is impossible unless it had help".


As far as when this was all planned... Which is it:
a) This was ALL planned and executed in less than 8 months.
b) The planning for this started when Clinton was in office.


Those are the only two options, so which is it? Care to answer, or are you just gonna ignore that question, since you don't want to face "An Inconvenient Truth"?
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 15, 2010 - 10:17pm PT
#1. Jet fueled fire hot enough to melt the structure..
Why do you keep saying this? Who said the structure was "melted"?

And you are an engineer? You go from A ---> D when people aren't saying that.

How can one duiscuss anything with you when you keep doing this?
Mimi

climber
Jul 15, 2010 - 10:20pm PT
The steel did sag due to the heat. If this meets the definition of 'heat of fusion' then some of the beams 'melted.' Is that so wrong?
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 15, 2010 - 10:23pm PT
#2. You claim that the building was pulled inward by the connections at the skin with the trusses. If the truss/floor assembly failed, and pulled inward. You are clearly stating that there was not enough force to shear the connections.
Again, you are putting words into my mouth as I never said that, much less "clearly stated that".

I said that the joists acted like cables and served to pull the wall inward... Do the math, what would require less force, pulling the walls inward when the above floor was gone, or shearing the connections? If you believe shearing the connections, then how do you suppose demo experts can exploit this?

It did shear the connections where they were joined at the core, as the cores even stood for a while after the collapse, up to 60 stories on one building I believe. Hey, that even answers your other stupid quetsion, as you seem to believe that the core came down at the same time.







Again... It is hard to discuss somehting with someone when they keep presenting falsehoods "the steel melted", and putting words into one's mouth that aren't correct.

Read my words... most of the are chosen carefully.


rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 15, 2010 - 10:26pm PT
rrrADam "And you have been given pleanty of "evidence" as to why it fell so fast, and you have not even attempted to dispute this evidence, but have just ignored it, maintaining that "it is impossible unless it had help"."

Evidence? What evidence? You mearly state your flawed explanation of structures. No evidence. I have given you a detailed calculation (in link) that proves impossible. You understanding of physics is flawed.

All you have said is it pulled inward, which I have tried to explain to you multiple times that is is impossible for that to happen resulting in the fall speed, and the direction (straight down) You have not given me one thing credible to state otherwise. If the measily connections of the skin, and the trusses was strong enough to hold, and pull the exterior in, then what about the giant vertical columns of the inner core. What brought them down. Sorry, you just don't know what you are talking about. I have tried to enlighten you, and you are just stubborn.
You were given direct evidence by another user, that paraphrased what I had said.

So, you are saying that if I give you detailed calcs that support what I, and most others sday, you will change your mind?

Admit it... You won't, will you. I'd be wasting my time, as I have done for a couple days now in this thread.


I will however look into the info you have given me, and I may even feel compelled to reply on it... I'm stupid like that, and like chasing windmills.


rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 15, 2010 - 10:39pm PT
rrrAdam,

refer me to the post. If it was the silly math that explained the rate of fall, please see the video I posted. That is real math.

Post some, and I will look at it. That's the beauty of it. Math is definite.
It was posted a few pages back, and he even said he had posted it before, but it was ignored then as well. It is from the NIST report, I believe.

So, are you saying that if I provide you with accurate calcs that show that once the fall started, there wasn't sufficient structure to provide significant resistance to slow the fall you will admit that you are wrong? Since "math is definate", right?


And you have yet to answer my simple question regarding when and how long it took to plan this all out. An embarassing questiion tyo answer perhaps?



Lastly... As far as our individual understandings of physics goes, my kung fu appears to be better than yours. What was it, 30 years you said, since you had to use any applied physics? Not understanding the center of mass, inertia, and even the mechanics of how a tree actually falls, as it trying to compare that to the WTC.

You may want to brush the dust off those engineering and physics books my friend... Instead of getting info, and tyour 'real math', from the truthers equivilant of answersingenesis.org.
Mimi

climber
Jul 15, 2010 - 10:42pm PT
What about the argument of the melting thermite? From what's out there, the weight of the aluminum of each jet was approximately 140,000 lbs. This was the molten metal streaming from the tower that was claimed to be thermite. They sampled the metal landing on the sidewalk and the thermal imagery is that of aluminum metal.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 15, 2010 - 11:11pm PT
And there's lots of metals in a skyrise that melt well before steel does.
Jennie

Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
Jul 15, 2010 - 11:21pm PT
This is from http://www.burtonsys.com/staticvdyn/

Static v. Dynamic Loading:
Why the WTC Towers Fell So Fast


Some conspiracy theorists are puzzled about why the WTC towers fell at almost free-fall speed on Sept. 11, 2001. They suppose that the speed of collapse is evidence that something or someone must have destroyed the structural integrity of the undamaged lower part of each tower.

After all, they reason, "only the upper floors of the building were damaged, so why did the lower floors collapse, and why did they fall so fast?"

This web page answers those questions, simply enough for even a conspiracy theorist to comprehend (I hope). I do use some simple math and some very basic physics, but even if you don't understand that part you should still be able to comprehend the basic reasons that the towers fell so fast.

What the conspiracy theorists apparently don't understand is the difference between static and dynamic loading. ("Static" means "while at rest," "dynamic" means "while moving.")

If you don't think it can make a difference, consider the effect of a stationary bullet resting on your chest, compared to the effect of a moving bullet striking your chest. The stationary bullet exerts a static load on your chest. A moving bullet exerts a dynamic load.

As a more pertinent example, consider a 110 story building with a roof 1,368 feet high (like the WTC Twin Towers). Each floor is 1368/110 = 12.44 feet high, or aproximately 3.8 meters.

Now, suppose that the structural steel on the 80th floor collapses. (Note: I'm using as an example 2 WTC, which was the building that collapsed first.)

The collapse of the 80th floor drops all the floors above (which, together, are equivalent to a 30 story building!) onto the 79th floor, from a height of aproximately 12 feet.

Of course, the structure of the lower 79 floors has been holding up the weight of the top 31 floors for many years. (That's the static load.) So should you expect it to be able to hold that same weight, dropped on it from a height of 12 feet (the dynamic load)?
The answer is, absolutely not!

Here's why.

First, let's calculate aproximately how fast the upper 30 floors slammed into the 79th floor. (If you slept through high school physics, you may want to skip ahead to the result.)

d=distance, g=acceleration of gravity, t=time, v=velocity
d = 0.5 g x t²
Solving for t:
2d = g x t²
t² = 2d / g
t = sqrt(2d/g)
t = sqrt(2d) / sqrt(g)
v = g x t
Substituting for t:
v = g x sqrt(2d) / sqrt(g)
v = g x sqrt(2d) / sqrt(g)
v = (g / sqrt(g)) x sqrt(2) x sqrt(d)
v = sqrt(2g) x sqrt(d)
g = 9.8 m/sec²
d = 3.8 meters
Thus:
v = sqrt(19.6 x 3.8) m/sec
v = sqrt( 74.5 ) m/sec
v = 8.6 m/sec
1 meter = 39.37 inches, so
v = 8.6 m/sec x (39.37/12) ft/m = 28 ft/sec.
which is 19 mph.


In other words, if you drop something from a height of 12 feet, it will be moving at about 19 miles per hour by the time it reaches the ground. It doesn't matter whether it is a single brick or a 30 story building. After falling 12 feet it will be moving at about 19 mph.

That's about the speed of a collegiate sprinter. (The world record for running the mile is 3:43.13, which is an average speed of 16.134 mph.) If you could sprint that fast and ran into a brick wall the impact might well kill you.

So if the lower 79 floors are strong enough to support a stationary 31 story building, do you think they will be?

The answer is emphatically no! e strong enough to support a 31 story bulding falling at 19 mph? But if you are not convinced, then ask yourself this roughly equivalent question. Suppose that you can hold up a 50 lb weight with little difficulty. Do you suppose that you could survive a 50 lb weight falling on you from a height of 12 feet - i.e., at 19 mph? (Warning: Do not try this!)

To answer that question without killing someone, I devised the following experiment. First, I found an easily dividable weight: I used my penny jar. Then I made a support for it: I used a piece of notebook paper stretched over a loaf pan, and taped in place. As you can see, the paper was strong enough to support the jar:


(I was going to determine the limit to the amount of weight it would support, by adding pennies to the jar until the paper tore, but that's all the pennies I had in my penny jar.)

Then I removed the jar from the paper, and set it aside. I took five pennies from the jar, and taped them together. I stood on a stepstool, reached as high into the air as I could (about 9 or 10 feet from the floor), and dropped the 5 pennies onto the paper from that height. As you can see, even though I didn't drop it from a full 12 feet, the paper still could not withstand the falling pennies:


(I took the pennies out of the loaf pan for this photo; that's them next to the lower-right corner of the pan.)

Then I weighed both the five taped-together pennies (12 grams), and the penny jar full of pennies (1372 grams):



As you can see, 5 taped-together pennies weigh just 1/114th as much as the penny jar, yet they tore the paper on the first try. (I didn't try an even smaller stack of pennies.)

You can imagine what would happen if I'd dropped the full penny jar on the paper from 10 feet up. If a 12 gram penny stack broke right though the paper, obviously the paper would hardly have slowed the 1372 gram jar full of pennies at all... just as the lower floors of the WTC towers hardly slowed the fall of the upper floors.

That is experimental proof that a stiff (inelastic) structure which can support a given static load may break when less than 1% of that mass is dropped on it from a height of 10 feet. From that fact, it follows that if the full mass which the structure is capable of supporting is dropped on it from a height of 12 feet, the strength of the structure can be expected to slow the fall by less than 1%.

In the case of the WTC towers, there was a second factor which also slowed the collapse, but not by much. When the top 30 floors of a 110 story building fall 12 feet onto the 79th floor, due to the collapse of the 80th floor, the mass of the 79th floor is suddenly added to the mass of the falling structure. The momentum of a 30 story building falling at 19 mph suddenly becomes the momentum of a 31 story building falling at a slightly smaller velocity. The question is, how much smaller?

p = momentum = m x v
m1 = mass of the top 30 stories
m2 = mass of the top 31 stories = aprox. (31/30) x m1
v1 = velocity before the additional mass is added = 19 mph
v2 = velocity after the mass is added
Momentum is conserved, so:
p = m1 x v1 = m2 x v2 = (31/30) x m1 x v2
Solving for v2:
v2 = v1 x (30/31) = 0.968 x 19 mph = 18.4 mph
So you can see that the two factors which slowed the fall of the WTC towers were both very small. The strength of the structure below the point of collapse could be expected to slow the rate of collapse by less than 1%, and the accumulation of additional mass by the falling part of the structure due to the the "pancaking" of the lower floors could be expected to slow the rate of collapse by about 3%.

Of course, the above analysis is just about what happened when the top 31 stories fell onto the 79th floor. To predict the progression of the entire collapse, you have to repeat the calculations for each floor. For the next floor, calculate a 32-story building starting with an initial velocity of about 18.4 mph, and accelerating for another 12.4 feet to about 27 mph, and then slamming into the 78th floor. Since kinetic energy is proportional to velocity squared, the falling mass hits the 78th floor with about twice the kinetic energy that the top 31 stories had when they hit the 79th floor. Obviously, the 78th floor could be expected to slow the collapse by even less than the 79th floor did, which is why the building collapsed at nearly free-fall speed.

Dave Burton
Cary, NC USA
Feb. 21, 2007

References:
wtc.nist.gov: National Institute of Standards and Technology reports & information
FEMA: World Trade Center Building Performance Study (or here)
http://www.9-11commission.gov: 9-11 Commission Report
Scientific American: Preliminary Opinions of M.I.T. Stuctural Engineers (Oct. 2001)
Article: Engineers blame collapses on fires
Article: Faulty Fireproofing Is Reviewed as Factor in Trade Center Collapse
BBC: Q&A: What really happened
WGBH/Nova: Building on Ground Zero
Popular Mechanics: Debunking The 9/11 Myths (March 2005), and Editor's Notes
Book: Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts, by The Editors of Popular Mechanics
WGBH/Nova: Demolition Woman, Interview with Stacey Loizeaux (1996)
jod911.com - Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories
911myths.com - 9-11 Myths... Reading between the lies
debunking911.com - Debunking 911 conspiracy theories
429truth.com - a campaign to expose the truth of 4-29
Did the U.S. government plan and execute the 9/11 attacks?
xkcd.com
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 15, 2010 - 11:24pm PT
Jolly...
rrrAdam,

I see you have been busy. Don't you have a job inspecting something.
To be honest... I've been stuck in a hotel, for 2 days now, in Florence, SC, waiting to help do the final walkdowns of the primary and secondary systems of one of our nukes before it goes critical and syncs to the grid. Problem is, we can't do it until the systems reach normal operating temperate and pressure, and the schedule keeps slipping to the right. They haven't even started to "press up" the systems yet. :(

So I am bored to tears, hence my willingness to go in circles in this thread, and partake in all the banality.
Mimi

climber
Jul 15, 2010 - 11:27pm PT
Sounds like you're releasing security secrets or at least violating the company's ethics policy.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 15, 2010 - 11:40pm PT
Thanx Jennie... You saved me some work.

Now, Jolly... I'm really not trying to be a dick here, just anticipating...

Does this CONVINCE you that you are wrong? At least about why it fell so fast? If not, why not? What is wrong with the math? Are you going to move the goal post now? Perhaps ask for calcs with the exact values of the building parameters (E.g. weight of upper 30 floors, furnature, people; exact distance between floors; designed static load limits for the floors) perhaps?


I think that rather than even consider you may be wrong, you will look for any reason to dismiss what has been presented to you. Why? Because you said that "why it fell so fast was your biggest issue", so without that, all you have are some "small issues", and you like to have big issues to hold onto, don't you?
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 15, 2010 - 11:45pm PT
Sounds like you're releasing security secrets or at least violating the company's ethics policy.
Ummmm... Nope. I posted nothing that couldn't be gleaned from the local paper, or various websites about the status of all of the US Commercial Nuclear Power plants, which also include updated estimates of when they will be back online if they are in an outage.

Or was that an attempt at a slam? Or, maybe you didn't understand what it was that I said?
Mimi

climber
Jul 15, 2010 - 11:51pm PT
Why so paranoid? You explained your position. I was kidding about government and those nasty corporations.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 15, 2010 - 11:55pm PT
Wow... Paranoid, huh? You got that out of what I said?
Mimi

climber
Jul 16, 2010 - 12:15am PT
Sort of but I agree with your views. I was only kidding. Glad to have another reasonable person aboard.
dirtbag

climber
Jul 16, 2010 - 12:16am PT
Mimi, the thing is, most people are reasonable. This thread skews things so it appears otherwise.
Mimi

climber
Jul 16, 2010 - 12:22am PT
I know. I was trying to be nice for a change.

Like legalization of pot. Do you think we'll see the complete absence of this silly conspiracy theory in our lifetimes? We can only hope.
Mimi

climber
Jul 16, 2010 - 12:41am PT
Thanks for verifying; that whole post was not very inviting at this stage of the evening.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 16, 2010 - 01:55am PT
jennie that hodgepodge makes no sense to me. if you think you understand it, try expressing it in your own words, if you can. i don't think you do. leave out the silly formulas--they don't impress me.

this nonsense is typical of the disinformation full-court press--they even try to mimic truthers' demonstration of structure and freefall with their jar full of pennies.

you can't get away from a very basic fact. freefall speed implies immediate dissolution of all structure. collapsing in the upper stories of the towers, if it were even capable of destroying the much stronger structure beneath, would take considerable time to do so. buildings which do pancake, such as those in the mexico city earthquake, don't come down at freefall speed. and the twin towers structure was simply not vulnerable to such pancaking. these things don't happen in the real world without planned, controlled demolition. this is scientific fairy tale.

the NIST scenario also warrants some consideration here. NIST takes great pains to try to explain the video evidence of the building 7 penthouse beginning to sink slightly before the rest of the collapse ensues. they invent a mythical weak column deep within the building which somehow transfers its weakness upward making for the penthouse effect. this is in response to many industry reports that such a preliminary sinking is quite typical of controlled demolitions, evidencing the action of the initial cutting charges before the implosion proceeds.
dirtbag

climber
Jul 16, 2010 - 01:59am PT

this nonsense is typical of the disinformation full-court press--they even try to mimic truthers' demonstration of structure and freefall with their jar full of pennies.



Oh no, it's The They!!!
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jul 16, 2010 - 02:02am PT
Thanks, Jennie - a good post!
426

climber
Buzzard Point, TN
Jul 16, 2010 - 09:21am PT
It's always funny to me how some "conspiracy theory" could "never be true" in some denying minds...


40 years later after all that denial...but go ahead "trust US".





Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 16, 2010 - 10:08am PT
good point, 426. "they" don't necessarily have "our" best interests foremost. but "they" sure want us to think "they" do.

the list doesn't end with the tuskegee experiment. check out operation northwoods and the u.s.s. liberty, dirtbag.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 16, 2010 - 10:18am PT
Jolly, I can't believe you got sucked in by that YouTube video

He does not add in the accumulating mass of the collapse among other ridiculous assumptions.

When the first floor collapses, it's mass is added to the block above. As each additional floor collapses, the collapsing masses gets larger.

He even calculates negative acceleration, which means the collapse acceleration reduced from the initial freefall acceleration after one floor and velocity would actually reduce at some point. Does that even make sense to you, Jolly?

Holy Cow what dumbf*#ks.

As a managing member of the NWO, I will recommend to the committee that you be placed in the 'not a threat to the Truth' section. We have limited resources since Cheney left office so we have to focus our efforts as efficiently as possible.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 16, 2010 - 10:56am PT
monolith, the myth of accumulating collapse collapses, so to speak, with the timing. any percussion of one thing breaking loose and dislodging something else requires time. you don't have more than two seconds over freefall. does not compute.

this myth also falls apart with the most elementary understanding of twin tower structure. the towers were core-and-shell, with the floors, shaped like square donuts, suspended between the two. the videos show floor-by-floor destruction of all three elements--core, shell and floors, not shearing and pancaking. there is tremendous spewing of dust early in the collapse sequence--check out that post klimmer did here in memory of john bachar, who was onto this as well and quite ardent about standing for the facts. only a fool could imagine that coming from a gravity collapse.

there just isn't evidence for pancaking, and "they" (hehe, might as well use the word, dirtbag) hate to talk about it because thomas eagar has mud on his face for suggesting it. if the buildings pancaked, there should have been a stack of pancakes on the ground, and there wasn't anything that came close. there was tremendous energy involved, not nearly enough to derive from a gravity collapse. the terrible pulverization, attested to by everyone who worked over the debris, is proof of that.

one of the videos shows the floors exploding downward FASTER than large pieces of debris falling free directly alongside.

btw, i think i'm digging your jar full of pennies up there. see, the difference between a skyscraper and a jar full of pennies is structure. all the work that goes into building a skyscraper must be undone in order for it to function like a pile of pennies. the only way to do that fast is ... preplanned, preset controlled demolition.

there has been considerable speculation among the truth community about the next big move "they" will take on this. the NIST report seems to have toned down the building 7 squawk for the time being, but if you haven't seen the larry silverstein interview, i suggest taking a look at it. silverstein, who came into ownership of the wtc shortly before 9/11 along with a big, generous insurance package (coinkydink? ignore, ignore, deny, deny ...), admits on camera that the building was pulled. the really, really big problem with that is that buildings don't get pulled over the course of an afternoon. it requires considerable engineering, analysis and presetting. but, heck, nobody ever went broke banking on the stupidity of the american people, right? and this suckah sure did some banking.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 16, 2010 - 11:07am PT
it's funny, but the sides people take on 9/11 are so often tied to their personal beliefs, very often about god and country, which is one reason this thread got started in the belief-in-god thread. it isn't so much the specifics of one's belief, but the way it hitches to what's around it. being an atheist as far as you christian westerners are concerned, i couldn't care less about jesus watching over his minion america. but when i told one of my brothers about this--the supercatholic paleoconservative--he had no problem. "the john birch society has been telling us for years that the government is out to screw us." the other brother, a much mellower catholic into a suburban lifestyle greatly dependent on a secure job programming for the investment industry, leaves the room when this talk starts up.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 16, 2010 - 11:10am PT
Gibberish Tony.

Large portions of the core stood for a while after the rest of the building collapsed.




And accumulating mass not a factor? WTF, Tony.

BTW, I did not post the penny jar stuff. Try to focus.

And post the video showing the collapse accelerated faster then gravity.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 16, 2010 - 11:13am PT
got a picture of THAT, mono?

you're still not getting it. three parts to the structure. it was fairly pancake-proof. the only way to overcome it was to break the vertical strength floor by floor, which is exactly what we see in the videos. normal pancaking, your collapse scenario, would have shorn those connections. the core and the shell were quite strong vertically, where they had to be. nothing near that remained.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 16, 2010 - 11:15am PT
It's right in front of your face, Tony.

And where's that video showing the collapse accelerated faster then gravity?
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 16, 2010 - 11:17am PT
in front of our faces i see lots of dust--and maybe something sticking upward--can't tell what it is, but if it's a single column from the core, it's proving my point, not yours.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 16, 2010 - 11:21am PT
What do you think that large jagged steel structure sticking out of the debris cloud is Tony?

You think that there is only a single core column in the pic? Hilarious!

Do we get to add in the time for this part to collapse to the total collapse time?

Google for standing core. Some Truthers use this as proof of demo.

Off to work, but it's been fun.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 16, 2010 - 11:40am PT
can't find my good photos of the core and shell under construction, but the first one in this link isn't bad:

http://www.stj911.com/evidence/wtc.html#construction

the core had forty-some separate steel columns, bound together to give it unit strength. any destruction of the core where the planes hit would not have affected the structure below. weakening or melting from jet fuel is just another pleasant myth.

the shells were formed by interlocking units that had vertical, horizontal and diagonal strength. the best metaphor is a window screen. you don't poke a pencil through a window screen and have the whole screen fall apart.

again, that linked photo shows the strengths and weaknesses of tower structure. admittedly, the greatest weakness would be in the connections of each floor to the core and shell. there were attempts to assail that--there really wasn't anything wrong with them--which were abandoned when the ridiculousness of the pancake theory became apparent. your photo, monolith, should show the entire core standing and perhaps the entire shell as well.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 16, 2010 - 12:03pm PT
I will post this again. Anyone that wants to believe the math above, please take the time to not be fooled, and watch with your own eyes, a very capable individual explain it to you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_j1jAv1j3U


Best case scenario 42seconds.

You will see how the math above is flawed and misleading.
He keeps saying that the net force is upwards, not downwards, and that is NOT true... The downward force is dynamic... It is accelerating, which increases (f=ma) its inertia. The upward force is static.

Again, it is no different than having a piece of pro that can hold 2-3 times body weight and falling on it from 10' above -- You will pull the piece, slow slightly, then accelerate to the next piece, and remember you already have velocity after the first piece pulls, so the acceleration will increase the velocity, thus the inertial load on the 2nd piece. In other words, accelerating all the way down.

What this guy is saying, and miscalculating, applied to the climber and his pro, is that the net force in such a fall is upward (from the pro), that the [static] piece exerts more force upward than you [dynamically] falling on that piece, and this is just plain false.


To put it simply... The static load of the floors below is overcome by the SIGNIFICANT dynamic load of the mass falling on it, increasing in mass and velocity [inertia] all the way down. Remember, what little resistance the floors below give does not arrest the fall to 0, so there is already velocity that is only added to as it falls to the next floor, gaining more mass and velocity as it crashes into the next floor, etc. Thus velocity and mass [inertia] will increase.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 16, 2010 - 12:18pm PT
the videos show floor-by-floor destruction of all three elements--core, shell and floors, not shearing and pancaking
Look at the picture, Tony.

Then look at the word I put in bold in the quote of you.

Then admit that you are wrong, as you can clearly see the core standing in that picture.



I'll bet you can't do it... You just cannot admit that you are wrong, about any of this, even when given the evidence that you are.

Remember now... If the core is still standing after the rest of it fell, that means that the joists sheared away from the core, as the rest of it pancaked around the core. So we could even say that the core served to guide the failure all the way down, like pushing a sock down along your calf/ankle... Guess that helps to answer another of Jolly's concernes, why it fell straight down, so he'll have to ignore and deny that as well.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 16, 2010 - 12:29pm PT
More pictures of the standing core for your denial:





Note that this is a sillohette of the core while the building were under construction:


Notice the 2 shafts? Now go back up and look at the really big picture.



So, ummm... Why was it standing if it was purposely and professionally rigged for demolision? Did they not put explosives on the core too?
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jul 16, 2010 - 12:48pm PT
All this controlled demolition argument is a waste of time and what truly distracts from ever getting the real truth behind 9-11. People spend so much time debating and analyzing this that the real red flags, that need serious investigation, get ignored. Perhaps this is the effect of disinformation or, if somehow those towers were really blown up, it was mainly to create this distraction too incredible to believe.

Nobody knows to this day who was behind burning the German Parliament building before Hitler's rise to power.

We are not being told the truth behind 9-11 but that truth will not come out of demolition arguments.

Rule #1: Follow the money idiots! The 9-11 commission refused to follow the money and we hear that the pages redacted from the public report were ones linking Saudi Royal money to the affair. WTF! The money wired to Atta is supremely relevant but nobody goes after it and makes it a big issue.

3 minute video here that says 100x more than all this controlled demo stuff put together

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owJluP_8dcM

#2 The stand down orders by Cheney, the history and details of the 9-11 war games that took the fighters away from the targets and created false blips on the radar screens. Who ordered that? This is something that's got to go directly back to any gov types interested in "letting 9-11" happen, but everybody wants to talk about missles hitting the pentagon.

Then there's piles of other issues outside of the physical facts. air traffic controllers and so on.

Stuff like Bush lying about it, documented here, but never willing to testify under oath about it...WTF!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60&feature=related

It's amazing what we don't know about 9-11. We need to call for more investigation based on reasonable gaps in our knowledge that haven't been addressed. The towers could have been vaporized by alien spacecraft in league with the NWO for all I know, but that would be a pretty stupid drum to beat if you ever want reality to shine on this event.

Peace

Karl
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 16, 2010 - 01:10pm PT
OK Karl...

You seem keen on going the Bush Administration route, so, care to take a stab at this:

Now... Think about this... Either way, terrorist conspiracy or inside job, the planning and initiation of this plan started when Clinton was president, not Bush.

So, to keep using GWB as the key to all this is pretty absurd, as do you really believe ALL of that planning, preperation, and execution could have been done in so little time (just 8 months) by this guy?


Is that belief REALLY very 'reasonable or logical'? Nope... Buit it is a CONVENIENT belief.

Point being... Even if Al Gore had won the Presidency, the attack would still have happened. That's 'An Incovenient Truth, huh? (All pun intended)

C'mon now... Apply some reason and logic here, buddy.



So which is it:
a) ALL (think about what 'all' means) of this was planned and executed in just 8 months.
b) The planning of this started when Clinton and Gore were in office.


You can't have it both ways. You can't ignore the above, yet continue to invoke the Evil Bush Emopire, unless of course you choose option 'a'.



Mind you... I believe that there is lot that hasn't been disclosed, but it is limited to "who knew what and when", as in the complete and utter failure of the inteligence agencies to prevent this, despite plenty of 'red flags'. But I see absolutely no preplanned malice against by anyone in any US administration... I believe there are plenty of people who failed to effectively do their jobs covering their asses. In other words, many were incompetant, and are acting without integrity after the fact as a form of damage control to them or their organizations.
WBraun

climber
Jul 16, 2010 - 01:34pm PT
rrrAdam -- "I believe there are plenty ..."

You're just like the Christians you continually bash.

You're just guessing .....
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 16, 2010 - 01:43pm PT
Uhhh... OK...

"I readily accept that there are most likely plenty..."

Happy now? I'll bet not. (wink)


Gotta go... They are starting to 'press up' the systems, so hopefully I can walk this stuff down and go home tonight.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 16, 2010 - 01:46pm PT
you're right, karl, there are many more aspects to 9/11 evidence than wtc destruction. quite often it all focuses on narrow things. that plays into "their" hands--get embroiled in the details of one area and forget about anomaly after anomaly in every aspect of what went on that day.

arguing with rrradam here, we forget all about norman mineta, a cabinet-level eyewitness to dick cheney's behavior that day. mineta has pretty much been silenced, although his unpublished testimony to the 9/11 commission has been widely distributed. we'll hear more from "them" after they've had their thinking caps on long enough to cook up an explanation for why cheney wasn't scrambling dozens of F-16s from andrews afb as the airliner approached washington. he was certainly getting minute-by-minute reports of its approach.

rrradam, those photos still underscore the probability of controlled demolition. the towers were sound and standing after the air strikes. your backlit construction photo shows the elegance of their three-part design. your destruction photo shows how instantaneously it was torn apart. the incredible amount of dust showed up early in the destruction sequence, spewing upward into the air. not a gravity collapse.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 16, 2010 - 02:13pm PT
Ummm...
the videos show floor-by-floor destruction of all three elements--core, shell and floors, not shearing and pancaking
Look at the picture, Tony.

Then look at the word I put in bold in the quote of you.

Then admit that you are wrong, as you can clearly see the core standing in that picture.



I'll bet you can't do it... You just cannot admit that you are wrong, about any of this, even when given the evidence that you are.

I knew you couldn't do it. You cannot even bring yourself to admit that what you said was wrong, even when directly shown that what you said was wrong.


So... Tell me... How can anyone discuss this with you, when even shown where you are wrong, you cannot acknowledge it. This is not the first time you have ignored direct evidence that shows you are wrong in items you believe to be true.

See... You just want to ask all the questions, ignore the answers, and even ignore the questions posed to you. That is not a discourse, it is a monologue.

WBraun

climber
Jul 16, 2010 - 02:16pm PT
How long was that so called core standing there after that photo was taken.

:-)
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jul 16, 2010 - 02:20pm PT
OK Karl...

You seem keen on going the Bush Administration route, so, care to take a stab at this:

Now... Think about this... Either way, terrorist conspiracy or inside job, the planning and initiation of this plan started when Clinton was president, not Bush.

So, to keep using GWB as the key to all this is pretty absurd, as do you really believe ALL of that planning, preperation, and execution could have been done in so little time (just 8 months) by this guy?

Make no mistake, I don't know what happened on 9-11, if it was an inside job or if it were allowed to happen, or if they are just covering their incompetence.

It wasn't done by Bush, that's for sure! Presidents, as Obama continues to prove, are merely pawns of the status quo power structure. The telegraphing of 9-11 was published by the Project for a New American Century. The same guys who were with Bush 1 have been working on stuff for decades.

So I'm not pointing at some specific plot that I know happened. Just that we're being lied to so let's take the cover off the septic tank and pump some sh#t out

Peace

Karl
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 16, 2010 - 02:47pm PT
i see maybe half of a core standing, rrradam, destroyed instantaneously. does that help? i see lots of dust and pulverization, such as would never happen in a gravity collapse, and the destruction, in a matter of seconds, of thousands upon thousands of the strong ties which held it all together. something you're not seeing, buddy.
dirtbag

climber
Jul 16, 2010 - 02:50pm PT
I see bogeymen...The They...everywhere!
WBraun

climber
Jul 16, 2010 - 02:58pm PT
That's the crux of it Tony.

They believe what they're told, (those who support the govt. version).

Totally contradicts their own selves because those same people are always arguing that fools "believe" and should "think for yourselves" yet they do the exact opposite when they so deem.

Goes to show exactly why you can't trust anyone with this.

When the CIA and FBI HQ deliberately withheld vital information and shut down the FBI criminal investigators that this is criminal and implicates direct US involvement in letting the attacks take place.

Inside job .......
golsen

Social climber
kennewick, wa
Jul 16, 2010 - 03:10pm PT
karl said,
or if they are just covering their incompetence.

I work for the government, and am a licensed engineer, and am building fireprotected steel nuclear structures. While there are a number of committed and qualified employees within the government, there are just as many who are afraid of being held accountable.

Karl's statement above rings truer than any other argumnets on here in terms of the motivations for discrepancies in testimonies, etc. from that fateful day.

BTW, rradam's analysis off the video is correct. I would put my engineers stamp on that one....
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 16, 2010 - 03:29pm PT
golsen, there are 1,225 engineers and architects who have put their stamps otherwise.

http://www.ae911truth.org

as in any jury trial, it isn't the credentials or number of experts, but the ability of experts to come across to ordinary people. there was nothing simple about the towers' demise, and what gives the lie to all the hocus-pocus is building 7. rrradam can't always remember everything he puts out here, but one of his own fantasy websites admits that no steel skyscrapers ever came down this way before.

now we're talking about revising a perfectly good building code to fit the "facts" of 9/11. are you going to put your stamp on that too? that code developed over a long time and is successful in every big downtown the world over, where buildings hold up perfectly well to storms, fires and aging. and if you like airplane attacks, check out what happened to the empire state building in 1945. like karl says, it's time to take the lid off the septic tank and pump out the crap.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Jul 16, 2010 - 04:05pm PT
Q: Why did Bush oppose creating a commission to look into the attacks?

Q: Why did it take so long to create the commission and why was it so ill-funded?

Q: How long do you think it would have taken you to create a commission to look into the 9/11 attacks if similar attacks happened on your watch as POTUS?

If it smells like a fish, it could possibly be a fish.


Dirtbag, it's not that I see boogie men everywhere, but something is rotten in Rotterdam.

If, after looking at all the evidence shown in this thread of cover-up by the 9/11 Commission, you don't see any cover-up, then I have to say you don't want to see much.

It ain't that the answers are known us commoners, but as Baba implied, I do know that I (we) have been lied to. Are you not curious to know why?

dirtbag

climber
Jul 16, 2010 - 04:09pm PT
k-man,

Do I think it is likely that several officials f*#ked up?

Yep.

Do I think several officials have not been forthcoming about what they knew or didn't know and how diligent they were in preventing such attacks?

Yep.

Do I think this sort of thing is common in government?

Yep.

Does all the evidence point to some vast, vague, nebulous, and enormously complicated, and riduclous conspiracy involving ill-defined governmental and quasi-governmental involvement?

Get real.
WBraun

climber
Jul 16, 2010 - 04:15pm PT
Dirtbag -- "Do I think ..."

Thinking and actual facts are two different things.

Thus you are only speculating guessing.

Thus your whole arguments here are null and void .......
dirtbag

climber
Jul 16, 2010 - 04:17pm PT
Thinking and actual facts are two different things.

Thus you are only speculating guessing.

Thus your whole arguments here are null and void .......


I'm sorry, I forgot you know everything, including the "fact" that the moon landings weren't real.
WBraun

climber
Jul 16, 2010 - 04:32pm PT
Yes you should be sorry.

As you are the same "Sheeple!" you continually call others ......
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Jul 16, 2010 - 04:39pm PT
Dirtbag, I find it interesting that you answer a few questions, but completely avoid the ones I ask--even though you address me as if the answers you give are to the questions I asked.

So let me ask again, why do you think Bush was against forming the 9-11 Commission?
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Jul 16, 2010 - 04:55pm PT
Coz, you speak with a air of authority. Maybe you can try answering my question about Bush being against forming a 9-11 commission to look into attacks against the US mainland.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 16, 2010 - 05:06pm PT
i think dirtbag's f*#k-up scenario is worth some discussion. there's the lihop, the mihop, and then there's just plain incompetence, on a massive scale, with a great deal of sympathy and understanding for it, which is a little hard to believe, but i'd like to hear him elaborate.
WBraun

climber
Jul 16, 2010 - 05:13pm PT
There is direct evidence of deliberate involvement of conspiracy by these individuals below:

Cofer Black
George Tenet
John Gannon
Rod Middleton
Louis Freeh -- FBI Director
CIA Yemen station
CIA Pakistan Station
CIA Bin Laden unit -- Richard Blee as its Chief,
Tom Wilshire -- Deputy Chief of the Bin Laden unit

The 9/11 Commission is a total fraud and thus opens a huge Pandora box ....
dirtbag

climber
Jul 16, 2010 - 05:36pm PT
So let me ask again, why do you think Bush was against forming the 9-11 Commission?

Actually I already answered what I think might be the reasons. But honestly, I don't know for sure.


rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 16, 2010 - 05:37pm PT
Make no mistake, I don't know what happened on 9-11, if it was an inside job or if it were allowed to happen, or if they are just covering their incompetence.

It wasn't done by Bush, that's for sure! Presidents, as Obama continues to prove, are merely pawns of the status quo power structure. The telegraphing of 9-11 was published by the Project for a New American Century. The same guys who were with Bush 1 have been working on stuff for decades.

So I'm not pointing at some specific plot that I know happened. Just that we're being lied to so let's take the cover off the septic tank and pump some sh#t out

Peace

Karl
Karl... You and I agree on more than you may think.
dirtbag

climber
Jul 16, 2010 - 05:40pm PT
As you are the same "Sheeple!" you continually call others ......

LOL, I do it in jest, because people like you (as your post demonstrates) are always crying "Sheeple" at folks who reject the tin-foil bullsh#t.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 16, 2010 - 05:43pm PT
rrradam can't always remember everything he puts out here, but one of his own fantasy websites admits that no steel skyscrapers ever came down this way before.
You are on glue...

You are referring to a video that directly refutes your initial statement to me that no steel structured buildings have ever come down this way as a result of fire. The video gives examples of many.

So, not only are you 'bass akwards' in what the video I showed you said, but you are are even putting words into my mouth that are the opposite of what I've said.

Go back and look, although you seem to deliberately miss, ignore, and/or deny ANYTHING that disagrees with what you wish to believe.


No surprise though... You are consistant.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 16, 2010 - 05:49pm PT
Phunny, but I think the one's who should consider donning an Alcoa fedora are those who argue in defense of the "official" explanation.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 16, 2010 - 05:52pm PT
Apparently your physics is rusty. The guy is right. The positive force is gravity. The negative force is the resistance. That much should be simple to understand. Apparently not though.
Back at you...

He said the net force is up, meaning, he is saying that after he adds the two forces together (static load of the floor below [the up force], with the dynamic load of 30 stories falling 10+ feet [the down force]), that the up force is greater, thus it is the net force. This is simply absurd.
edejom

Boulder climber
Butte, America
Jul 16, 2010 - 05:54pm PT
Philo may be on to something: Why is it that the people who want the Gov't out of their lives sooo much are the first ones to thump their chests on how the 9-11 Commission Report is the ONLY explanation.

More hypocrisy in action, folks...
golsen

Social climber
kennewick, wa
Jul 16, 2010 - 06:01pm PT
Tony and Jolly,

we will have to agree to disagree.

as Karl says,

peace,

GOlsen PE
WBraun

climber
Jul 16, 2010 - 06:08pm PT
Since there's a deliberate known cover up then the following below become suspect and can not be trusted and thus become null.

U.S. Department of Justice Inspector General report

The 9/11 Commission report

FEMA's Report

NIST's report

This is why complete independent investigations were called for ....
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 16, 2010 - 07:08pm PT
Wow! Thanx Jolly. It's all much clearer now. It's good to hear from Bush's science advisor.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 16, 2010 - 07:43pm PT
Yes, Jolly it is absurd.

No building is designed to halt 30 floors falling one floor. None.

In a static situation the net force is zero, or the block would fall or rise.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 16, 2010 - 07:58pm PT
Look up the peer reviewed papers by Bazant. He even talks about the tilting block.

It's absurd to claim a minimum fall time of 42 seconds without even talking about accumulating mass.

As I told Tony, I didn't post the penny example. You both have focus issues. Try to concentrate.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 16, 2010 - 08:43pm PT
fair enough, golsen. but since fire protection seems to be your specialty, you may want to review some of this material:

http://www.public-action.com/911/firemen.html

--------


one thing wrong with the "30 floors fell one floor" scenario: it didn't happen. collapse initiated in a damaged but static structure which was holding well. there was no gravity acceleration through one floor of empty space by a mythical 30 floors suddenly separated and a floor suddenly dissolved into nothingness. that would have been quite a bit of force, actually, but only a fraction of the cross section of either tower was damaged, and the towers were designed redundantly, as every good building is designed, such that remaining structure will hold damage in place.

the damage was different in each tower and each should have been affected differently--but each fell in pretty much the same way in pretty much the same astounding time.

sorry, here comes the building 7 nag gnome: building 7 also fell the same way in a similarly astounding time, and there was no airplane damage for people to imagine a giant hammering block destroying all the virtually undamaged structure beneath. building 7 merely had a couple small fires of unknown origin and some damage from falling debris as sustained by every other building in similar positions around the block and across the street from the towers. look at some of the aerials of the aftermath: everything standing tall, except that big pulverized pile of building 7.

here's a little math for you guys who love scientific formulas: three big buildings flop in an amazing manner. only two are hit by airplanes. hmm--was there another airplane somewhere that might have been intended for that? maybe something didn't quite go as planned?



monolith, i've been over the bazant material, but it's been awhile. i will endeavor to dig it up. if he's dealing with temperatures, as jolly's link seems to indicate, he's way off base. never got that hot, and all assembled evidence corroborates it.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jul 16, 2010 - 08:47pm PT
From all of this conspiracy talk, what is the "unofficial" explanation on 9/11, who were the conspirators (speculate, will you), and who stood to profit form it?

JL
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 16, 2010 - 09:43pm PT
JL, I'd tell you but then they would have to kill me.
Jennie

Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
Jul 16, 2010 - 09:50pm PT
So it's been officially determined the physics of falling pennies have no relevance to high dollar building collapses? (I knew it all along)

Questions: given the unsupported perimeter columns came down in tall pieces,



Why were most of the steel plates which hold the floors up, especially those from near the bottom, stripped off? Wouldn't that suggest the tremendous weight and momentum stripped them off as the floors "pancaked" on their way down. (I understood that in most planned demolitions, it's the BOTTOM of the structure that is forced out of alignment and the upper portion fall and crumble onto the demolished remains of the lower building.)


If there was a conspiracy to destroy the towers by planned pyro demolition, why not do it in a conventional and much, much less complicated manner...from the bottom? Hadn't terrorists already attempted bringing down the towers with explosions in the basement?
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 16, 2010 - 09:58pm PT
There were explosions in the basement and lower floors. Read the eye witness testimonies of the professional 911 responders.


There is NO WAY on this earth that those buildings fell as they did and as fast as they did ecause of a plane strike and fire. NO WAY. The damage was done in a split moment the fires expended thee fuel source within minutes yet the buildings stood for an extended period of time before poof free fall speed.


Wake up dummies.
Jennie

Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
Jul 16, 2010 - 10:05pm PT
But the towers clearly demolished from the upper stories down.People were
entering and leaving at the bottom until the upper levels came down.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 16, 2010 - 10:08pm PT
I think you may want to look analytically at the high speed film of the three buildings falling before you make such a determinate assertion (assumption).


Credible witnesses and reliable richter readings clearly indicate additional large explosions unrelated to the plane crashes.


You have been and are being duped. And you should be outraged.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 16, 2010 - 10:08pm PT
rrrAdam - "Back at you...

He said the net force is up, meaning, he is saying that after he adds the two forces together (static load of the floor below [the up force], with the dynamic load of 30 stories falling 10+ feet [the down force]), that the up force is greater, thus it is the net force. This is simply absurd. "

Really?

The net force is upwards PERIOD. Otherwise the building would never stand.

What that means is that the strenght of floor 95 has to be equal of greater than the force of the 15 floors above it. Meaning the net force is upwards. Otherwise, if I built a building, and say floor 10, had 200tons of "Dead Load" (Meaning no human or dynamic forces applied, just the structure itself), that it had to hold. If I designed that floor to only hold 199tons it would fail. If I designed it to hold 200tons, and then had people in it, computers, wind, etc. It would fail. Do you understand that.

So he accurately, then explains it. That becuase of the net "upward force" of the structure, the one that hasn't allowed it to fall in 30+ years. The falling block meets resistance.

For the what, 10th time(?), NOT when a dynamic load such as 30 stories falling is involved.

As designed [static], the net foprce is up, that's why it stands... When a dynamic load above (down) exceeds the designed static load, the net force is down.

Same goes for the pro... If your piece will hold 2 times body weight, that is a static load, but iof you dynamicly load it with greater than 2 times body weight, it will fail, as the net load is down.



Why am I trying... TYou don't even know what the word "melt" means:
mimi "The steel did sag due to the heat. If this meets the definition of 'heat of fusion' then some of the beams 'melted.' Is that so wrong? "


Thank you!


Do you know what the "melting temperature" of steel is? Now what happens when it reaches this temperature? It undergoes a 'phase transistion', and turns from a solid into a ___. Can you fill in the blank?

The temps got nowhere near this. The joists did NOT 'melt', they were weakened by the heat. Why don't you do a little research and look and see at what temp carbon steel loses half of it's strength. You will notice that this is well below it's "melting" temperature.


Thus, the steel didn't melt, which is basically the same thing as 'heat of fusion'. You should know this, as an engineer. Unless of course, you are an engineer like Casey Jones.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 16, 2010 - 10:11pm PT
Sorry but kerosene does not burn hot enough to melt or even significantly soften steel.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 16, 2010 - 10:16pm PT
If the guy is wrong, I would like to know why, so I can stop making an ass of myself.
We are trying to tell you, but you will not listen.

THE NET FORCE IS NOT UPWARD IN A DYNAMIC SITUATION LIKE THAT!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111eleven

It is down, in order of magnatude.

He is wrong.
Jennie

Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
Jul 16, 2010 - 10:18pm PT
There is NO WAY on this earth that those buildings fell as they did and as fast as they did ecause of a plane strike and fire. NO WAY. The damage was done in a split moment the fires expended thee fuel source within minutes yet the buildings stood for an extended period of time before poof free fall speed.


Wake up dummies.


This dummy would appreciate knowing why the 83rd floor progressively sagged through the 51 minutes....... if the heat was quickly dissipated. Steel distorts and bends well below melting temperature.

rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 16, 2010 - 10:21pm PT
Sorry but kerosene does not burn hot enough to melt or even significantly soften steel.
Says who?

I can significantly soften a steel coat hanger in a campfire, and that doesn't have the significant air flow that all the broken windows of the WTC provided.

Now before some moron wants to say "it wasn't a windy day", it doesn't have to be... Broken windows above and below the fires allows for convection to draw air in from below the fires and be expelled above them.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 16, 2010 - 10:25pm PT
Are you really equating a coat hangar with structural steel?






And I suppose the jet fuel aka kerosene burning at the pentagon got hot enough to melt the several tons of titanium comprising the missing jet engines.



Wow physics, chemistry and mathematics just don't hold a candle to blind faith.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 16, 2010 - 10:27pm PT
There were explosions in the basement and lower floors. Read the eye witness testimonies of the professional 911 responders.


There is NO WAY on this earth that those buildings fell as they did and as fast as they did ecause of a plane strike and fire. NO WAY. The damage was done in a split moment the fires expended thee fuel source within minutes yet the buildings stood for an extended period of time before poof free fall speed.


Wake up dummies.
Are you Rosie O'Donnell? You sound like here.

It's OK, you can tell us. You are, aren't you.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 16, 2010 - 10:28pm PT
Wake up Dummy.




Ooooh I can soften a coat hangar in my camp fire. Hahahahahahaha!
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 16, 2010 - 10:31pm PT
Are you really equating a coat hangar with structural steel?
They were your words, dummy. You said steel.

So, what is the difference between structural steel and a steel coat hanger (other than mass), as far as it's melting point, or even the point at which it becomes ductile or maliable? There are minuite differences in what it may be alloyed with, but this has little effect, as structural steel is mainly just plain old carbon steel.

What you said is just plain wrong. Admit it.


I don't think you can, Rosie.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 16, 2010 - 10:34pm PT
Ah, but the contents of the building burning will weaken steel.

The av gas was consumed quickly.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 16, 2010 - 10:36pm PT
OMG dude. You know so little about art and science of metallurgy and yet you want to sound so informative.





And Mono nothing in that building could have gotten hot enough even if the insignificant fires burned for a week.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 16, 2010 - 10:38pm PT
everyone who's onto this is trying to figure that out, john. we don't exactly have subpoena power and search warrants for the pentagon and the white house, but most of us think there is enough serious evidence to justify it.

as we've mentioned previously, such a hoaxed attack is not without precedent. the maine, the lusitania, and pearl harbor are all under suspicion as spectacular events that brought the nation into war. many believe that fdr provoked the japanese and then allowed pearl harbor to be attacked for this purpose. evidence is controversial on all of these, but operation northwoods is not since it was recently made public record. this plan made it all the way to president kennedy, endorsed by admiral lemnitzer, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and robert mcnamara, secretary of defense. it called for hijackings and bombings--sound familiar?--to be performed on american citizens and military and blamed on cuba to gain public sentiment for invading cuba. people don't want war. they have to be goaded into it.

if you read the PNAC document--project for a new american century--it will tell you about some of the people and the thinking suspected to have been involved in the 9/11 operation. these neocons went so far as to call for "a new pearl harbor" to galvanize public approval for the big opportunity we had to go out and dominate a world in which the failure of communism eliminated our main antagonist. which is exactly what happened in the wake of 9/11, pushed to the hilt with lies about things like WMDs. profit? check halliburton's balance sheet.

beyond all that, it tends to get weird. there's the shadowy "bilderburg group" of powerful political leaders and business figures that meets annually in a top secret retreat. some blame israel, some see involvement of the vatican and/or the jesuits and certain euro royalty like queen elizabeth of england, queen beatrix of holland and king juan carlos of spain. there are reports of an illuminati network, the involvement of certain high levels of the masonic order, and from there it goes to lizard men and space aliens--i'm not joking.

you want the dirty laundry, that about covers it. i just want subpoena power in the hands of someone who doesn't have a ring through his nose, and that's a very tall order.
Jennie

Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
Jul 16, 2010 - 10:40pm PT
From: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

It is known that STRUCURAL STEEL begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 16, 2010 - 10:41pm PT
You are hilarious Philo.

Modern office building fires can read 1800f. Steel loses 90% of its strength at those temps.

Why the heck do you think steel needs to be insulated in a highrise?

Edit: yea what Jennie posted. But of course all those engineers are in on it cuz they don't want to lose their jobs.

rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 16, 2010 - 11:01pm PT
OK, Jolly, let's look at the math in your video again... At least what I can, as for some reason the whole thing will not play.

1) He even states himself, in writing, just below the video:
The mathematical formulas used here are not the proper way for obtaining a real figure...
So, your 'real true math' is made not even using the proper formulas, thus yield inaccurate figures.



2) Where does he get his values? Particularly, the designed load limits of the floor below? And, even better, the estimate of 68,000 tons for the top 30 floors? Since the estimated weight of just one tower was 500,000 tons, and the top 30 floors represents ~25% of the above street level mass. This means that the estimated weight would be 125,000 tons (give or take), and this is TWICE his estimate. 68,000 tons is only ~13.6% of it's mass.
(feel free to double check my math, since I'm not as smart as you [wink])

You know the phrase, GIGO, right? Garbage In, Garbage Out.



3) Did you notice that he had to look at his notes just to write the formula f=ma correctly?

Inspires confidence, doesn't it?


4) From what I can see, until the video froze, he is doing the math absolutely wrong...

He seems to be subtracting the masses (top from bottom), THEN calculating the force (f=ma) of what's left over. That is wrong, as the correct way to determine the 'force' of the inertial mass of the top 30 floors exerting a dynamic load on the floors below would be f=m[the mass of the top 30 floors]a. The result is a DYNAMIC FORCE that is larger in order of magnitude. Meaning, if you do the math "correctly", the net force is significantly (in order of magnatude) DOWN, not up as he absurdly concludes, as do you.

Again... GIGO. (E.g., 42 seconds)



I look forward to your super duper math reply, defending his admitted use of the wrong formulas, and using apparently absurd estimations for his values, to obtain an admittedly incorrect figure... That you take as GOSPEL.





Lastly... I stand corrected in my a*#ertion that the joists served to pull all the walls inward, as Jennie's picture shows, many of the exterios wall plates fell inhuge pieces, so many of the joists did in fact shear as it pancaked down.

So, as you can see, I can see when I am wrong, and note that she, nore anyone else, pointed this out to me. I saw that I was wrong from the evidence alone, and readily state this, and adjust my understanding of what happened accordingly.




PS... For a degreed engineer, such as yourself, this physics hobbyist is embarassing you, as far as applied physics goes.
WBraun

climber
Jul 16, 2010 - 11:04pm PT
But of course all those engineers are in on it cuz they don't want to lose their jobs.

Why do you keep saying this stupid sh#t?

And of course all those engineers were inside all those buildings during those fires with their thermometers measuring the steel in all the places they say.

Logging the data into their instruments.

Sh'it anyone can theorize weeks later with no real hard data .....
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 16, 2010 - 11:16pm PT
Tony....
building 7 also fell the same way in a similarly astounding time,

Ummm... No it didn't fall the same way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA

As you can see it failed at the botton, where the fires were. The Twin Towers failed up near the top, where the fires were and pancaked there way down.


At least you are consistant in making absurdly incorrect statements. Problem is, you continue to believe them, even after being shown you are wrong.


Or, are you saying that all of those videos are faked, and it really did fall the same way as the Twin Towers?




PS... Why is it that you have repeatedly ignored my simple question regarding when this thing was "all planned out" in relation to when Bush took office, Tony?

Is it that you don't want to have to admit "An Inconvenient Truth", that may shine the light of reason on your absurd delusion?
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 16, 2010 - 11:42pm PT
I may have been editing in some more numbers for you in #2, so please reread.

BUT, you still haven't answered as to where he is getting his numbers, AND the way he did the math yields an absurdly small number for the dynamic load. Again... GIGO!


Please... Don't just say I don't know what I'm taking about... You asked what was wrong with his math, I told you, now please address it, directly, not with an ad hominem

Show me where I'm wrong... Directly refute what I am saying... Math doesn't lie, remember?
I numbered them for you, so please, number your answers to my points/concerns.


But I understand WHY you don't address them point by point... You cannot, as that would only weaken your position. Especially given that "the speed of the fall" is your biggest issue... You MUST be right about that.

Edit: And you'd have to admit that you got schooled in math and physics by a high-school drop out. Yea, that's right. I'm mostly self taught. That only makes it hurt worse, doesn't it, Mr Degreed Engineer.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 16, 2010 - 11:51pm PT
I did not find it odd at all that he looked at his notes,
To write down f=ma? I said, "did you notice that he had to look at his notes to write the formula 'f=ma'". I said that specifically, as I would expect him to look at his notes for specific large numbers, but not for that.

OMFG! Yea... f=ma, That's an easy one to mess up.


rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 17, 2010 - 12:04am PT
Do not claim to beat me until you can Mathmatically show me where he is wrong.
I have, in #'s 2 and 4 above, except you have only ignored it, like countless other things for days now in this thread.

So, you are hard to "show" things to, since you will not "look". (wink)


philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 17, 2010 - 12:51am PT
http://www.wtc7.net/buildingfires.html
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 17, 2010 - 12:59am PT
That page states...
fires have never caused a steel-framed building to totally collapse

This is false:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MRSr1MnFuk
Ther are several examples in that vid of steel-framed buildings that have collapsed from fire alone.

In fact, the Deep Water Horizon, perhaps you've heard of it, was significantly stronger steel frame structure that collapsed from fire alone.

Now what? Care to admit that you are wrong? I'll bet you won't.



PS... This had been debunked as soon as the phrase was first made, but all the "truthers" just don't look into all the claims made by "truthers". Hence they continually embarrass themselves by constantly throwing out the same old debunked trash as fact.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 17, 2010 - 01:01am PT
"It is known that STRUCURAL STEEL begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C"



Actually those are the temps for aircraft aluminum.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 17, 2010 - 01:06am PT
Where the hell are you getting that? Aluminum melts at 660 C.

Source please. Or, how about just admitting that you are wrong... AGAIN!
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jul 17, 2010 - 01:10am PT
everyone who's onto this is trying to figure that out, john. we don't exactly have subpoena power and search warrants for the pentagon and the white house, but most of us think there is enough serious evidence to justify it.
-


So you're opinion is that shadowy elements within both the Pentagon and the White House conspired secretly with radical Arabs to bring down those buildings? Is that your official stance?

JL
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 17, 2010 - 01:28am PT
Jolly...
rrrAdam,

I see you have been busy. Don't you have a job inspecting something.

To be honest... I've been stuck in a hotel, for 2 days now, in Florence, SC, waiting to help do the final walkdowns of the primary and secondary systems of one of our nukes before it goes critical and syncs to the grid. Problem is, we can't do it until the systems reach normal operating temperate and pressure, and the schedule keeps slipping to the right. They haven't even started to "press up" the systems yet. :(

So I am bored to tears, hence my willingness to go in circles in this thread, and partake in all the banality.



Forgive me if I don't reply to any of your well thought out replies in the next few days... I did the walk-down tonight, finally, and the unit is coming back online... So I won't be cooped up in a hotel room in SC anymore, bored to tears. I'm going home tomorrow, and will likely be on my boat with friends:


It has been intelectually stimulating though, albeit a bit frustrating at times.


As far as 9/11 goes, you must admit that you can be called a passionate zealout. No offense meant, the words are accurate. I have been trying to get you to step outside that box that zealouts tend think in, as only the material that fits in that box is what you look at. (E.g., all the 'truther' sites, as do you get ANYTHING from outside the net and those sites? Kinda like a Fundie continually citing answersingenesis.org as an authoritative source) I don't really have anything invested in this to anywhere near the degree that you do, so isn't it possible, even likely, that I can be a bit more objective when looking at ALL of this? (Note - What I look at is mainly limited to what can be verified, and the evidence and reasoning is given as to WHY I call BS on the limited things I do)

Some food for thought...

You must realize, the very slim possibility that you can actually be wrong. If that's the case, what do you think all of the terrorists that hate the USA think of you "truthers"? They likely are happy as hell, and even view you as allies, in some way, huh? They got two birds with one stone... Their initial attack, and your continuing attack.

Now before you get your panties in a bunch... I'm NOT saying you are unpatriotic, or anything like that. i am merely trying to get you to step outside of your box and into the shoes of, say Osama bin Laden... IF he had a hand in this, do you think he is pleased to see US citizens blaming ALL of this on the government? (E.g., prerigged explosives, remote controlled planes, murder of thousands of citizens, etc) Seriously, do you think he is pleased with "9/11 truthers"?

Again... Just some food for thought.



Have a good weekend.
Jennie

Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
Jul 17, 2010 - 02:33am PT
"It is known that STRUCURAL STEEL begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C"



Actually those are the temps for aircraft aluminum.


Philo, that information on structural steel comes from A.E. Cote, ed., Fire Protection Handbook 17th Edition (Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, 1992), pp. 6-62 to 6-70.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Jul 17, 2010 - 03:16am PT
"In fact, the Deep Water Horizon, perhaps you've heard of it, was significantly stronger steel frame structure that collapsed from fire alone."

And all this time I thought it was the methane exploding that sunk the DWH. That must have been one hell of a fire, under water and all.

But, that's just a digression...

!~!~!~!

I watched the video that "debunks" the claim that steel high-rises don't totally fail due to fire. In the video, I see just one high-rise, the one in Madrid. Take a close look--does it totally collapse? At what rate does the building fail?

Just sayin'...it ain't the same as coming down at near free-fall speed.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Jul 17, 2010 - 04:46am PT
Wild amateur footage of the tower burning & falling (not conspiracy related):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5474006551011489413&hl=en&emb=1#
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 17, 2010 - 10:00am PT
"In fact, the Deep Water Horizon, perhaps you've heard of it, was significantly stronger steel frame structure that collapsed from fire alone."

And all this time I thought it was the methane exploding that sunk the DWH. That must have been one hell of a fire, under water and all.

Packing up, so I haven't left the hotel yet.

Pay attention here, OK...

Saing that would be like saying, "and all this time I thought it was the explosions of the jets that brought down the Twin Towers."

The methane on the DWH served to initiate the disaster, it caused the explosion, but the structure was still standing (floating actually) long after that. It was the fires, consuming the oil, that weakened the steel struture of the "Floating Platform" to the point of failure, and it sunk.


So, um, does that clear it up for you? Probably not, since you seem to have missed or ignored all the video of the fires burning, unabated, for hours, on the surface of the ocean and on the structure, NOT "underwater and all" as you put it.


In trying to understand why you would even write the above, I can only guess that you didn't know that the DWH was a 'floating platform', and actually thought that it stood on the ocean floor, like a huge bar-stool, with MILE LONG LEGS. Am I right?

If I am right, let me guess the next 5 minutes of your life...

Yu will google it, HOPING that the DWH was not a floating platform, but instead stood on legs as you thought, so you could "put it in my face". But, you'll find that it was indead floating... Insuide you notice something uncomfortable -- It's embarassment, realizing that youn look like ab idiot now for all to see on the net. You quietly slip away from thsi thread for a while, hoping people will forget.

Why not instead reply, "Hey thanx, Adam... I didn't know some of that. You don't have to be such an arse about it though."

That's the stand-up thing to do you know.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 17, 2010 - 10:28am PT
So if I put a piece of structural steel, say a piece of an I beam in my oven on high it will soften? How long will that take? And if I put it into a pizza oven it will soften to the point of being able to be bent into a donut? How long would that take?
Are those blast furnaces a waste of energy? couldn't we accomplish the same thing with some blow torches?

So those fires raged hot enough to vaporize tons of titanium while leaving desks, computers, papers and oddly enough Mohammed Atta's passport un-scathed?

To accept the official version of events requires suspension of reason and the abandonment of the physical laws governing the cosmos.

Wake up dummies!


Yes JL, I think it was an inside job. A false flag black op intended to justify the neo-con dream of a new American century. The only role radical islamists played was as scape goats and boogey men.


And the only role Spurious George played was dupe, puppet and potential scape goat.
He never had the intellectual chops to be more involved. He played his role. Mission Accomplished.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 17, 2010 - 10:33am PT
So if I put a piece of structural steel, say a piece of an I beam in my oven on high it will soften? How long will that take? And if I put it into a pizza oven it will soften to the point of being able to be bent into a donut?
No... Have you been paying any attention? Temperatures have been cited here. Is it the "C" that confuses you? That means Celcius, different from F.

Or, are you just an idiot? The last few pages of replies from you would lead me to believe so, as you really say some STUPID stuff, and when corrected, you conveniently ignore it, and likely continue to beleieve that STUPID stuff.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 17, 2010 - 10:44am PT
It is quickly becoming apparent why this 9/11 conspiracy thing persists as it does...

Just look at the absurd things that come out of the mouths of its believers, much of which is repeatedly shown to be false, yet it persists. If one confidently believes absurd things, absurd conclusions follow.

GIGO!
WBraun

climber
Jul 17, 2010 - 10:46am PT
Big problem with rrrAdam is he's just basing all his information on models.

The real world facts by one of the main FEMA investigators he's never even heard about and what this guy found, discovered, said, documented and what eventually happened to him.

All these guys who believe the official version do is simulate and model everything out out.

There's a ton of real world stuff you never factored in.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 17, 2010 - 10:47am PT
Metal Melting Point
(oC) (oF)
Admiralty Brass 900 - 940 1650 - 1720
Aluminum 660 1220
Aluminum Bronze 600 - 655 1190 - 1215
Antimony 630 1170
Beryllium 1285 2345
Beryllium Copper 865 - 955 1587 - 1750
Bismuth 271.4 520.5
Brass 930 1710
Cadmium 321 610
Cast Iron, gray 1175 - 1290 2150 - 2360
Chromium 1860 3380
Cobalt 1495 2723
Copper 1084 1983
Cupronickel 1170 - 1240 2140 - 2260
Gold 1063 1945
Hastelloy C 1320 - 1350 2410 - 2460
Inconel 1390 - 1425 2540 - 2600
Incoloy 1390 - 1425 2540 - 2600
Iridium 2450 4440
Iron 1536 2797
Lead 327.5 621
Magnesium 650 1200
Manganese 1244 2271
Manganese bronze 865 - 890 1590 - 1630
Mercury -38.86 -37.95
Molybdenum 2620 4750
Monel 1300 - 1350 2370 - 2460
Nickel 1453 2647
Niobium (Columbium) 2470 4473
Osmium 3025 5477
Platinum 1770 3220
Plutonium 640 1180
Potassium 63.3 146
Red Brass 990 - 1025 1810 - 1880
Rhodium 1965 3569
Selenium 217 423
Silicon 1411 2572
Silver 961 1760
Sodium 97.83 208
Carbon Steel 1425 - 1540 2600 - 2800
Stainless Steel 1510 2750
Tantalum 2980 5400
Thorium 1750 3180
Tin 232 449.4
Titanium 1670 3040
Tungsten 3400 6150
Uranium 1132 2070
Vanadium 1900 3450
Yellow Brass 905 - 932 1660 - 1710
Zinc 419.5 787

Are these numbers wrong?



Aviation fuel.
Flash point: > 38 °C (100.4 °F)
Autoignition temperature: 210 °C (410 °F)
Freezing point: < −47 °C (−52.6 °F) < −40 °C (−40 °F)
Open air burning temperatures: 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)
Density at 15 °C (59 °F): 0.775 kg/L - 0.840 kg/L
Specific energy >42.80 MJ/kg


Are these numbers wrong?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel


Here is some math for you Mensa man.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htmTHE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report into collapse of the WTC towers, estimates that about 3,500 gallons of jet fuel burnt within each of the towers. Imagine that this entire quantity of jet fuel was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat. With these ideal assumptions we calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached.

"The Boeing 767 is capable of carrying up to 23,980 gallons of fuel and it is estimated that, at the time of impact, each aircraft had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board (compiled from Government sources)."

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

Since the aircraft were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, they would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the aircraft have a maximum range of 7,600 miles). They would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.

"If one assumes that approximately 3,000 gallons of fuel were consumed in the initial fireballs, then the remainder either escaped the impact floors in the manners described above or was consumed by the fire on the impact floors. If half flowed away, then 3,500 gallons remained on the impact floors to be consumed in the fires that followed."

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

What we propose to do, is pretend that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect quantity of oxygen, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions (none of which were meet in reality) we will calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached. Of course, on that day, the real temperature rise of any floor due to the burning jet fuel, would have been considerably lower than the rise that we calculate, but this estimate will enable us to demonstrate that the "official" explanation is a lie.

Note that a gallon of jet fuel weighs about 3.1 kilograms, hence 3,500 gallons weighs 3,500 x 3.1 = 10,850 kgs.

Jet fuel is a colorless, combustible, straight run petroleum distillate liquid. Its principal uses are as an ingredient in lamp oils, charcoal starter fluids, jet engine fuels and insecticides.

It is also know as, fuel oil #1, kerosene, range oil, coal oil and aviation fuel.

It is comprised of hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9 - C17. The hydrocarbons are mainly alkanes CnH2n+2, with n ranging from 9 to 17.

It has a flash point within the range 42° C - 72° C (110° F - 162° F).

And an ignition temperature of 210° C (410° F).

Depending on the supply of oxygen, jet fuel burns by one of three chemical reactions:

(1) CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O

(2) CnH2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O2 => n CO + (n + 1) H2O

(3) CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O

Reaction (1) occurs when jet fuel is well mixed with air before being burnt, as for example, in jet engines.

Reactions (2) and (3) occur when a pool of jet fuel burns. When reaction (3) occurs the carbon formed shows up as soot in the flame. This makes the smoke very dark.

In the aircraft crashes at the World Trade Center, the impact (with the aircraft going from 500 or 600 mph to zero) would have throughly mixed the fuel that entered the building with the limited amount of air available within. In fact, it is likely that all the fuel was turned into a flammable mist. However, for sake of argument we will assume that 3,500 gallons of the jet fuel did in fact form a pool fire. This means that it burnt according to reactions (2) and (3). Also note that the flammable mist would have burnt according to reactions (2) and (3), as the quantity of oxygen within the building was quite limited.

Since we do not know the exact quantities of oxygen available to the fire, we will assume that the combustion was perfectly efficient, that is, that the entire quantity of jet fuel burnt via reaction (1), even though we know that this was not so. This generous assumption will give a temperature that we know will be higher than the actual temperature of the fire attributable to the jet fuel.

We need to know that the (net) calorific value of jet fuel when burnt via reaction (1) is 42-44 MJ/kg. The calorific value of a fuel is the amount of energy released when the fuel is burnt. We will use the higher value of 44 MJ/kg as this will lead to a higher maximum temperature than the lower value of 42 (and we wish to continue being outrageously generous in our assumptions).

For a cleaner presentation and simpler calculations we will also assume that our hydrocarbons are of the form CnH2n. The dropping of the 2 hydrogen atoms does not make much difference to the final result and the interested reader can easily recalculate the figures for a slightly more accurate result. So we are now assuming the equation:

(4) CnH2n + 3n/2 O2 => n CO2 + n H2O

However, this model, does not take into account that the reaction is proceeding in air, which is only partly oxygen.

Dry air is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen (by volume). Normal air has a moisture content from 0 to 4%. We will include the water vapor and the other minor atmospheric gases with the nitrogen.

So the ratio of the main atmospheric gases, oxygen and nitrogen, is 1 : 3.76. In molar terms:

Air = O2 + 3.76 N2.

Because oxygen comes mixed with nitrogen, we have to include it in the equations. Even though it does not react, it is "along for the ride" and will absorb heat, affecting the overall heat balance. Thus we need to use the equation:

(5) CnH2n + 3n/2(O2 + 3.76 N2) => n CO2 + n H2O + 5.64n N2

From this equation we see that the molar ratio of CnH2n to that of the products is:

CnH2n : CO2 : H2O : N2 = 1 : n : n : 5.64n moles
= 14n : 44n : 18n : 28 x 5.64n kgs
= 1 : 3.14286 : 1.28571 : 11.28 kgs
= 31,000 : 97,429 : 39,857 : 349,680 kgs

In the conversion of moles to kilograms we have assumed the atomic weights of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen are 1, 12, 14 and 16 respectively.

Now each of the towers contained 96,000 (short) tons of steel. That is an average of 96,000/117 = 820 tons per floor. Lets suppose that the bottom floors contained roughly twice the amount of steel of the upper floors (since the lower floors had to carry more weight). So we estimate that the lower floors contained about 1,100 tons of steel and the upper floors about 550 tons = 550 x 907.2 ≈ 500,000 kgs. We will assume that the floors hit by the aircraft contained the lower estimate of 500,000 kgs of steel. This generously underestimates the quantity of steel in these floors, and once again leads to a higher estimate of the maximum temperature.

Each story had a floor slab and a ceiling slab. These slabs were 207 feet wide, 207 feet deep and 4 (in parts 5) inches thick and were constructed from lightweight concrete. So each slab contained 207 x 207 x 1/3 = 14,283 cubic feet of concrete. Now a cubic foot of lightweight concrete weighs about 50kg, hence each slab weighed 714,150 ≈ 700,000 kgs. Together, the floor and ceiling slabs weighed some 1,400,000 kgs.

So, now we take all the ingredients and estimate a maximum temperature to which they could have been heated by 3,500 gallons of jet fuel. We will call this maximum temperature T. Since the calorific value of jet fuel is 44 MJ/kg. We know that 3,500 gallons = 31,000 kgs of jet fuel

will release 10,850 x 44,000,000 = 477,400,000,000 Joules of energy.

This is the total quantity of energy available to heat the ingredients to the temperature T. But what is the temperature T? To find out, we first have to calculate the amount of energy absorbed by each of the ingredients.

That is, we need to calculate the energy needed to raise:

39,857 kilograms of water vapor to the temperature T° C,
97,429 kilograms of carbon dioxide to the temperature T° C,
349,680 kilograms of nitrogen to the temperature T° C,
500,000 kilograms of steel to the temperature T° C,
1,400,000 kilograms of concrete to the temperature T° C.

To calculate the energy needed to heat the above quantities, we need their specific heats. The specific heat of a substance is the amount of energy needed to raise one kilogram of the substance by one degree centigrade.

Substance Specific Heat [J/kg*C]
Nitrogen 1,038
Water Vapor 1,690
Carbon Dioxide 845
Lightweight Concrete 800
Steel 450

Substituting these values into the above, we obtain:

39,857 x 1,690 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the water vapor from 25° to T° C,
97,429 x 845 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the carbon dioxide from 25° to T° C,
349,680 x 1,038 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the nitrogen from 25° to T° C,
500,000 x 450 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the steel from 25° to T° C,
1,400,000 x 800 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the concrete from 25° to T° C.

The assumption that the specific heats are constant over the temperature range 25° - T° C, is a good approximation if T turns out to be relatively small (as it does). For larger values of T this assumption once again leads to a higher maximum temperature (as the specific heat for these substances increases with temperature). We have assumed the initial temperature of the surroundings to be 25° C. The quantity, (T - 25)° C, is the temperature rise.

So the amount of energy needed to raise one floor to the temperature T° C is

= (39,857 x 1,690 + 97,429 x 845 + 349,680 x 1,038 + 500,000 x 450 + 1,400,000 x 800) x (T - 25)
= (67,358,330 + 82,327,505 + 362,967,840 + 225,000,000 + 1,120,000,000) x (T - 25) Joules
= 1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) Joules.

Since the amount of energy available to heat this floor is 477,400,000,000 Joules, we have that

1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) = 477,400,000,000
1,857,653,675 x T - 46,441,341,875 = 477,400,000,000

Therefore T = (477,400,000,000 + 46,441,341,875)/1,857,653,675 = 282° C (540° F).

So, the jet fuel could (at the very most) have only added T - 25 = 282 - 25 = 257° C (495° F) to the temperature of the typical office fire that developed.

Remember, this figure is a huge over-estimate, as (among other things) it assumes that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb the heat, whereas in reality, the jet fuel fire was all over in one or two minutes, and the energy not absorbed by the concrete and steel within this brief period (that is, almost all of it) would have been vented to the outside world.

"The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes"

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

Here are statements from three eye-witnesses that provide evidence that the heating due to the jet fuel was indeed minimal.

Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one of the impact floors of the South Tower) when the aircraft hit. He has been quoted as saying: "We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped."

Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower: "The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway."

Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: "Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned."

Neither Stanley Praimnath nor Donovan Cowan nor Ling Young were cooked by the jet fuel fire. All three survived.

Summarizing:

We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).

Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.

Conclusion:

The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center.

So, once again, you have been lied to by the media, are you surprised?

Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 17, 2010 - 11:00am PT
the south tower collapse refutes your domino effect, jennie. the upper part remained intact and began to lean. it should have toppled outward but instead continued straight down--because the entire structure below it dissolved.

your shot of the rubble is interesting. the towers did not have "perimeter columns". they had a shell that functioned pretty much like a giant window screen, assembled from interlocking units staggered for strength in three directions, vertically, horizontally and diagonally. when assembled, their details lined up and looked like columns. in the rubble you'll see how some of it stayed locked together. you'll also note a complete absence of pancaked flooring--no stack of pancakes. look at photos of the mexico city earthquake to see what a stack of pancakes looks like. this is the great giveaway to controlled demolition and another refutation of your domino effect:

a contractor named tom petrizzo was involved in supplying flooring materials to the wtc during construction in the 1970s. in 2001 he was one of the participants in the cleanup and removal of debris, and he saw nothing of the expected familiar materials which he had supplied 30 years previous: "i didn't see one floor panel come in here with a bar joist in it. they must have disintegrated ... there were 6,000 of them ... there's stuff crumpled up, but go identify it as a floor deck if you can. i couldn't believe it--not one floor panel."

and i have to include these two quotes from fire department "rescue" workers (the higher ups knew damn well there wouldn't be much rescuing going on):

//"the silence of the scene--it was extremely silent ... what i expected to see was nothing like what i actually did see ... there wasn't much that you could say, you could describe. everything was dust and metal. there was no typewriters, there was no chairs, there was no nothing." (kenneth christiansen)

"you have two hundred-story office buildings. you don't find a desk, you don't find a chair. you don't find a telephone, a computer. the biggest piece of a telephone i found was half of a keypad, and it was about this big [indicating with thumb and index finger]. the building collapsed to dust." (joe casaliggi)//

maybe a passport, but no desks.

jennie, the tower demolitions had to have been rather complex, engineered to attack the three-part structure of core, flooring, and shell. as philo mentions, there was extensive witness to basement explosions, which would have shorn the deep anchors used by any skyscraper, and other explosions and flashes occurred on the lower stories, things that surviving firemen couldn't believe they were seeing. no collapse could have taken place at the speed recorded without extensive engineering.

-


let's make it just a little thicker than a coathanger, which might involve a questionable alloy. some steels flex, some spring, some stand strong. a blacksmith will get his horseshoe--pure iron, i believe--red- to orange-hot, which will be 700-900C (1300-1660F). you don't attain this heat casually. you need a bed of coals to retain the heat and a bellows to force oxygen into it. heat retention is important--how quickly it cools when you stop pumping the bellows. i don't dispute jennie's temperatures. it does lose strength, but it's pretty strong stuff to begin with. the blacksmith has to hit it hard with a hammer against an anvil in order to shape it.

yes, rrradam, no wind, but more importantly, no evidence of intense burning. rather, there was considerable evidence to the contrary, including a woman standing rather calmly in the opening made by the airplane, hoping for a rescue.

the building 7 nag gnome again: no jet fuel, no jet fuel, no jet fuel.

structural steel, iron alloyed for strength with chromium, turns to liquid at 1510C (2750F), slightly less than the point for pure iron. and you better believe there was extensive molten steel found in the rubble, even weeks after the event because it can retain heat that long. the new york times called it "the greatest mystery". there's one easy way for that to have happened. thermite (Fe2O2 + 2Al), an agent used in certain controlled demolitions for cutting steel, burns at 2480C (4500F). and state-of-the-art nanothermite, milled very fine, is even more effective.

bump to philo on kerosene. burns at 980C (1800F) under ideal conditions. the smoke from the towers was turning black. fires were going out. a radio communication from a fire chief inside one of the towers told of it being under control. time to push a button?
___

"official", largo? reminds me of that captain granitic panel: "the press wants to know what brand of condoms you use."

there are thousands of people involved in this worldwide, and believe me, we have a hard time agreeing on details. but we all know something is rotten bigtime.

with some due respect, i think your use of the term "shadowy elements" belies political naïveté. you have to learn how congress works, how the military works, how the two-party system works, how big media works, how agencies like the cia and fbi work. we have lots of talk about the power of the pyramid, the all-seeing eye, the chain of command, the power of the paycheck. keeps a hell of a lot of people in line and a hell of a lot of others from asking questions. i'm a nice nobody, but i volunteered for ae911truth.org for awhile and couldn't help admire people putting their names and professional reputations right on the line here. there's something about a hard-headed engineer once they get an idea straight.

if you ever get involved in this, you'll hear interesting rumors. i'm kinda partial to laphroaig, but a bottle of knockando is what got me started on scotch. a good climbing partner gave me one at the end of an ambitious season, with the reading "no can do".

i do most of my research from books. i won't give you a reading list. buying the right books is the scholar's art, and i think you probably understand that. "they" don't care what goes into a book because books don't get widely read and are probably the easiest thing to pooh-pooh. nightly network news is what has to be protected, and secondarily the front pages of large metropolitan newspapers. i'll never forget the lead line the last time i thought i'd give television network news a chance: "this just in from roswell, new mexico ..."

the internet is a fluid mess, always changing, things coming and going, important things being taken off. once in awhile i get to question someone in person. ronald o. hamburger was interesting.

you have to forget about arab terrorists. there were no arab terrorists. the alleged hijackers whose faces appeared miraculously in the newspapers the next day were all "assets". don't ask me whose. one of them had even stayed at a u.s. naval base in florida. osama bin laden was an asset. he has likely been dead for some time due to diabetes. shortly before 9/11 when he was supposedly already the most wanted man in the world, he was interviewed by a lower-level cia official at an american hospital in one of the emirates, in for dialysis. this was widely reported for a couple years but may be hard to find now. daniel hopsicker has researched the florida activities of the alleged hijackers thoroughly and credibly. they liked to snort cocaine and hang out with lapdancers, acting like guys with a little too much spending money rather than militant and secretive islamic fanatics.

--


monolith is voicing hamburger's argument about office contents fires. things like carpets, computers, furniture "can burn quite hot," he told a los angeles audience about three years ago. he conceded that the jet fuel is not a realistic scenario for the destruction that ensued. it was the charcoal lighter that got the barbecue going, to use his metaphor. pay attention, guys. forget the jet fuel. this is a real expert on your side of things.

i tried to get hamburger to lighten up a little before his talk with a joke about our respective last names, but he acted like the worried man about to sing a worried song. he seemed somehow a fine fellow behind a dour exterior. he admitted that, yes, his first impression on 9/11 was controlled demolition. he spent a lot of time on the apparent horizontal buckling shown in one of jennie's photos here, and he tried to construct a scenario whereby weight would be transferred over the hat trusses, which go over the top of tall skyscrapers to transfer pressure on the windward side to leeward anchors. those trusses, of course, would only strengthen the hold on that 30-story "hat", connecting the whole thing directly to ground anchors on the undamaged sides. but hamburger seemed to think it would "trigger" something catastrophic. you might try to contact him about it. i certainly couldn't follow it.

when he called on me for my question he groaned that he was probably going to regret it. i asked him about the chemistry of office contents producing such intense heat and he demurred--"not my area".

we should note that building codes often call for fire-resistant materials to be used on interiors. on the other hand, you do have to admit that there have been some hot skyscraper fires. we had one high in the tallest building in downtown los angeles in the 1980s, a real towering inferno. but the steel stood strong. yes, the towers were elegant, light-looking and structurally complex. but don't forget the nag gnome. he will sneak up on your wild imaginings.

--


rrrad, grid structures don't "fail". a little lesson on what a grid structure is. if you can find the old style monkeybars in a city park somewhere, that's a grid structure. steel pipes attached to each other in a three-dimensional grid, attachments at regular intervals in all directions, a mass of connected, open cubes. nearly every functional office building less than 70 stories high is designed this way. mies van der rohe even thought it was beautiful. go up to the monkeybars and play king kong. grab them, shake them, climb on them. they stand solid as rock. walk around manhattan sometime. lots of grid structures holding pretty good. they aren't houses of cards. building 7 coming down like a folding accordion required the breaking of every one of those connections in extremely close sequence.

btw, bon voyage. try to log on during a spinnaker run in light air--not much going on then unless the crew distracts you.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 17, 2010 - 11:13am PT
"you have two hundred-story office buildings. you don't find a desk, you don't find a chair. you don't find a telephone, a computer. the biggest piece of a telephone i found was half of a keypad, and it was about this big [indicating with thumb and index finger]. the building collapsed to dust." (joe casaliggi)//

maybe a passport, but no desks.
Once again... This is a false statement (just one of many that you continue to make), as the PASS devices (electronic devices) worn by many of the firefighters survived the collapse to alarm for quite some time from within the rubble. That's just one example, that has been posted in this thread, yet you conveniently ignore it, and continue to believe that it "was turned to dust".

Go back up where I mention the absurd things proponants of this believe, and when shown to be wrong, conveniently ignore it, and continue to believe absurd things.



Thanx... I have a genoa and a regular jib, but no spinaker. I also don't take my laptop on the boat.

Logging off... As I am leaving the room now.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 17, 2010 - 11:29am PT
You know you don't have to be an artist to understand art. Nor do you have to be a structural engineer or physicist to understand something is rotten in Denmark.



Like Sarah Palin being an expert on foreign relations because she can see Russia from her house I am an expert on the 911 myth because I can see NIST from my house. lol.

It should be noted what occurred at the Federal Labs here in Boulder right after 911. Those experts who dared to question and worse yet contradict the "Official" story were shown the door or threatened with immediate termination unless they "got on board". Hmmm tough choice truth or paycheck.
Why would that be?


Now that Spurious George and his goon squad are thankfully out of office many of those same experts are now coming forward with their doubts and adding their names to the growing list of scientist who refute the "official" story.
Why would that be.




Doesn't it bother any of you staunch defenders of the "official" story that the evidence was so rapidly removed and sent over seas for recycling before forensic examination could take place?
It was the equivalent to removing a corpse from a murder investigation and cremating it before an autopsy. Don't you even wonder about that?
Or was anything Georgie did okie dokie 'cause it made you feel all macho like the bully on the play ground?
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 17, 2010 - 11:48am PT
When I smell a skunk I don't need a chemical analysis to tell me it stinks. Nor do I appreciate others trying to convince me it was just an unwashed jack rabbit.












But that's OK 'cause you guys have Popular Mechanics on your side.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 17, 2010 - 12:30pm PT
Jolly Roger, keep on keepin' it real.

But if you are expecting a response from Mensa Man realize you already have. He does not understand the physics you present. He (and a few others here) are so desperate to believe their government incapable of wrong doing that they refuse to question. Yet they easilly accuse the "911 truthers" of being unwilling to question.

Phunny, I thought we were questioning while they were accepting on blind faith.
There are way too many improbabilities and impossibilities to believe the Bush administrations story.
Show them truth and they will deride you and suggest a tin foil hat.

Tin by the way would melt in a jet fuel fire.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 17, 2010 - 01:06pm PT
Quoting from above;




"Open air burning temperatures (of Aviation fuel); 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)"

"It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media."

550 F wouldn't have even melted the copper wiring.
Melting point of Copper 1084C 1983F.
550F would soften and weaken copper wiring but would not significantly weaken structural steel.
549.5 degrees Fahrenheit is easy to do in a pizza oven.
Coat hangars are not structural steel.

"No... Have you been paying any attention? Temperatures have been cited here. Is it the "C" that confuses you? That means Celcius, different from F."

Who has C & F temps fuzzy?

People survived sitting around for ten to fifteen minutes in areas we have been told were infernos raging for hours and melting steel. The Fire men who responded thought the fires were easiy manageable. Then BOOM the basements rocked and snap crackle pop the upper floors sparked with timed charges and the buildings fell at free fall speed with no resistance from the structure.

"Or, are you just an idiot? The last few pages of replies from you would lead me to believe so, as you really say some STUPID stuff, and when corrected, you conveniently ignore it, and likely continue to beleieve that STUPID stuff."

And yet you cling to the Popular Science version of the new universe.
Yeah you are right; Iz stooopid, youz smharat



By the way the WTC were BUTT ugly, garish buildings choked with toxins like asbestos. Not to mention that pesky rent control crap.

Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jul 17, 2010 - 01:48pm PT
I was told by a guy who claim to be part of the architectural team for the towers, that they were outfitted for demolition (or installing demolition) from the get-go, as that would be cheaper than doing it later and many such buildings were being demolished and rebuilt in those days.

It is an interesting thought experiment to note that there is a scenario where, even if the Towers were hit by Arab Terrorists with no help or blind eye from the Government, that once hit, that a decision to pull the plug on them with the controlled demo might have been made anyway, to protect nearby properties, collect insurance, destroy the investigation files for big corporations in building 7, and so on. Nobody could admit this due to the liability from deaths caused. Not saying this happened, don't think it did but think about it.

If that plane in Penn had been shot down by a missile, do you think the government would care to admit that? Even if it was a good call given the choices?

Peace

Karl
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 17, 2010 - 01:53pm PT
Probably restate the same crap as he always does as it is all he knows.





Edit to add:
People survived sitting around for ten to fifteen minutes in areas we have been told were infernos raging for hours and melting steel.

People die in temperatures over 212 F.

How did they survive raging infernos of blast furnace temperatures?
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 17, 2010 - 02:21pm PT
Well this is quite interesting.
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Confronting%20the%20Evidence/annotations_2.htm


rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 17, 2010 - 02:31pm PT
Sigh... You just aren't getting it. Let's try this way...

1) Not doing the math right yields the wrong values. Even if he did the math the right way, it would be analogous to him trying to calc the inertia of a billiard ball, but coming up with the numbers for a tennis ball. Big difference.

2) Here is why the math needs to be done the right way...

A while back, I was inspecting a hotel. The desk clerk had to step out, and asked me to watch the front desk. 3 men came in and asked for a room. I told them that the room was $30. Each of them put in $10 bucks (3 x $10 = $30), and I gave them their key.

After a bit, the clerk returned, and asked if I check anyone in... And I said, "yes, 3 men came, and I told them $30 and checked them in." She said that the rate was $25, and gave me $5 to return to the men. While walking to their room, I realized that $5 wouldn't divide amongst the 3 evenly, so I figured I'd tell them the rate was actuallly $27, and give each of them a dollar back (initially $10 per man, now $9 per man, since they were each getting a dollar back, and 3 x $9 = $27), and pocket the rest.

Sounds good so far... To those who don't look into this, as I had $5 to return to them, gave each of them a dollar ($3), which only leaves me with $2. In case Tony, Philo, or any other is missing this... If each of them paid $9 ($10 - $1 = $9), that means they paid $27. But, they paid $30 initially, so there should be $3 left over, NOT $2, which is what I have left.


Point being... Most, Tony/Philo, will just be left scratching their heads here, trying to figure out where the missing dollar is, if they even followed thus far. And without having to go search google for the answer, would likely never figure out what the problem is. Worse, in calcs like for the mechanics of this collapse, they don't even see the missing dollar, since they answer yields what they want, so will never, ever, look for it, since they don't realize it is missing. You, Jolly, should know better.

The math needs to be done correctly to yield the correct answers.

GIGO!


Edit:
PS... This alone should show you that he doesn't know what he is talking about:
The proper way to do this is to use strain energy methods and you will find that the collapse will be arrested and not allowed to continue."

That is absurd... Unless of course, you ignore all the missing dollars.

Do you honestly think that the fall of all that weight on the floor below would have been arrested?




Made it home safe... I'm off to the coffeehouse to meat friends and go to the boat.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 17, 2010 - 02:46pm PT
What ever floats your boat. You are perpetually hung up on the concept of upward force. Yet you conveniently ignore all the other pertinent details. And call us ignorant to offset your fear of being wrong.
WandaFuca

Social climber
From the gettin place
Jul 17, 2010 - 02:48pm PT
JollyRoger says,

As far as the design load limits of the floor below, he is being very optimistic. The 95th floor, has to “At Least” be able to hold the weight of the 15 floors above, ie 68,181.81tons. He then added the weight of people, and left out safety factor. In reality the Net Force upwards would have been much larger. He is being very simple to make a point.



No floor "held" the weight of any of the floors above. The core held (cantilevered) the weight of all the floors.

Each and every floor was only meant to hold its own weight plus 1,300 tons; there is no way in hell those angle clips could hold 68,181.81 tons.

Was the second floor "holding" 495,454.55 tons?

You should go back and look at Jennie's link; it's quite good.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 17, 2010 - 03:16pm PT
Philo...
Are these numbers wrong?

They will work well enough to show you that you were talking out of your arse...

Let's review:

Jennie's post said:
"It is known that STRUCURAL STEEL begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C"

To which you wrote:
Actually those are the temps for aircraft aluminum.

To which I replied:
Where the hell are you getting that? Aluminum melts at 660 C.

Source please. Or, how about just admitting that you are wrong... AGAIN!

Which agrees with your own numbers:
Metal Melting Point
(oC) (oF)
Aluminum 660 1220


Now, instead of admitting that you were wrong, and talking out of your arse, you instead shot yourself in the foot with:
So if I put a piece of structural steel, say a piece of an I beam in my oven on high it will soften? How long will that take? And if I put it into a pizza oven it will soften to the point of being able to be bent into a donut? How long would that take?

Note what the melting temp is for iron, the major componant in steel:
Iron 1536 2797

Then, look up at her numbers for weakening steel, then post what temp an oven gets to.



You are an idiot dude.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Jul 17, 2010 - 03:17pm PT
WandaFuca

Social climber
From the gettin place
Jul 17, 2010 - 03:21pm PT
The want you to believe, that the clips, anchored to the inner core of 47 steel columns, and the outer skin failed due to the load of the floors comming down.

If this is the case, then shouldn't the floors have just slid down around the core. However, that did not happen did it.


No.

"Collapse of the WTC towers resulted in failure of many of the bolts in bolted end plate connections as the columns were subjected to large and unanticipated out-of-plane bending."



http://www.designaids.com/wtc/appendixb.html
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jul 17, 2010 - 03:21pm PT
Coz wrote

You really can't believe Bush and Cheney murder all those people, secretly demo the towers, vaporized the passenger in mid air, fire missle strapped with DNA into the Pentagon.

I'm struggling to believe anyone's side of the story, since one end seems extreme and the other is plainly lying for unknown reasons.

But one thing is clear, the government doesn't have a problem with killing all those people. By getting us into an unprovoked war in Iraq over known false pretenses, they killed many time more than died on 9-11, even if you don't count the uncounted thousands of Iraqis and millions of refugees.

Thats the real charges that should be brought and real investigation that's missing. 9-11 is a distraction when the crime of the century is obvious, documented and nearly ready for court....the bogus invasion of Iraq.

Peace

Karl
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 17, 2010 - 03:35pm PT
Coz, if LBJ was more than willing to insist the Israelis sink the USS Liberty, the most decorated ship in US naval history, with all hands on board why would it surprise you how cheap life is to Neo-Cons?




Well I just finished work on a pizza oven that easily reaches 900 degrees.
TYeary

Social climber
State of decay
Jul 17, 2010 - 04:01pm PT
Karl, you hit the nail squarely on the head.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 17, 2010 - 04:32pm PT
Jolly, the Madrid building had a concrete reinforced core and a concrete firewall(technical) floor. The WTC's did not.

The steel only portion collapsed to the firewall(technical) floor.

The replacement towers for the WTC buildings will have a concrete core.

WBraun

climber
Jul 17, 2010 - 04:36pm PT
The 9/11 Commission team ....

Philip Zelikow served on Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and was part of the Bush/Cheney transition team.

While not officially part of the Commission, as the chief of staff, he wielded more power than any of the ten figure-heads.

Kean Commission member Max Cleland dropped out of the proceedings in December 2003, saying "Bush is scamming America" and that he didn't want to participate in a cover-up by the Commission of what the government knew about 9/11 in advance.

(Off the record he has since said the Bush administration knew the attacks were coming.) This also got near-zero press coverage.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Jul 17, 2010 - 04:41pm PT
Hey thanx, Adam... I didn't know some [most] of that.

And yes, you are an ass, for speculating what I would do and how I would think after reading what you wrote.

Funny, through, DWH is not a high-rise, so the argument is kind of pointless. I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying to find out how the construction of the DWH compares to high-rise buildings, but since it a semi-submersible offshore rig, I doubt there is a lot of commonalities.

Also: "After burning for approximately 36 hours, Deepwater Horizon sank on 22 April 2010."

That's 3 days of burning, I presume oil, before it weakened the structure enough to sink.


OK, here is something for you, the "Believers."

There are many pieces of evidence that are coming to light that fuel the idea that we were not told anything close to the truth about what happened. It is because of this type of evidence that I (and other "truthers") feel that something very important happened on that day, and that the real truth is being covered up daily.

To note, here's a few choice videos. Together, you can spend a short 15-30 minutes looking at things that will make you scratch your head.

I admit, there are certainly lots of whacky videos and "evidence" that you can find on the Web fueling the Conspiracy "Theory." However, when you look at the clips I show below, these are taken from live news feeds the morning of the disaster. Live newscasters in the field.

To start, watch the first couple of minutes of this short clip, titled "What Dan Rather would rather you not see." Very interesting live news coverage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0eC3uns3pA

And take a look at this short film on eyewitnesses, including newscasters, talking about the explosions they heard/saw in the WTC towers. This includes the authorities evacuating the buildings because they found explosive devices:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

And lastly, watch the first 10-20 minutes of this very well put together Web-feature, In Plane Sight. This starts with a very solid review of the Pentagon hit:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2361717427531377078#


If "Believers' watch any of these videos, I'll be surprised (y'all already have your mind set). But if you do, I'd like to hear your response to the solid evidence that is presented in these clips.

And, none of this stuff is being debunked because...well, Believers don't acknowledge that any of this stuff exists. Funny how that is...
WandaFuca

Social climber
From the gettin place
Jul 17, 2010 - 04:46pm PT
JR,

The two articles I linked explain everything adequately with no need to rely on mysterious factors.

You obviously won't accept anything that doesn't fit with your truther conspiracy scenario; you just look for anything or mold anything to fit the dogma and dismiss out-of-hand everything else. Not much difference between the way you approach 9/11 and the way a creationist/ID proponent approaches evolution.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 17, 2010 - 05:24pm PT
Haha, Jolly, don't confuse the thin layer of concrete on the floors of the WTC(and no doubt the Madrid building as well) with the massive concrete reinforced steel 17'th floor of the Madrid building. That's why they call it a 'technical' floor. It was unlike the regular floors that collapsed above it.

Tell me what floors of the WTC towers were firewall floors?
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Jul 17, 2010 - 05:41pm PT
Mono,
In case you missed my links above, here is the one about the explosives in the towers:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw


It's short, go ahead and take a look. All live news coverage.

What ye say to this? NYPD evacuating the buildings due to secondary devices, explosions in the basements, and so on.

All the fancy math symbols and so forth not needed when you have the power of explosives to get things rockin'.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 17, 2010 - 05:46pm PT
K-man, glad you recognize that once you get it 'rockin' there's no stopping it. Most Truthers would disagree and say you need explosives to keep it going.

Jolly, still waiting to know which floors of the WTC were firewall floors.

That's got to be pretty easy to look up.

And don't confuse floors for mechanical equipment with firewall/strength floors.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Jul 17, 2010 - 06:00pm PT
Mono, you completely ignored the question about what you think about the reports of the explosions in the clip.

Well??

Can't reconcile the multiple reports of large explosions, can you.

But at least you can try, no?

Also, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that I "recognize that once you get it 'rockin' there's no stopping it."
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 17, 2010 - 06:04pm PT
Sorry K-man, there were lots of noise and chaos that day. You know, transformers exploding, pieces of the building falling before the collapse.

Do you have any audio of explosions capable of throwing massive steel girders hundreds of yards? Or even audio of explosives going off at each floor collapse?

And good, you are the traditional truther who thinks explosives are needed all thru the core to keep it going.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Jul 17, 2010 - 06:07pm PT
Opening of the clip has audio of a large explosion. My guess, you did not watch it. Too bad.

And that's one heck of a fire if it can throw debris! Funny how you do not see that in the Madrid clip...no pulverized building either.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 17, 2010 - 06:08pm PT
That's the power of a gravitational collapse K-man.

So you think there were explosives that could throw some of the exterior columns hundreds of yards? And these explosives would be in the core right?

Got any audio of those?
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Jul 17, 2010 - 06:10pm PT
Dude, that is not the building collapsing. Get real.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 17, 2010 - 06:11pm PT
Then why is it important?

Haha k-man, some loud sounds after the collapse is proof of CD.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 17, 2010 - 06:12pm PT
You know I just can't get over all the really hot fires because of the aviation fuel. Man, it was hot enough to weaken steel and perhaps even melt it (dripping sarcasm). At least that is what we have been told . . .

Yet people looked out the holes of the impacts. Where were the raging fires burning out of control? And since when can aviation fuel ever melt steel? Yet we saw the dripping steel prior to the collapse, right? Oh, you mean the thermite/thermate that lit off a little too soon.

Bummer, when an inside job doesn't go exactly as planned and everyone is now figuring out the facade.

Hate it when that happens.



Video: Woman waving from hole in WTC tower after impact but obviously before the collapse.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/edna/2seconds.htm

WOMAN WAVING FROM WTC NORTH TOWER IMPACT HOLE (video discussion)
http://webfairy.org/edna/liberty.htm












WBraun

climber
Jul 17, 2010 - 06:12pm PT
"Here WTC 6 is over my head. The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running."


http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_debris_06.html
WandaFuca

Social climber
From the gettin place
Jul 17, 2010 - 06:13pm PT
I pointed out several flaws in your argument and apparently you don't want to address them becuase of the awareness of your fallacies.

And don't pull the "I am trying to fit everything in to my mold" BS.




You are confusing flaws with unanswered/unanswerable questions. There will never be absolute proof. Even if every joist, beam, and clip were filmed and the temperature of every cubic centimeter measured, I suspect you would decry them as forgeries.

The evidence that is out there explains how the buildings were brought down without relying on mystery explosions or shadowy conspiracies or the invisible hand of god.



k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Jul 17, 2010 - 06:13pm PT
OK, I capitulate. The NYPD doesn't know the difference between transformers blowing and secondary devices. They are idiots, like me I guess.

"We have reports of a secondary device, clear out."

Boy, what whimps.

[Tounge firmly in cheek. Those were some very courageous men.]
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 17, 2010 - 06:14pm PT
funny k-man. A loud sound after the collapse is sign of a secondary explosives. Could have just been some debris falling from one of the nearby buildings.

Do you think the NYPD needed to be silenced.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Jul 17, 2010 - 06:16pm PT
Then why is it [the explosion] important [if it's not the building falling]?

Mono, are you OK?

[edit: we have no reference as to what state the buildings were in in the opening clip. But, that is the sound of a large explosion.

Regardless, there are MANY other eyewitness reports of explosions in the clip, so why deny the fact that there were explosions.]

OK, this is stupid, I should be climbing.

Have fun y'all.
WBraun

climber
Jul 17, 2010 - 06:18pm PT
mono -- "Could have just been ..."

Making wild guesses again to support your theory ....
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 17, 2010 - 06:18pm PT
So K-man how many more buildings were wired for explosives?

Or do you think these loud noises were explosives going off in the rubble?

The conspiracy gets larger and larger (and sillier)

And Warner, it's a wild guess to assume all loud noises are explosives.
WBraun

climber
Jul 17, 2010 - 06:22pm PT
You are the one guessing and speculating mono ..

monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 17, 2010 - 06:24pm PT
Warner, do you know what those loud noises were?

K-man was 'mentally speculating' that they were explosives.
WandaFuca

Social climber
From the gettin place
Jul 17, 2010 - 06:25pm PT
Yes, Werner doesn't like it when you think, you should just know like him.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 17, 2010 - 06:26pm PT
Yes, Werner is funny.

If you say 'think' he accuses you of 'mental speculation'.

If you say 'I know' he says 'how could you, you were not there'.

Yee Haw, 1000th post (don't anybody delete one now)
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Jul 17, 2010 - 06:30pm PT
[Man, I just HAVE to turn my computer off!]

... assume all loud noises are explosives.


Mono, no assumptions about explosives. Watch the clip. The news casters, eyewitnesses, say they witnessed explosions BEFORE the towers fell.

[Ed: Mono, why did you put 'mentally speculating' in quotes? Time to admit it, you're being a jerk.]


When evidence surfaces that exonerates a man of a crime, what happens? The prosecution does not instantly have the answers about the crime, they must go back and review the evidence and findings in an attempt to figure out what happened.

Believers who ask Truthers questions like "So, how many buildings were wired with explosives" is pretty lame--as if folks who question the official story know the answers as to what actually happened.

Many have said it on this thread. But Baba said it best.

Don't know what happened, but I do know the official story is BS. Time to take the lid off the septic tank and review the mess inside.

Or not. Baaaa
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 17, 2010 - 06:39pm PT
Yes, there were reports of explosions. Lot's of people say 'it sounded like an explosion' when they hear a loud noise. It was amazingly chaotic.

You still have not explained why the heck there would be 'secondary explosives' going off after the collapse?

Care to 'mentally speculate'?
WBraun

climber
Jul 17, 2010 - 06:42pm PT
And of course lots of people who were not there speak for those that were there ......
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 17, 2010 - 06:43pm PT
Hehe, those were mechanical floors Jolly, not designed to give the building strength, only to house equipment.

Read the description of the 17th floor of the Madrid building.

Much different design with more steel and more concrete and designed specifically to give the building more strength. I suppose it was just a coincidence that the collapse stopped there.

The 75th(?) and 108th(?) floor of the WTC were mechanical floors. Thats 30+ floors unprotected by any alleged firewall floor.

Jolly, since you don't want to talk about the concrete core of the Madrid building, I'll assume you think that's an important distinction compared to the WTC. You are making good progress.
Jennie

Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
Jul 17, 2010 - 06:53pm PT
The pressure and compression of the falling building was easily enough to heat steel to melting, set off explosions in trapped air pockets, etc, without any source of fire at all. True?
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 17, 2010 - 06:54pm PT
I don't think so. (oops, sorry Werner, is said 'think'. my bad)

Now I've really got to focus on getting some more work done. Will check back later.
WBraun

climber
Jul 17, 2010 - 07:12pm PT
If you want to theorize, guess and "I think" that's perfectly fine.

But don't try and pass that off as fact to a crime scene ....

rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 17, 2010 - 08:56pm PT
Nice, Jennie... Your kung fu is good.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 17, 2010 - 09:27pm PT
Once again . . . but especially for Jennie since she didn't get it the previous times . . .







Multi-tonne steel sections, ejected laterally in arcing projectile motion, 600 ft. at 50mph. Please tell me how that occurs without massive amounts of explosives? It can not be done only due to a building falling vertically at near free-fall accelerations into it's own footprint.

Projectile motion of massive tonne steel beams requires explosives. You can not get around this. Remember, projectile motion upward and outward in a long 600 ft. (600 ft. = horizontal distance from building) arc at 50mph. There is an incredible amount of images and film footage showing this. These massive steel beams were launched by explosives. An excessive amount of explosives. Can't happen due to falling forces only. Impossible.



All of the evidence points to explosives. If you can not get this then this . . .






must be true.
WandaFuca

Social climber
From the gettin place
Jul 17, 2010 - 09:37pm PT
Yeah, plenty of incontrovertible evidence from iron-clad sources . . .

. . . just like the Ark of the Moon, Bible Code, Alien Angels, and what else Klimmer???
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 17, 2010 - 09:38pm PT
jennie--mechanical compression heating steel to the smelting point of 1510C (2750F)? you're in the wrong business. screw those energy-consuming blast furnaces. just truck the scrap to the top of el cap (about three times the height of the twin towers, btw), heave-ho, and collect the molten slag at the base.

----

here you go, monolith--an ignorant, terrified, unprofessional eyewitness to the explosions, assistant fdny commissioner stephen gregory, from the oral histories material i mentioned previously:

“In my conversation with Lt. Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought—at that time I didn’t know what it was—I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash, flash, flash, and then it looked like the building came down.”

Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

“No, the lower level of the building. You know, like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That’s what I thought I saw. And I didn’t broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said, ‘I don’t know if I’m crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me.’ He said, ‘Did you see any flashes?’ I said, ‘Yes, well, I thought it was just me.’ He said, ‘No, I saw them too.’”

is that another thing we'll get dropping things off el cap, air compression causing "flash, flash, flash"?

---


please, just one more here, again from the oral histories:

an eyewitness named Kevin McPadden, an Air Force search-and-rescue worker, tells of being near a Red Cross worker with a handheld radio just before the fall of Building 7.

"The man was trying to clear people from the area, he took his hand off the phone speaker, and there was a countdown, 'three … two … one …' And then there was an explosion, a distant rumbling sound, and down came Building 7."

do fires destroy buildings to countdowns?
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 17, 2010 - 09:55pm PT
Yeah, plenty of incontrovertible evidence from iron-clad sources . . .

. . . just like the Ark of the Moon, Bible Code, Alien Angels, and what else Klimmer???




Wandafuca,

And what does anything you just said, how does it have any relevance, to the price of Tea in China?


Let me see if I get your arguement style . . .

I say: 9-11.


You say: Blueman Group.




That about sums it up.










Not to pick on Blueman Group, they are awesome, but no real connection to the days events of 9-11-2001.








Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 17, 2010 - 10:05pm PT
rrrad keeps promising to weigh anchor, but i think he's glued to his computer. good thing the crew's wearing bikinis--no hindrance of body movement as they wrestle him down and lash him to the mast. and as they sink slowly into the bermuda triangle ...

glug, glug ...

ignore, ignore ...

deny, deny ...

:-D

just kidding, dude--good sailing out there.
WandaFuca

Social climber
From the gettin place
Jul 17, 2010 - 10:41pm PT
And what does anything you just said, how does it have any relevance, to the price of Tea in China?


You are an unreliable source providing unreliable sources.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 17, 2010 - 11:40pm PT
Monoditz are you a complete moron or just unbelievably oppositional?

It has been repeatedly explained to you that scores of eye and ear witnesses saw and heard multiple explosions some quite large BEFORE the buildings fell. Let me repeat that; BEFORE THE BUILDINGS FELL. A great many of these witnesses were highly trained professionals who could clearly differentiate between background noises and explosions.

Those explosions were registered with their time line by many seismic centers.

I can't wait for you to come back and claim those were the sounds of the buildings collapsing.

Stick to your guns man what's truth got to do with anything?
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 18, 2010 - 12:07am PT
Wandafuca,

You must suffer from ADHD. You have an incredibly hard time staying on topic. I'll be glad to debate you on all said topics in the correct ST OT threads.

This is about 9-11. When you can't show any evidence and back-up your arguements you just resort to ad hominem attacks. Yea, when you can't think your way out, then personally attack the person you dissagree with and just make it up as you go. Sadly it happens here at ST too often. Weak tactics for weak . . . well you fill in the blank.

I constantly give sources. Just because you disagree with them doesn't make them questionable or wrong. Apparently, all your sources are pre-approved/pre-screened by the US Government. Boy, controlling your thought process is pretty easy then. You have made it easy for them. You are truly compliant. Good for you. (Sarcasm)

Notice, I do not personally attack anyone. I don't call them names. Notice, I don't say anyone is unreliable, or their sources are unreliable because that is pretty much indefensible without the evidence and then backing it up. I'm above that behavior.

If you are going to use that tactic without evidence and the arguements to back it up, just spouting, then I'm calling you on it.


“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
    Mahatma Gandhi

Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Jul 18, 2010 - 12:42am PT
Dear friends, please temporarily stop your footsteps
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jul 18, 2010 - 12:47am PT
All praise to Joseph (healyje): four posts (including two of the first three), 1,016 bites. And they're still snapping away.

Definitely a candidate for clever public service award of the year. Dr. F's anti-Republican thread is a contender, and of course far longer, but he has to post frequently to it, to stir up the whackjobs.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Jul 18, 2010 - 01:14am PT
Jennie

Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
Jul 18, 2010 - 06:57am PT
Klimmer,
I sincerely appreciate you reposting essentials of the "inside job" theory. I have to agree with the skeptics on this, however.

If there was indeed a conspiracy to destroy the towers and blame islamic terrorists, why not set off massive charges from the bottom and demolish them as most planned building demolitions are done..... and as terrorists had already attempted? The purported "evidence" of explosions in the basement seems pretty sketchy..... opponents can easily attribute such noise blasts to exploding electrical transformers and compressed gas tanks, (the intensity of which I can personally attest)

The towers coming down from above was hardly a quiescent event, the rumble being more intense than the decibel limit of variable discernment.....many events happening at once....and individuals claiming to hear explosions in the basement??

Why does video and photographic evidence suggest the "conspirators" were very successful in bringing the structures from the top down yet so inept in demolishing the structures from the bottom......when the overwhelming volume of building demolition technology is concerned with the later ?

Thermite? I can find no evidence of ANY building demolitions ever being effected with thermite...only bridge demolitions by the military. Does anyone, here, have such evidence?

Thermite reactions are said to leave residue of aluminum oxide and iron, and such residue was found in WTC debris. It would seem an aluminum jetliner hitting a steel structured building would leave ample amounts of such residue.

Thermite is not explosive, but effects great heat that can melt steel. But there are major problems with the termite hypothesis. One of its early proponents, Dr. D.P.Grimmer (physicist), calculated that 0.439 m3 of termite would be required to cut the largest columns . The cube root of 0.439 = 0.76, thus if all the thermite was stored in a central cube shaped reservoir its internal dimensions would be 76 cm (30 inches) per side....think of the hours involved in preparing the thermite "charges" in the buildings....and without inviting the curiousity of floor managers, maintenance personel and office workers.

Then there is the problem of igniting the thermite reaction..... which is still in infancy and was much more crude in 2001. We're to assume government conspirators had the timing of the thermite ignitions down to exact science, the "melts" occured precisely and the buildings came down top to bottom in apple pie order?
Jennie

Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
Jul 18, 2010 - 07:29am PT
"jennie--mechanical compression heating steel to the smelting point of 1510C (2750F)? you're in the wrong business. screw those energy-consuming blast furnaces. just truck the scrap to the top of el cap (about three times the height of the twin towers, btw), heave-ho, and collect the molten slag at the base."


Tony,
I wasn't thinking of pieces of shell structure that fell free to the ground. I was wondering about metal caught in the midst of the falling, churning debris.

Dynamism produces heat ....like a bicycle pump gets hot when it's vigorously pumped. Friction of debris particles moving rapidly under pressure...the tremendous weight and volumetric compression forces....would that build up enough to melt steel? Workers in the debris say many steel supports were contorted and deformed into wild shapes.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 18, 2010 - 08:40am PT
once again, jennie--truck the scrap iron to the top of el cap. make a little slide bin for it so's you can amass a batch of it and dump it loose all at once and get your "falling, churning debris". geeziz, i can't believe this. in 20 seconds of open-air freefall you're expecting to achieve the high smelting heats of a blast furnace?
WBraun

climber
Jul 18, 2010 - 12:03pm PT
There was molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Jul 18, 2010 - 02:39pm PT
You still have not explained why the heck there would be 'secondary explosives' going off after the collapse?

Did somebody say the there were secondary explosives going off after the collapse? Wasn't me. In the clip, those that witnessed the explosions were IN THE BUILDINGS. Or, did you miss that important point? You're trying to look/be smart, but just the opposite is happening.

And Jeanie, same, the falling mass did not cause compression to create enough heat to cause explosions in the basement because the folks in the basement who witnessed the explosions got out to tell the tale.

Come on folks...

And like Werner said, molten steel 21 days after the event. Somebody care to take a stab at that? I have not seen that addressed anywhere yet.
Jennie

Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
Jul 18, 2010 - 06:57pm PT
This is quoted from: http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/canofficefirescauselargesteelcolumnsandb

Was molten metal in the basements caused by demolitions materials?

There is anecdotal evidence of molten metal in the basements of WTC buildings 1, 2, 6, and perhaps 7 in the days and weeks after 9/11. CTs often call this “molten steel,” although the metal in question was never tested and its composition is unknown. Infrared spectrometer readings taken shortly after the collapses showed temperatures near the surface of the piles of up to 1375 F: hot enough to melt aluminum.

It was at least that hot at points within the pile that were away from the hottest zones. William Langewiesche, the only journalist who was allowed to go with the engineers in their explorations beneath the debris, writes in “American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center” of a subterranean parking lot:

"Along the north side, where the basement structure remained strong and intact (and was ultimately preserved), the fire had been so intense in places that it had consumed the tires and interiors, and had left hulks sitting on axles above hardened pools of aluminum wheels."
I don’t think the terrorists were placing thermate on car wheels. It was simply that hot.

The presence of molten metals is not an indication of planned demolition work. Explosives do not produce pools of molten metal, and incendiaries like thermite burn themselves out in seconds even in the absence of oxygen and would not be available for weeks as fuel.

A long-lasting source of fuel was available within the well-insulated piles: the contents of the buildings. According to a study by the U.C. Davis DELTA team, the tower collapses, as destructive as they were, expended less than 1% of the potential chemical energy that was stored in building contents, oil spills, and automobiles in the WTC parking garages.


Analysis of Aerosols from the World Trade Center Collapse Site, New York, October 2 to October 30, 2001
http://delta.ucdavis.edu/WTC%20aersols%20ACS%202003.ppt and http://delta.ucdavis.edu/WTC.htm

"The debris pile sat cooking for weeks, with the materials at the bottom of the pile getting incresingly hot beacuse the fires were confined and lost minimal heat to the atmosphere. As a result the fires could have easily reached temps sufficient to melt steel, not to mention most other metals found in the buildings."
(Popular Mechanics: Debunking 9/11 Myths p.41)

"It is no mystery why the fire has burned for so long. Mangled steel and concrete, plastics from office furniture and equipment, fuels from elevator hydraulics, cars and other sources are all in great supply in the six-story basement area where the two towers collapsed.

Water alone rarely can quench this kind of fire, which will burn as long as there is adequate fuel and oxygen and as long as heat cannot escape, fire experts said." With Water and Sweat, Fighting the Most Stubborn Fire
NIST weighs in on the “Molten steel” question:
"NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing."http://tinyurl.com/pqrxt

When it comes to steel, looks can be deceiving:
"A study of the 1991 Oakland fire that burned 3,000 homes revealed the presence of melted copper in over 80% of the burned structures, and what appeared to be melted steel in over 90% of the burned structures. With respect to steel, looks can be deceiving. What appears to be melted may be merely oxidized. Interpret melted metals, particularly steel, with caution, and interpret the temperatures you infer from these melted metals with extreme caution." http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/IndicatorsOfTrouble.pdf

"It is not possible to tell by visual examination alone whether a piece of steel has melted or merely oxidized." http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/MeltedSteel.pdf

In addition, many conspiracists have suggested that the molten material seen in photos of the south tower while it was standing, and described in the basement levels of the rubble, could not have been aluminum, because aluminum does not glow when molten. It's true that aluminum is a dull silvery color at its melting point of approximately 660 C, but continue to heat it and it does glow, as shown in the photos below. This is especially true if the metal is adulterated with impurities, as any molten material in the WTC buildings would likely have been.
WBraun

climber
Jul 18, 2010 - 07:15pm PT
NIST was a total fraud during the 911 ...

So was FEMA

So was 911 commission.

All their stuff is a conspiracy and worthless. Null and void!

They're 1000 times worst than the truthers ever were.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Jul 18, 2010 - 07:24pm PT
I don’t think the terrorists were placing thermate on car wheels. It was simply that hot.

Funny, but I don't know anybody who thinks car tires were targeted, but nice try at being smug. The question is, how did it get so hot that even tires were burning? (I'm actually kinda amazed that I have to spell that out). Weren't the fires at the top of the building?

Personally, I find it odd that nobody bothered to test that molten stuff.

But OK, I will give this one to the Believers. The speed at which the Towers collapsed was so great, it was like rubbing concrete sticks together. It just generated a F' of a lot of heat. Kept that stuff burning and melting for weeks. So hot was it at the top of the Towers, that it caused explosions in the basement. OK, fine, I can see that. A plane exploding causes GREAT heat.

So OK. That makes this next puzzle even more odd. On the subject of things burning due to the planes exploding, have you looked at all the fire damage at the Pentagon? In plane view in the rooms exposed due to the collapse are books, wooden desks, and other things that burn easily. No real fire scorching on the building. Yet, the fire was said to be hot enough to vaporize the plane's engines. In the Towers, the exploding planes were enough to bring down the buildings and cause explosions in the basement. Yet at the Pentagon, the same scenario wsan't hot enough to burn books that are right there at the impact zone. I don't know, common sense says something is not right.

So, are the fires so hot that they cause major damage, or not so hot that they don't burn books, stools, and such. I'm not sure you can argue both with a straight face.

WBraun

climber
Jul 18, 2010 - 07:29pm PT
Glad you like it Locker.

Isn't it fun to figure this stuff out ... :-)
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Jul 18, 2010 - 07:37pm PT
Ho man, do I understand this:

"NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

In other words, let's just ignore that. And beside, it's been shown that fires can melt stuff... (yeah, but we're talking molten for 3 weeks, underneath the heaps of rubble where there was little oxygen).

BTW, Thanks for that quote. Also really interesting is this:

... found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse.

Right, got it.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Jul 18, 2010 - 07:48pm PT
Hey, I'm lost. Have we figured anything out?
WBraun

climber
Jul 18, 2010 - 08:02pm PT
We know you're all closet truthers .....
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jul 18, 2010 - 08:14pm PT
The question is, how did it get so hot that even tires were burning? (I'm actually kinda amazed that I have to spell that out).
I don't know the ignition temperature of synthetic rubber, but do know that it's not hard to get it burning. All you do is stuff the insides of the tires with crumpled newspaper, and light it. Burns just fine.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 18, 2010 - 08:41pm PT
glad you're entertained, locker. people in the roman coliseum found it entertaining to watch other people die. for me there's too much at stake, like justice and a credible system of government and the integrity of my country and my personal responsibility to do something about things that seem terribly wrong.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Jul 18, 2010 - 10:06pm PT
Jennie

Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
Jul 18, 2010 - 10:14pm PT
"I don’t think the terrorists were placing thermate on car wheels. It was simply that hot."

Funny, but I don't know anybody who thinks car tires were targeted, but nice try at being smug.



Are you taking that quote personal?


As I wrote in my post, that’s from: http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/canofficefirescauselargesteelcolumnsandb
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Jul 18, 2010 - 10:58pm PT
Naw, not personal. The way the post was written, it looked like that was your phrase. Later, I saw your link and realized that you were quoting the article. I'm sorry that I jumped on you.

Still, I think it's a pretty smug statement.

Funny how when most folks see the word "terrorist," they have a mental picture of a person. I view a bald white guy with bad teeth, who do you see?


!~!~!~!

Alas, I am tiring of this little exercise, trying to get people to open their minds. I do look at all the CT debunking articles, and I see holes. Many times, they raise more questions than they answer. Much like the ones I pointed out in the article that Jennie posted.

Sometimes I admit, "Yeah, that is plausible..." However, the Believers cannot for a second alter their stance, too much is at risk--belief in the system cannot falter.

As I read through this thread and review Truther sites, I see many unanswered questions and a lot of physical evidence (including photos and eyewitness testimonials) gets completely ignored.

= A NYPD police captain telling is crew to clear out of the building due to the presence of a secondary device

= A small crater in the ground with not a single airplane part, yet portrayed as an airliner crash site

= An incredibly small hole in the Pentagon with virtually no plane wreckage, yet we are told an airliner crashed there

= On and on, so many hard "facts" to swallow.

As a sheep, I can swallow the "pill" they are feeding me. But as a thinking individual, I know something is terribly wrong.


Go ahead and try this out. Look at the [few] pictures of the Flight 93 crash site, and try to imagine that nobody has yet told you the pictures are of an airliner crash site. Look at the pics and think "What am I looking at?" Then, pretend that somebody tells you a big commercial airliner crashed there.

What is your first reaction?

Do you know the reaction of the news folks who saw that site that day?

For easy access, check out the 2nd sequence in this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0eC3uns3pA
golsen

Social climber
kennewick, wa
Jul 19, 2010 - 12:03am PT
This thread is awesome! Experts born by clicking on links.

If only I could become such an expert I know I would kick Honnolds ass in climbing simply by being an internet expert!

Watch out dude...
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Jul 19, 2010 - 12:25am PT
it's not the clicking on links that brings knowledge, but reviewing the content that the links bring.

And, if you can figure out how to get strong sitting at a computer, then by gosh, click away!
Mason

Trad climber
Yay Area
Jul 19, 2010 - 12:30am PT
http://www.marketw#tch.com/story/wall-street-reform-does-nothing-for-main-street-2010-07-18?pagenumber=2
WBraun

climber
Jul 19, 2010 - 01:30am PT
"Experts born by clicking on links."

Nobody's expert.

But I like learning stuff.

I remember following McKinney and watching his foot work on skis.

When I step into a room I count how many 120 outlets in it immediately :-)

I like being hyper observant .....
golsen

Social climber
kennewick, wa
Jul 19, 2010 - 07:05am PT
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_15547590

Interesting article
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 19, 2010 - 10:33am PT
"When I step into a room I count how many 120 outlets in it immediately :-)

I like being hyper observant" .....






Werner, I knew I liked you for some reason.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 19, 2010 - 11:46am PT
when you get people's attention on these things, a lot ask, well how many people would have to be in on it in order to pull it off? how come it hasn't leaked out yet?

check that denver post article up there.
dirtbag

climber
Jul 19, 2010 - 12:01pm PT
What that Denver Post (actually, it's a WA PO article) shows is that:

1. There is an enormous clusterf*#k of intelligence agencies that is overloaded with info and in all likelihood, probably couldn't even work together to get a pair of shoes tied.

It states over and over again that there appears to be a lack of coordination and info sharing.

2. These agencies and enormous budgets were created after 9/11.

But I'm sure you guys think this is definitive proof that The They was behind it all. If anything, I'm less fearful of The They after reading this.

My main concern is that we are probably wasting an enormous amount of money and probably not really getting good results (i.e., increased public safety).
WBraun

climber
Jul 19, 2010 - 12:14pm PT
No, what we can be sure of for sure Dirtbag is that you have an enormous faith in the media and agencies no mater who's reporting.

You'll take that faith and make and add a lot of your own assumptions on top of that.

You should be involved in some disaster scenario some time and see how they really half ass get everything barely right and most of it wrong by the reporting media.

There a lot of other factors also that I'm actually not at liberty to divulge here about what goes on in the background that never makes it to media.

You're just another armchair Monday night quarterback with no real world experience .....

dirtbag

climber
Jul 19, 2010 - 12:17pm PT
No, what we can be sure of for sure Dirtbag is that you have an enormous faith in the media and agencies no mater who's reporting.

You'll take that faith and make and add a lot of your own assumptions on top of that.

....

You're just another armchair Monday night quarterback with no real world experience .....


Blah, blah ,blah Werner.

No assumptions there...

Do you ever get tired of knowing everything?
Jennie

Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
Jul 19, 2010 - 12:31pm PT
As K-man has pointed out for Flight 93 - the lack of debris, and not existance of any large parts of a plane.

Lack of debris, gentlemen?

The EPA released pics revealing two significant debris fields, before pieces were cleaned up for analysis. But you're right about few LARGE pieces. When an aircraft goes nose first (45 degrees) into the ground at 480 miles an hour, few massive pieces are expected in the remains. One engine was found 25 feet deep in the earth, another hundreds of yards way. The largest piece of the fuselage found was a few feet square. The EPA claims to have collected over 90% of the craft mostly in small pieces.

Flight recorders were also found, and cabin recordings of male voices reciting Islamic prayers. Two individuals claim to have seen the plane coming steeply toward the ground. Many saw the smoke plume. Relatives of flight 93 passengers failed to see their loved ones again.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 19, 2010 - 01:18pm PT
not definitive proof at all, DB, but an indication of something pretty powerful holding it all together, against all normalcy. fact of the matter is, the only "threat" has been what we supposedly got is 9/11, and a few weak echoes, notably the london subway incident and the so-called shoe bomber which, when you look at them, are equally suspect. you probably don't pay much attention to such things. there really isn't any genuine terrorism taking place among the little people of the world. they know damn well they don't have a chance, and real zeal for martyrdom seems to have dried up because, face it, modern life ain't all that bad.

jennie, that's all well and good, but a lot of us don't trust that information. photos of the site in pennsylvania are ridiculous, and the press was kept from getting too close. jetliners don't "disappear into the ground"--and then leave "debris fields". the silly little mushroom cloud we've been shown also looks pretty suspicious. several pennsylvanians reported seeing a warthog fighter jet quite close to the ground at the time. the warthog is an unmistakable thing, a flying swiss army knife of ordnance for hitting a variety of targets under a variety of circumstances. reports for the first few years were that the debris field was spread over 8 miles of pennsylvania countryside. now i see we're getting it wrestled into "two significant debris fields". we could ask them to get out a tape measure, but i see it's all been cleaned up. you make the announcement after you do that, so much less to prove that way.

bottom line? shot down out of the air by our own air force, for whatever reason. i guess the public is too baby to handle the emotions connected with all that.

simple math? you have to count up to 3: that other wtc building that fell at freefall speed, but without the requisite airplane.
dirtbag

climber
Jul 19, 2010 - 01:24pm PT
there really isn't any genuine terrorism taking place among the little people of the world. they know damn well they don't have a chance, and real zeal for martyrdom seems to have dried up because, face it, modern life ain't all that bad.

Suicide bombing victims in Iraq, Afghansitan, Uganda, Israel, and Packistan might beg to differ.
golsen

Social climber
kennewick, wa
Jul 20, 2010 - 12:56am PT
werner
Nobody's expert.

But I like learning stuff.

I remember following McKinney and watching his foot work on skis.

When I step into a room I count how many 120 outlets in it immediately :-)

I like being hyper observant .....
All good stuff. Now think about what motivates people. Find that and you will understand more than you thought possible. For as KB sai,d follow the money, this thread is perhaps more about insecurity within ones self than it is about 911.....
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jul 20, 2010 - 01:06am PT
When I step into a room I count how many 120 outlets in it immediately :-) I like being hyper observant .....
If there are 120 outlets, why do you need to count them? To make sure there aren't 119 or 121?

And if you meant 120 volt outlets, how can you be sure they're that type without more than visual assessment?

Werner will soon nominate me for rascaldom. Or at least I'll have to go to the car.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 20, 2010 - 01:12am PT
Never Forget. Just follow the money.

Rumsfeld 2.3 Trillion Dollars missing Pentagon 1 DAY b4/9-11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpWqdPMjmo


Things to think about . . .


Please someone tell me, just how did 19 Saudi hi-jackers, "AL-CIA-DUH," with box-cutter knives pull this off?

Just how did they know to pull this off on the very day that many War Games throughout the DoD, and some even enacting this very same hi-jacking scenerio and slamming planes into buildings, were happening?

How did they know to do that?

And just how did they know to slam AA Flight 77 into the Pentagon just where they re-inforced it, and exactly where the finance office that was investigating the missing 2.3 Trillion Dollars that just went missing? How does 2.3 Trillion just go missing?


Wake-up.

MIHOP
WBraun

climber
Jul 20, 2010 - 01:20am PT
I have 48 outlets in my room.

In the private sector if you lose 2.3 Trillion Dollars you will be made into sausage and sold over the counter to your unsuspecting family members.
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jul 20, 2010 - 01:26am PT
48 outlets in the Werner-cave!? Wow! That's amazing. Though there is a lot of electronic stuff in there.

Just don't turn everything on at once - it might blow every breaker in the Valley.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 20, 2010 - 08:25am PT
In the clip, those that witnessed the explosions were IN THE BUILDINGS. Or, did you miss that important point?
So... These people where in the buildings when the explosions went off causing it to immediately collapse, but they made it out to tell the news about this?

Yea... That makes perfect sense. To an idiot!
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 20, 2010 - 08:29am PT
Personally, I find it odd that nobody bothered to test that molten stuff.
I'm sure you do, since you likely never thought of what it would require to dig through tons of unstable material, shoring it up all along the way, while being protected form noxious gases, to get a sample of what was burning.

Again... Makes perfect sense, when you don't think about it, or are just an idiot, as evidenced by:
So hot was it at the top of the Towers, that it caused explosions in the basement.
Your inability to read and comprehend what she said, as that's NOT what she said.

Or:
In plane view in the rooms exposed due to the collapse are books, wooden desks, and other things that burn easily. No real fire scorching on the building. Yet, the fire was said to be hot enough to vaporize the plane's engines.
1) The fire in the Pentagon didn;t have the same O2 available to it that the fires in the WTC did, as again, floors of windows out above and below the fires allow for convection pull air in through the bottom and expell it out the top (air flow). Why does O2 matter? Look at a fire triangle. So, the fires were way less intense.

2) The engines were not destroyed by the fires, they were destroyed by smashing into a hardnened re-inforced structure at 500 MPH. (kinetic energy, something that Jolly also seems unaware of)


You may wish to read this, although I'm certain that you will NOT understand it:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10626367


You may want to read it too, Jolly.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 20, 2010 - 08:47am PT
don't forget to count the light switches and memorize their locations.

"to turn on the light in a darkened room, one must first find the switch on the wall." -- sigmund freud

---


hey, locker--love that pic! lookit that relatively weak framework in the building, how it has obviously been devastated by fire, and yet it crumples slowly, coming apart in small jerks, nothing like freefall speed.

also, notice how the raging fire has burned through to the outside shell of the building before this even begins to happen. you can actually see through to the building skeleton before it starts to come apart.

----


klimmer, you don't understand washington. for one thing, arab terrorists have a lot better spy network than we do. they knew all those war games were going to be going on, and they also knew that the military would be having so much fun with them that they wouldn't even bother to leave, say, two F-16s back at andrews afb to guard the pentagon, the capitol and the white house. heck, they could've run airliners into a hundred buildings in d.c. that day if they'd'a had enough utility knives.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 20, 2010 - 08:48am PT
Naw, not personal. The way the post was written, it looked like that was your phrase. Later, I saw your link and realized that you were quoting the article.
(see bold above)

What, do you read from the bottom up? It's the 2nd line in her post.

It would make sense if you do, read from the bottom up, considering what it is you believe (convoluted, contrived consipracy), and what you dismiss (rational, plausible, verifiable science)... No Occam's Razor there. Hell, much of what you guys believe is nebulous, and can't even be pinned down, as you guys continually move the goal post, and just add on more "what if's".


Honestly... I think the bulk of you just scan through suff, rejecting and dismissing what doesn;t fit what you already believe.


Jolly has done this repeatedly with some of my posts, as I had to constantly quote myself to show him what I had already said since he missed it the first, and often second, time.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 20, 2010 - 08:57am PT
= A small crater in the ground with not a single airplane part, yet portrayed as an airliner crash site
http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_93_photos.html

Look at the pics, then do as you suggest here:
Go ahead and try this out. Look at the [few] pictures of the Flight 93 crash site, and try to imagine that nobody has yet told you the pictures are of an airliner crash site. Look at the pics and think "What am I looking at?" Then, pretend that somebody tells you a big commercial airliner crashed there.

Although, you can;t mislead them by simply saying:
Then, pretend that somebody tells you a big commercial airliner crashed there.

You must tell them all of it... That the airliner crashed at an incredibly steep angle (greater than 40 degrees), at over 500 MPH, and that the plane was seen by a local witness, coming directly to the ground, just before she heard it crash.


You must have missed the obvious when you were:
I do look at all the CT debunking articles...


So, now what? Care to admit that you are wrong?


Don't be one of these:
...the Believers cannot for a second alter their stance, too much is at risk--belief in the system cannot falter.


As to:
= An incredibly small hole in the Pentagon with virtually no plane wreckage, yet we are told an airliner crashed there

If the hole was "incredibly small", what happened to all the stuff that wouldnt fit through the whole? The answer to that is why there is so little recognizable debris, although I can post pics of debris there as well if you like.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 20, 2010 - 09:15am PT
Btw, K...

Go ahead and try this out. Look at the [few] pictures of the Flight 93 crash site, and try to imagine that nobody has yet told you the pictures are of an airliner crash site. Look at the pics and think "What am I looking at?" Then, pretend that somebody tells you a big commercial airliner crashed there.

What is your first reaction?

Do you know the reaction of the news folks who saw that site that day?


Now amplify this by having debris falling from the air, loudly impacting muti-ton beams, sirens, smoke, fires, choking dust so bad you cant see 5 feet in front of you in places, screaming and fleeing people, and knowing that terrorists have just attacked us.

Not too unlikely that someone in charge may fail conservative and say something like: "Everybodyu evacuate, there are secondary explosives/explosions"
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 20, 2010 - 09:18am PT
it's not the clicking on links that brings knowledge, but reviewing the content that the links bring.

See above posts...

Irony is the opposit of wrinkly, just like denial is a river in Egypt, huh?
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Jul 20, 2010 - 09:39am PT
And YOU think the official 911 ommision report was...
" (rational, plausible, verifiable science)..."



















YOU must also think Faux Noise is fair and balanced.


Pffffffftttttt.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 20, 2010 - 09:45am PT
"speed made him want to rrrap all day ..."

from "baba fats, or the perfect high" by shel silverstein.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 20, 2010 - 10:07am PT
You may wish to read this, although I'm certain that you will NOT understand it:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10626367


You may want to read it too, Jolly.


And that would be why it is so hard to explain these simple concepts to you all. Thank you for explaining what we are dealing with.

Not to get you to recognize your limitations.
Again... Irony is the opposite of wrinkly, right...

You know, I asked several mechanical and structural engineers out here at the nuke yesterday to look at this post, specifically the math video that you cite, and our discourse regarding it and the physics of the collapse... They want to know where you got your degree, as they agree that he (and you) have no understanding of how to calculate the dynamic loads acting upong the structure, and that it is plain garbage. They ALL asked where you got your degree, and 1 asked what company you work for. If you want to know what was done wrong, read my post, as they pretty much agree on what I wrote, but corrected some of my nomenclature.

But hey, what do they know?
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 20, 2010 - 10:13am PT
And YOU think the official 911 ommision report was...
" (rational, plausible, verifiable science)..."

I never said that... You said that's what I believe.


The limited arguments I have made, mainly regarding a relatively few physical things are rational, plausible, verifiable science... As is the probability of a HUGE conspiracy, involving thousands of people, taking multiple government agencies and civilian conspirators, takeing all the time to pull it off, can after 10 years not have been leaked, or even pulled off given it's Rube Goldberg complexity.

I've even said that I believe there is a lot that we don't know, and that it is likely that a lot is being covered up, BUT I believe it is limited to "who knew what and when", to cover their asses when they (intelligence and investigative agencies) failed at doing their jobs.


But hey... That's only like the 3rd or 4th time I've said that, so it's not like I think your gonna get it this time. You continue to believe what you believe, even when shown you are incorrect, as I've done repeatedly quoting your own words and showing you where you are directly wrong, once with your own source. And you assume too much, like what I think, as even when I tell you what I think, you insist I think something else.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 20, 2010 - 10:27am PT

Do you think this piece was doing 500 MPG when it hit the ground?

Everything your wrote above it suggests that you do... Perhaps you just haven't thought it all the way through. You have accurate pieces of what happened, but not all of it. Or, perhaps you just cannot think it all the way through. I think if you try, you can.



Looks like you ARE one of these:
...the Believers cannot for a second alter their stance, too much is at risk--belief in the system cannot falter.

Even when shown you are wrong. You just won't concider it. Deny it; Ignore it, but NEVER admit it.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 20, 2010 - 10:32am PT
rrrAdam, the video itself explains that he was not using the proper math, to accurately calculate the scenario.
I brought that to your attention by quoting it, as you apparently missed it way back when you asked people to tell you what was wrong with his math... Saying that "math is definate". Yes, his is "definately" crap.

So, even when shown that he is using bunk math, you still accept it, worse, PROFESS it as proof, and will not budge.

GIGO! 42 seconds.



If in fact you did speak to someone, you surely won't come out and say were you were wrong, or were I was wrong. But, I would like to hear, since you are so confident.
Wow... Now it's reading comprehension fail.

I wrote:
You know, I asked several mechanical and structural engineers out here at the nuke yesterday to look at this post, specifically the math video that you cite, and our discourse regarding it and the physics of the collapse...

See bold... What does that mean? "Speak"? No.

I also said they corrected me in my nomencluature, so they saw both of our arguments... But hey, I said that too, and you missed that.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 20, 2010 - 10:42am PT
adam, i don't think you're a bad guy in spite of owning a boat i could never afford. but you're just too much here--you post too much, babble too much, and that quotation about speed was for you. maybe i can put it in context:

speed made him want to rap all day
reds laid him too far back
cocaine rose was sweet to his nose
but the price nearly broke his back

he tried PCP, he tried THC,
they didn't quite do the trick
poppers nearly blew his heart
mushrooms made him sick.

acid made him see the light
but he didn't remember it long
hash was a little too weak
smack was a lot too strong

quaaludes made him stumble
booze just made him cry
then he heard of a cat named baba fats
who knew of the perfect high.

(and that's just a fragment of the best poem ever written.)

:-)


but, seriously, bud, we gotta get you calmed down a little and civilized. if you were bringing up things i didn't know about, it'd be a different story. i try to follow this thread and interject when i know something that would pertain. you're making an effing mess of it, but you won't discourage the ol' bulldog of truth. he's an ugly-looking sucker who knows how to do only one thing well: clamp down and hang on to the end. he knows that if he barks too much he'll lose his grip, and i'm thinking that's your big trouble here.

now i hate to go ad hominem on you, but you haven't told about your sailing trip and i'm frankly a tad more interested in that, especially if one of the crew had to take off her bikini top and go up in the bosun's seat to fix a halyard.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 20, 2010 - 10:48am PT
it'd probably be easier to follow you if you didn't quote so much and if ST's software didn't develop a disease about a week ago that makes quotations larger and more important-looking than the regular text. i stopped using their quotation field for that reason--gotten to be so effing irritating. i suggest you work a little harder and synopsize the references--you can really do it in a sentence or two and it'll make it all a lot easier to follow.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 20, 2010 - 11:56am PT
i can't figure out what adam is trying to tell us with that picture. we've never seen a chunk of airliner like that from any of the four airplanes. one of the excuses being given at the pentagon--originally at least, because it's so stupid it won't stand the test of much time--was that the extreme heat "vaporized" the metal. but it didn't seem to vaporize enough body parts to preclude the alleged dna testing.

i do want to see sailing pictures. but maybe they were too busy to take any.
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 20, 2010 - 12:33pm PT
i dont get this. RJ believes all kinds of spew on the internet but wont believe the general populace of ST when they call him an a$$.

rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 20, 2010 - 12:46pm PT
not definitive proof at all, DB, but an indication of something pretty powerful holding it all together, against all normalcy.
Yea... "God". This is the same thing said by many Fundies who deny direct evidence ("not definitive proof").

Same goes for this:
jennie, that's all well and good, but a lot of us don't trust that information.

Fundies don't "trust the information either"... Makes it easier to deny and dismiss.


It leads them to flawed thinking, and making absurd statements such as:
bottom line? [Flight 93] shot down out of the air by our own air force, for whatever reason.

Just try to think about what you just said for a second... What would the debris field look like if a large airliner was shot down while flying miles up in the sky at 500 MPH?

Think about it... I know you won't answer, but at least think about it then ask yourself: "Why did I so confidently believe and say something so stupid?"

The answer is in the Cornell Paper I linked a few replies back.



PS... My boat was only $7K, as I got it for less than the asking price.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 20, 2010 - 01:20pm PT
See this is what I mean... I can easily show that the physics behind much of what you guys believe is impossible, as this is what I generally limit my arguments to. This is also the same reason that I directly quote what I am refuting.

Regarding this piece:

I asked you if you believed that piece hit the ground at 500MPH.


To which you replied:
... what, you think they were slowing down and about to land all those chunks?





Lets see:

The official Locabie crash description says that 46.5 seconds from the explosion, the entire craft was on the ground. It also says radar says the plane broke up into at least 4 major pieces, and was moving vertically within a few seconds after the explosion (I.E., forward speed virtually nil...)

But lets just deal with vertical speed.


31,000 feet/5280= 5.87 miles in 46.5 seconds (or point .775 minutes)

I think that makes it about 450 (plus) mph average speed, straight DOWN. I could be wrong ... am I? It would have to be actually considerably greater than that, it started from ZERO MPH straight down ... an estimate might be more like 900 mph vertical, given that 1/2 the time would have been from 0 to 450 (half slower, and half faster ...) (presume gravitational constant acceleration from ZERO verts until impact)


So, YES, those pieces must have been traveling just about as fast as the Penn crash. Yet they didn't just disappear into the ground. Isn't Scotland famous for their soft peat soil? Is Pennsylvania famous for soft soil? I would expect similar crashes in many way at any case.

Now, let's review...

Flight 93 still had engines doing "work" to overcome "terminal velocity", which for a skydiver is ~122 MPH. Now that big piece has much more surface area than a skydiver to interact with the air which would imediately start to slow it down, as it had 45.6 seconds to do.

You may wish to review this before continuing so as not to shoot yourself in the foot AGAIN:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)


Now, that big piece had no engines doing "work" to overcome this resistance from the air, so how again was it traveling at ANYTHING above terminal velocity?


Curious... Are you the guy in Jolly's 'math' video? As you too have left out some pretty important stuff... GIGO! Hell, you even think it would be 900 MPH if it started at 0 MPH, so you may want to look at a wiki link for balistics [gravity+resistance) as well.


rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 20, 2010 - 01:37pm PT
Tony... Sorry I come across as an ass often, but I just don't suffer fools well.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."

And, I get frustrated and on my period when I start repeating myself.


Before you take exception to my quote, you may wish to look up the precise definitions to: "distinct".
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 20, 2010 - 01:39pm PT
I know what flight it was from dumb-ass, reread my reply, as you just stuck your foot in your mouth again.

I'd ask Jolly to validate what it is that I'm saying BUT:
1) He may not be able to
2) He may not wish to point out a flaw in an 'ally'.
3) Both 1 and 2.


You didn;t click the link did you? That's just 1 reason why you have no idea what you are talking about...

Here's a hint: What is it that slows a skydiver once he opens his parachute?

How does that work?



rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 20, 2010 - 01:45pm PT
So what exactly was wrong with the Video. Can't wait to hear.
I've already posted this in a reply #'s 2 and 4, and even expounded on it... Since you just aren't getting it.

You just aren't 'listening'. On one hand, you agree that his math is bunk, since you can't deny what I pointed out that he himself said... And, this after you said his math was good, and that "math was definate". But then, on the other hand, you ask what's wrong with it, and you can't wait to hear it.

rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 20, 2010 - 02:12pm PT
You still don't understand what "terminal velocity" is, and the effects of air resistance do you? Even when I gave you the info you needed to figure it out, and recognize your error.

Here's another hint:
When the miliotary does HALO (High Altitude Low Opening) jumps, Once they reach "terminal velocity", they actually slow a bit as they desend as the air gets denser the lower they get.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 20, 2010 - 02:21pm PT
Jolly... I see it was #1...

For a diver to reach 600MPH they are in the most aerodymanic position, head down with limbs tucked (like an arrow), wearing clothes designed to reduce drag.

Can that big piece of plane do any of that?

Note - Anticipating this response... One side is painted slick, but the other is not, and this would cause turbulance which whould be unstable, causing it to tumble. In other words... It would consistantly expose the maximal surface area to maximum drag.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 20, 2010 - 02:25pm PT
Your stuff about how a 180 pound human body under control reacts is not on the same scale as an 80 ton airliner.
Now you need to read up on gravity.

Regardless of an objects mass (weight) it will fall at the same rate EXCEPT FOR THE EFFECTS OF RESISTANCE.

And which would offer more "resistance" relative to its weight?

You may wish to go up and read the link I provided on "drag", as that explans the ratios and physics behind this.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 20, 2010 - 02:31pm PT
klimmer, you don't understand washington. for one thing, arab terrorists have a lot better spy network than we do. they knew all those war games were going to be going on, and they also knew that the military would be having so much fun with them that they wouldn't even bother to leave, say, two F-16s back at andrews afb to guard the pentagon, the capitol and the white house. heck, they could've run airliners into a hundred buildings in d.c. that day if they'd'a had enough utility knives.


Rokjox,


I'm pretty sure Tony is being sarcastic. Lol.

In fact, I think it is dripping with sarcasm.

Too funny.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 20, 2010 - 02:37pm PT
I know what terminal velocity is, constant acceleration makes it easier to estimate the speed, thats all.
No... Constant acceleration is part of it, but you have to factor in drag and density [of the air]. Terminal velocity is reached when there is a balncve between the two and no further acceleration from gravity alone can occur DUE to the resistance, UNLESS "work" is done to overcome this... By, say, ENGINES!

Click the link and learn something... Although doing so now, will only embarass you, given that you've reloaded and continue to shoot yourself in the foot, despite being given all the info you need to see that you are wrong.

Same goes for you too Jolly, although not quite as bad. You failed to consider the aerodynamics of that large piece.

Once again, Jolly, something that has the word "dynamic" in it is giving you trouble. How'd you do in differential calculus?
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 20, 2010 - 02:44pm PT
I say the terminal speed needs to be higher...
Now you want to change pyscis to better align with what you wish to believe?
READ THE LINK before you bleed to death.
dirtbag

climber
Jul 20, 2010 - 03:34pm PT
I know, I know...The They, in collusion with the Washington Post, somehow must've fabricated this entire list of victims of the Pentagon crash, including passengers. Because such a scenario sure makes a lot more sense than, you know, a real plane actually crashing into the building.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/911victims/?&page=1
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 20, 2010 - 03:40pm PT
so let me try and be reasonable with you RJ, for just a miute....

There is a good chance the hijacked airliner was shot down, but the government doesn't want to admit it. They would them be liable for billions in lawsuits for being the actual cause of death of the passengers and crew. the court would recognize the need for the shoot down, but would the families? The Government didn't know the crew/pasengers were trying to take over the plane. If they were ... and couldn't have risked it if they did know ...

one airliner is shot down by the government....

but the one that hit the pentagon was not an airliner?

you are right, there is a conspiracy afloat here, nothing makes sense that you are arguing. factor in the explosion that brought down the WTC and you have quite a messy scenario with nothing you are saying makes sense.

you would think that a government capable of planning this would have bundled the package much prettier....

rrradam, your arguments with nitwit rj remind me of this:

edejom

Boulder climber
Butte, America
Jul 20, 2010 - 05:05pm PT
Fact is stranger than fiction...
golsen

Social climber
kennewick, wa
Jul 20, 2010 - 06:53pm PT
I know that I should not really beat a dead horse, particularly one that is rotting. As I stated earlier, I am a PE, Chemical/Environmental.

Richard F. Humenn, PE was the Senior Project Design Engineer for electrical systems for the entire World Trade Center, and he had 60 people working under him. In other words, he was the guy in charge of all electrical at the WTC. A retired licensed professional engineer, he was certified by the States of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington, D.C.

Humenn stated to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:

I was Senior Project Design Engineer in charge of the design of the electrical systems for the WTC Complex in NY.

...
Though an electrical engineer by trade, I was also very familiar with the structures and their conceptual design parameters.


On September 11, I watched the live TV broadcast of the progressive collapse of the World Trade Towers with disbelief, as the mass and strength of the structure should have survived the localized damage caused by the planes and burning jet fuel.

...

Few engineers have as much first-hand knowledge of the Twin Towers as Humenn, so his opinion carries some weight. As he explains, "Though an electrical engineer by trade, I was also very familiar with the structures and their conceptual design parameters."

An Electrical PE is way different than a Structural PE. Apples and oranges.

His opinion is not worth much more than anyone else. Just saying...

Unless someone foots the bill for another "WTC Study", there will not be one. Guess who might foot the bill? Yep, the government, the same ones that you don't trust.

Other food for thought brought up in this thread is how heat impacts the structure. Thermal stress can do much different things to structures than one might surmise (think joints, connections, thermal stress, etc), and you do not need to hit the melting point of a metal (or even get close) in order to have drastic impacts upon a structures ability to deal with design loads. I am dealing with this at temperatures of less than 400 degrees F. This is due to the complexity of the issue.

One other consideration. All this stuff on the internet that is posted MUST be taken with a grain of salt. How many versions are there? Is there configuration control on the data? Just because some web site posts some technical information with regards to 911 do you know that it is the actual data? While this perhaps is a "fun" (and I use that term loosely)exercise, you won't find the answers clicking around the internet. While some of it may stimulate thought and even perhaps some folks may learn something from even the dumbest site, it is naive to think that the internet will provide all the answers.



Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jul 20, 2010 - 07:55pm PT
Nice summary post on the last page Rox

I almost forgot about this one

Bin Laden is accused of being the mastermind, but all his family and friends are not only ALLOWED to leave, they are given FREE FLIGHTS OUT OF THE US, on SPECIALLY arranged flights, when every other flight into or out of America is denied permission to fly ANYWHERE.

Yeah, what sheep we are to let that pass with little comment or investigation by anyone!

Peace

Karl
edejom

Boulder climber
Butte, America
Jul 20, 2010 - 08:00pm PT
Or Rumsfeldt's 2.3 Trillion Dollar question either, Karl.
WBraun

climber
Jul 20, 2010 - 08:04pm PT
Instead NIST, 911 commission and FEMA dazzle you with bullshi't after bullshi't to keep you occupied away from the actual truth ...
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jul 20, 2010 - 10:12pm PT
Really, I mean WTF

I could understand the skepticism of many "deniers" in this thread. The "inside job" scenario could feel implausible to sensible people.

But, on the other hand, the fact Bin Laden's family was specially flown out after 9-11 is not in question, and neither is the 2 trillion missing dollars, but those deniers don't seem willing to acknowledge or call for any investigation about even these facts that are apparently beyond dispute.

That to me, is sheep-like, head in the sand mentality. I can understand, if you feel like the government is already pure fascism and has us by the short hairs, that freedom and democracy are dead, that a person might throw up their arms and say "the government rules us and I wont question them because I might get hurt and it won't do anything"....Well, that's a sad state of affairs and hardly patriotic, but if that's where you're at, admit it to yourself and face the truth.

These are not trivial issues. Something stinks, no matter what you believe

Peace

Karl
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 20, 2010 - 10:36pm PT
Also, contrary to Truther belief, Bin Laden family was flew out after the flight ban was lifted, not before.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp

And since Rumsfield publicly said that the accounting systems for a huge defense department is not working allows Truthers to claim it was all stolen and 9/11 was used to cover it up because he said it on 9/10 the day before 9/11.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Jul 20, 2010 - 10:55pm PT
edejom

Boulder climber
Butte, America
Jul 20, 2010 - 11:10pm PT
"accounting systems for a huge defense department is not working ..."--Monolith


Wow, Monolith--it blows me away that someone who has made a voice on this thread, such as yourself, sweeps a 2.3 TRILLION dollar "accounting error" under the rug...


What DOES matter to you? Being right on the internet, or caring about what toilet YOUR tax dollars got thrown into without explanation or investigation?

Unbelievable--that you gallantly put down any belief that differs with yours, with your head sooo in the sand (or UP the azz of the Government).



edit: You DO know that a TRILLION is a thousand billions? I remember you arguing when the Gov't was pushing for the 700 billion dollar stimulus package that it was TOO much money to not be properly accounted for during allotment.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jul 20, 2010 - 11:35pm PT
Coz wrote

Karl it was reported that the Bin Laden family flew out in every major media outlet.

Honestly guy, you're not doing yourselve any credit

I don't think it was reported in every news outlet and it was even denied for a time.

And what I'm saying is that we the people didn't demand accountability for that act or even an explanation. We let Bush testify with Cheney together, not under oath and with nothing they said recorded. WTF! Why would they even request such a thing when we're talking about a major event?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=September_11,_2001:_Evacuation_of_Saudi_Nationals

Some info about those flights above. Looks like there was a flight on the 13th (when they weren't allowed) but most flew out on the 20th. Still, elsewhere in the country 5000 Muslims were rounded up on a variety of charges and not-charges while the Bin Ladens were allowed to go back without being interviewed.

Interesting aside from

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/200806412758358

"Dale Watson, the FBI's former head of counter-terrorism, said the Saudis "were not subject to serious interviews or interrogations".
Permission to fly
Federal authorities gave permission for the plane to fly.
Tom Kinton, director of aviation at Boston's Logan airport, said: "We were in the midst of the worst terrorist act in history and here we were seeing an evacuation of the bin Ladens! ... I wanted to go the highest levels in Washington."
Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the US who is said to have organised the exodus, met President George Bush on September 13, 2001, two days after the terror attacks.
It is not known if they discussed the repatriation plan.
'No secret flights'
The White House has declined to comment on the claims, but sources told Vanity Fair the Bush administration was confident no secret flights took place.
Mr Clarke, who headed the Counter-terrorism Security Group of the National Security Council, said he did not recall who requested approval for the flights, but believes it was either the FBI or the State Department.
Special Agent John Iannarelli, the FBI's spokesman on counter-terrorism activities, said: "I can say unequivocally that the FBI had no role in facilitating these flights one way or another."

So the Saudi Royal is meeting Bush two days after 9-11, and the 28 pages blanked out of the 9-11 report were reportedly connecting Saudi Royal money to the 9-11 plot. Nothing here to look at I'm sure. Better to invade Iraq than worry about the country that supplied the ringleader and nearly all the hijackers plus some of the money.

Peace

karl

Edit: Some research reveals that it wasn't until 2003 that Richard Clarke confirmed what had only been rumor before, that those flights really happened.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 20, 2010 - 11:47pm PT
The World knew when Michael Moore told them that the Bin Laden Family flew out when everyone else was grounded in his movie Fahrenheit 9-11.

I don't think it was widely known until then. They certainly didn't announce it to the World. It was done quietly. Yes, some papers announced it but it certainly wasn't on the front page. It was buried.

Man, I'm gonna have to watch F9-11 again. It's been some time . . .
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Jul 21, 2010 - 12:59am PT
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 21, 2010 - 01:18am PT
some of you guys are more fanatical than christians! but of course you are all right and the non-believers are like sinners!
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 21, 2010 - 07:08am PT
re: How can Flight 93 have hit the ground in only x seconds, unless it was traveling at an average velovity of y?

The only way to accurately time an even, from start to finish, is with the same clock... Or, with clocks that have been validated to have been synchronized.

Why? I doubt very seriously that all of us have watches that are synchronized, thus the margin of error can be in minutes, not just a few seconds... If we were all in the Valley and witnessed an event, and gave our accounts of it, a single event that we all witnessed WOULD be reported at different times.

When precise times are needed, and seconds matter, there can be little margin for error.

How has the margin of error this would introduce been analyzed, validated, and accounted for in regards to the times you guys put all this irrefutable "proof" on?

I.e., if the time x cannot be validated/verified to be accurate, then the average velocity y cannot be assumed to be accurate.

GIGO!



Again... Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Why is your claim extraordinary? Because it would violate the laws of physics if a piece that large, with that shape, hit the ground at anything near that speed, if falling from 31,000 feet, and had nothing to provide the "work" to overcome the drag.

Plain, and simple. (But not for the simple minds.)

See, this is where Occam's Razor comes in... As we have 2 scenarios:
1) The times reported are inaccurate
2) The laws of physics are violated

Explain to me how it averaged 460mph, yet you are alluding to it meeting thinker air, having the most drag it possible could, yet still average 460mph.
Explain to me how it violated the laws of physics, as you should be familiar with those, engineer.



PS... As I've said, if Flight 93 was "shot down out of the sky, flying miles high at 500 MPH, the debris field would be enormous". This alone FALSIFIES this hypothesis. Unless or course, the gobment was able to secretly fan out and comb through x square miles, and gather all of the pieces, and not be seen by anyone, etc...

rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 21, 2010 - 07:28am PT
According to the wiki site, once an opbject reaches "TV" it's speed is reduced by 1% every 525ft. So if the object was at 460 at 31,000ft, it would be roughly traveling at 189mph when it hit the ground.

However, we cannot use this. We know the average was 460mph. There really is no point argueing, why not spend the time to figure it out.
I told you yesterday, repeatedly... In fact, I even brought up the above that as the atmosphere gets denser, velocity slows (HALO jumper). I told you today, but you guys will not listen to anything that doesn't yield the result that you want.


You accept admitedly bunk math, violations of the laws of physics, and unreasonably complex conspiracies that can't even be pinned down in order to believe in the boogie man.


Don't believe me?
However, we cannot use this.
This is a willful denial and ignoring of the laws of physics... You are putting them aside, when it suites you, in order to maintain your belief.

As an engineer, you should be ashamed of yourself.


GIGO!
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 21, 2010 - 09:29am PT
Hey Jolly,

Regarding your 42 second collapse calculation video and since you are an engineer and have done structural analysis, why is the force of acceleration under gravity not a factor after the block encounters the first floor of resistance?

He calculates the velocity of the block when it hits the floor based on acceleration of gravity, but then no longer uses acceleration of gravity after this point?

Why is this Jolly?
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 21, 2010 - 10:24am PT
Jolly,

You apparently missed my previous reply, questioning the time it took F93 to hit the ground. (See last post on previous page)

Also, you missed where I specifically said, if you want to know where you are wrong [as per the engineers at my nuke that looked at this thread], just "reread my posts regarding it, as they all pretty much agree with me, but cotrrected me on some of my nomenclature".

Also note... This morning over breakfast, one of the Sr Design Engineers here in my Dept (Nuclear Oversight), who once worked for the NRC, laughed his arse off at this, namely you, in that 1) you should know all of this, and 2) even when presented with the info in several posts (not just mine) that you still disregard the laws of physics and all that you should have been taught. He thinks you are deluded.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 21, 2010 - 12:01pm PT
Rok... You're an idiot.

Edit: "Plane" and simple.
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 21, 2010 - 12:08pm PT
rrradam,

you stole my line.

however, i find it really hilarious when Rox uses Jr. High math to argue the complexities of fluid dynamics. next up klimmer, will use his HS physics experiments to bring this discussion up a notch....freaking hilarious.

black ops? the only thing black is where some of these guys have their heads....
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 21, 2010 - 12:22pm PT
RJ, stop belittling yourself. i will put my education and work experience against yours anyday. got a job yet? oh, yes....you work at ST filling the pages with drivel....
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jul 21, 2010 - 12:38pm PT
Rok... You're an idiot

No he isn't and that's the problem. He just thinks he is a lot more
knowledgeable than he is. Rok, you clearly know a lot about radios and
surveying, I guess. It is patently obvious you have zero knowledge of
aerodynamics so leave that alone, OK?

Not unless they have a BIg surface to weight ratio. 100 ton aircraft completely devoid of structural integrity don't have that kind of surface. They generally find the orientation of LEAST resistance and maintain that ... (generally) .. think, like an arrow.

You are contradicting yourself here. If an airliner has lost its structural
integrity then it does have a very high drag coefficient which you are equating
with surface to weight ratio. If it has lost structural integrity then it most
likely is a very poor arrow as it will likely not have much longitudinal or latitudinal stability which an arrow needs.
If it has poor longitudinal or latitudinal stability then the drag is going to be sky high and it isn't going to accelerate much.

That might also explain why the aircraft was perhaps seen in an off axis roll just before crashing, by witnesses!

What the heck is an "off axis roll"? By definition a roll is a rotation about the aircraft's longitudinal axis, period.
There ain't no nuther kind of roll! You're just advertising your lack of knowledge by saying things like this.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 21, 2010 - 01:03pm PT
so you admit that you come across as an ass, and often, and yet you don't suffer fools. got some work to do, adam--on adam.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jul 21, 2010 - 01:28pm PT
Coz wrote


Vanity fair ran a front page article, of course they flew out the Bin Ladens for their safety.
Osama a rougue son of the family
.

That article came out in 2003. For a few years, the flights were in the realm of rumor and were not confirmed by the government. Deniers scoffed at the reports as conspiracy theory until Richard Clarke confirmed them in 2003, years later.

Bin Laden is "reported" to be an outcaste in his family but there are also many reports that secret they still support him. Of course they can't do so publicly. The Saudis are totally in bed with the Wahhabi faction of Islam which is the religious and personnel supplier for Al Queda.

Peace

Karl
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 21, 2010 - 01:34pm PT
rrradam,

you stole my line.

however, i find it really hilarious when Rox uses Jr. High math to argue the complexities of fluid dynamics. next up klimmer, will use his HS physics experiments to bring this discussion up a notch....freaking hilarious.

black ops? the only thing black is where some of these guys have their heads....
What I find disconcerting is Jolly's ability to completely miss such obvious errors regarding the physics/mechanics of this, especially since he 'says' he's a degreed mechanical engineer.

Why disconcerting? Because careful thinking (something he should have been taught) coupled with even an entry level knowledge of the material (something he should be well beyond entry level, if an engineer) will show the obvious flaws, much of what I've tried to get him to see.

Shows the power of confirmation bias.




so you admit that you come across as an ass, and often, and yet you don't suffer fools. got some work to do, adam--on adam.
Yes, I do. (6th & 7th Step). I have no problem recognizing and acknowledging it. No ego here... It allows me to be wrong, acknowledge it, and perhaps learn. I just need more patience with idiots, or at least learn to walk away from them and stop engaging them.



Edit: Rok... Tony was talking to me, hence my name (see bold words in quote above). So, not much of a reader either, are you, as you seemed to wildly misread a simple one line sentence, that was pretty direct (I.e., no ambiguity).

You are embarassing yourself.
stevep

Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
Jul 21, 2010 - 02:55pm PT
Lots of time being spent here on aerodynamics, etc, which may not really matter.

This whole discussion revolves around some assertions that the flight 93 debris field was spread over a large area. Beyond some very small and lightweight debris (which could have been spread by the explosion and wind).

According to the county coroner, no human remains were found outside the immediate impact area.

Not sure if there is other good evidence (beyond posts on conspiracy sites) of any other major debris any distance away. Absent that, there's no reason to disbelieve the official version of events.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-flight-93#roving
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 21, 2010 - 03:08pm PT
Not that it matters much, but I'd just like to highlight yet ANOTHER time when you are talking out of your arse... (see last quote and reply)

So, you are also a drunk? Or have you achieved the status of a dry drunk? Those 12 step programs are SUCH a trial for you, I can tell.
Nope... Recovering 'addict', as in I go to NA (Narcotics Anonymous). 22 years in October, including alcohol, although I wasn't much of a drinker... I did put 40 units of Bacardi 151 in my arm once, and that proved to be really stupid, as it was way too much considering my weight at the time. Sponsor people too.

In regards to:
Never been in one myself, but my wife used to run those programs.
NOBODY "runs" any of the 12 Step Programs... NOBODY has any authority at any meeting/group... At most, people are "trusted servants" (see the 12 Traditions), so you are full of sheite (muslim).


So, not only do you INCORRECTY assume, but you once again show where you don;t know what you're talking about, leading me to believe that you just make things up as you go along.


Oh, wait... That was just an ad hominem, right?
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 21, 2010 - 03:16pm PT
Wow, dude... I guess you told me.

Your debating skills are just too much for me.


Edit: This still applies, even after your obvious edits, AFTER I made this reply.
Guess I should have quoted you again, eh?

Granted, I edit some replies (for wording) too, but NEVER after someone replies to it.
dirtbag

climber
Jul 21, 2010 - 03:22pm PT
Worth a repost, because I like what I write.

I know, I know...The They, in collusion with the Washington Post, somehow must've fabricated this entire list of victims of the Pentagon crash, including passengers. Because such a scenario sure makes a lot more sense than, you know, a real plane actually crashing into the building.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/911victims/?&page=1
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 21, 2010 - 03:35pm PT
I am coming in and out of a brightly lit workarea into a dim computer room/guest room.

rj's self admission that he isnt too worried about what other people write...


like when a model airplane loses a wing and it rotates, like an autogyro, fluttering down. I used to build and fly little gas motored powered airplanes controlled on a long wire string ... anybody remember those?

thanks for confirming your expertise in fluid dynamics and drag coefficients...

i once shot off a model rocket too, but i refrain from thinking of myself as a rocket scientist...
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 21, 2010 - 03:35pm PT
Lots of time being spent here on aerodynamics, etc, which may not really matter.

Steve... The talk of aerodynamics came in after some posted that this piece from the Lockerbie bombing came down at 450MPH or greater, after falling from 31,000 feet:

One retard, guess who, even believes that his math shows it could have been up to 900 MPH.

The reasoning being, if it came down at the same speed as Flight 93, Flight 93 should be in the same condition.


Simply understanding "terminal velocity" shows that this is IMPOSSIBLE, yet they just won't accept physics. They through physics out, citing the time it take to fall as 45 seconds, yet will not address my points about how accurate this time in a reply two pages back (last post).


So, the reason it is relevant, is it serves two purposes:
1) It dirrectly refutes a claim made by these conspiracy theorists
2) It show the confirmation bias, in that even though it violates the laws of physics, they still believe it
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 21, 2010 - 03:38pm PT
steve,

didnt you know that Popular Mechanics is on it?
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 21, 2010 - 03:47pm PT
adam,

I think you failed to get them to understand Garbage In, Garbage Out...

there is little assurance that many of the "facts" quoted on this thread are truly Factual...
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 21, 2010 - 03:51pm PT
try this out RJ; however, beware that what adam was trying to tell you was that your numbers may be WRONG.

[quote]http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/termv.html[/quote]

drag coefficients are normally found empirically and therefore, for a falling wing will not be available.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 21, 2010 - 04:10pm PT
Can you show in any way that it is possible for something to travel 31,000 feet in 46.5 seconds without it reaching MORE THAN 460 miles an hour from zero vertical speed?





I REALLY want to see your proof of THAT.


Once again (how many times now?)... You are missing things that have been said more than once...
I wrote:
They throw physics out, citing the time it take to fall as 45 seconds, yet will not address my points about how accurate this time in a reply two pages back (last post).

You may want to let your eyes adjust, so you can actually read the replies, then maybe you will understand... Although it is unlikely, as you just don't care to understand. It appears that you are very happy, reading, typing, and even thinking in the dark.



Ya know... My engineer friend out here (the nuke where 'poorly educated' me works as an inspector) that laughed at all of you this morning, asked me "why I even bother, since you guys will never listen". I told him that I am stupid, and just can't help myself. (step 1 & 2)
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 21, 2010 - 04:30pm PT
Re: my challenge to provide validation for the accuracy of the time it took that Lockerbie piece to hit the ground...

Let me make a prediction...

You, and/or another "truther/s" will search through the 9/11 conspiracy sites looking to answer this with something that can be verified, ofailing to do so, you'll now switch to google. Because, since you are so confident, it HAS to be there, right? (Thinking, "Man, I just wanna cram in rrrETARD's face!")

Failing to find something that can actually be validated/verified, you all will mist likely just ignore this, and continue to confidently say "46.5 seconds is proof...". Or, come up with some lame ass excuse to dismiss it. It's what you guys all to often do regarding anything that shows you are wrong.
(I.e., Ignore... Ignore... Deny... Deny...)

See, the onus is on you to show how all the numbers (time) is accurate, in order to show that the laws of physics have been violated. The problem is, you accept what you read on the net as fact if it agrees with what you think, even despite the laws of physics. Compounding this, whether wilfull or through ignorance, you are not applying the laws of physics appropriately.



Now, the right thing to do, is look, then report back that you cannot validate the time, and thus admit that this does not warrant the "proof" that you thought it did.

But you CANNOT do that... You guys just don't have it in you.




Man... If I could only pick the winning lottery numbers.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Jul 21, 2010 - 04:41pm PT
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 21, 2010 - 04:52pm PT
the clocks on both the radar and in the black boxes are QUITE accurate. I got the time off of websites sure. That is how it is done now.
I saw it on the internet, it must be true!

That's not how it works... For conspiracy theorists, perhaps, but not in a court of law, or even using the scientific method.

Do you understand what the words "validation" and "verify" mean?



GIGO!


I see that I was right in my prediction:
Failing to find something that can actually be validated/verified, you all will mist likely just ignore this, and continue to confidently say "46.5 seconds is proof...". Or, come up with some lame ass excuse to dismiss it. It's what you guys all to often do regarding anything that shows you are wrong.
(I.e., Ignore... Ignore... Deny... Deny...)

. . .

Man... If I could only pick the winning lottery numbers.

monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 21, 2010 - 04:54pm PT
flight 93 did not come down the way lockerbie did.

Whats the source that said Lockerbie came down in 46 seconds from 31K?

rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 21, 2010 - 04:57pm PT

Lastly...
The radar shows the exact moment of the explosion, because the transponder cut out after 180 milliseconds according to reports. Almost instantaneously; within 3 seconds the plane broke up and showed 4 traces on the radar, a very clear signal that, gee, something was very wrong at that instant. The "black boxes" were also recovered in Lockerbie. Their clocks will NOT have minutes of discrepancy in them. They won't have seconds of discrepancy. $10,000 clocks are GOOD nowadays. The radar's clock is the same.
22 years ago is "NOWADAYS"?

Again... Show the validation, as there are no links in your "edited" post, at least not yet. You said they were there, but not yet. Hurry up and edit it in there.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jul 21, 2010 - 05:06pm PT
That also looks like 29 minutes from when it went from FL 350 to
FL 410 and then back down. The 'dive' looks like it took 22 minutes!
But then we all know what the Illuminati can do with purported simple data.

Girls, it is a simple flick of a well-marked switch to turn off the transponder. Every beginner pilot learns how to do that.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 21, 2010 - 05:10pm PT
What I can find in the references cited (do you know how to check those?), says nothing on how the clocks are validated to be synchronized to GMT. So just saying "they are QUITE accurate" is not enough. The onus is on you, since you believe that the laws of physics have been violated.

Also, note that you are using to get your numbers, the time of the explosion, and the time the box stopped, assuming that the box worked until impact. I have not been able to find what it's (Lockheed Model 209 DFDR) power source was, can you find this please? As if it is powered by the plane, then it stopped well before it hit the ground.


Tag... You're it, "smart guy".


This moron is leaving the nuke, as I'm off.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 21, 2010 - 05:11pm PT
well, i thought he admitted to being an ass but now i can't find it. edited out? anyone else see that?
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 21, 2010 - 05:18pm PT
From the document in the footnotes of the Lockerbie Wikipage:

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_503158.pdf

The time interval between the explosion and the wing impact was established in Appendix C as 46.5 ±2seconds. Based on the above times and distances the mean linearspeed achieved by the wing would have been about 440 kts.

The plane broke up in pieces, the wings, the fuselage, and the cockpit.

The wings came down in 46.5 seconds. Whats so difficult to believe about that?
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 21, 2010 - 05:21pm PT
well, i thought he admitted to being an ass but now i can't find it. edited out? anyone else see that?


Ummm... Right here:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1199984&tn=1080#msg1222636

And again, here when Rok thought you were talking to him:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1199984&tn=1140#msg1223508



So, ummm... I'll just leave it at that, instead of being an ass. (wink)
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 21, 2010 - 05:35pm PT
Blackboxes of that era record immediate data to volatile ram before writing to flash. That's why you lose the last few seconds of a crash, it has not been written to flash.

The valuable data is what happened right when things went wrong, usually more then a few seconds before a violent impact halts the black box.
edejom

Boulder climber
Butte, America
Jul 21, 2010 - 06:45pm PT
What about the missed missle idea?


Debris scattered over (up to) 8 miles and a deep hole with no plane parts sure makes this scenario fit Occam's Razor quite nicely--for both sides of this arguement...
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 21, 2010 - 06:56pm PT
See, the onus is on you to show how all the numbers (time) is accurate, in order to show that the laws of physics have been violated. The problem is, you accept what you read on the net as fact if it agrees with what you think, even despite the laws of physics. Compounding this, whether wilfull or through ignorance, you are not applying the laws of physics appropriately.

adam, i think rj has proven that if he throws a turdball directly over his head it will hit him in the face. so there is at least one newtons law he has demonstrated...sad thing is he can't LEARN from that.
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 21, 2010 - 06:58pm PT
JDX WAS an airline expert, he WAS/IS a major player in this argument, and he was run off by the braying of asses, to our loss. I would have MUCH more liked to have heard HIS take on this crash. But as he is gone, I find I must take on the hyenas, though he would have been better.

rj - go visit his website, he will love a c0ksuking, snivelling, $hit 4 branes, unemployed mentally ill dimwit slobbering on his every word....
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 21, 2010 - 07:09pm PT
The debris that was scattered miles away was paper and insulation downwind from the crash site.

RJ, if you post a bunch of PFT links and click on them a few hundred times, JDX will be summoned like a genie, cuz the loser monitors his hits looking for sites he can dump his latest crap and generate traffic to sell CD/DVD's. That's how he came last time.
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 21, 2010 - 07:17pm PT
rj would like to see kermit the frog so long as kermit agreed with him....validates rj's life these days as he cannot get his respect anywhere else so needs to get it here.

BTW, rj, i tried to be nice and respectful earlier to you, even though it's hard for me to respect a turd, and you lashed out. it's alright dude, there are med's for this stuff....
edejom

Boulder climber
Butte, America
Jul 21, 2010 - 07:35pm PT
Since you're back and answering questions, Monolith:


"accounting systems for a huge defense department is not working ..."--Monolith


Wow, Monolith--it blows me away that someone who has made a voice on this thread, such as yourself, sweeps a 2.3 TRILLION dollar "accounting error" under the rug...


What DOES matter to you? Being right on the internet, or caring about what toilet YOUR tax dollars got thrown into without explanation or investigation?

Unbelievable--that you gallantly put down any belief that differs with yours, with your head sooo in the sand (or UP the azz of the Government).



edit: You DO know that a TRILLION is a thousand billions? I remember you arguing when the Gov't was pushing for the 700 billion dollar stimulus package that it was TOO much money to not be properly accounted for during allotment.





What do you have to say for yourself on this?
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jul 21, 2010 - 07:35pm PT
Relax Bros

There no debate if there's not debate, and it's human nature to hang on to your perspective, so no need to get all aggro here.

If you hung out in person, you'd have a good time

Peace

Karl
MeatBomb

Gym climber
Boise, I dee Hoe
Jul 21, 2010 - 07:41pm PT
BlowCocks:
But that poster (rrradam) was absolutely right. rrradam IS an ass. And I ain't winking MF. You are an ass, and I will say it to your face, punk.

hahahaha! No worries rrrrAdam as RokJox is just a jobless windbag who walks his bike up hills and sponges off his family. He is all talk, which is mostly inaccurate BS, and is as dumb as a box of Rox.
MeatBomb

Gym climber
Boise, I dee Hoe
Jul 21, 2010 - 07:44pm PT
BlowJox cries
JDX WAS an airline expert, he WAS/IS a major player in this argument, and he was run off by the braying of asses, to our loss

JDX was a fraud and a poseur. It's no wonder you liked him. When are you getting run off?
WBraun

climber
Jul 21, 2010 - 07:47pm PT
Karl Baba -- "If you hung out in person, you'd have a good time."

No way Jose.

We'd be at each others throats, going for the juggler.

Couple a hard right hooks to the jaw.

Some eye gouging and head butts thrown in for good measure.

Over all good abuse to the "meat package" by hard hits to the kidney area.

You never "lived" in Camp 4 until you've survived one of these ......
MeatBomb

Gym climber
Boise, I dee Hoe
Jul 21, 2010 - 08:01pm PT
RokCocks
Lots of 12 step programs. The wife has worked at a half dozen or so rehab centers, of varying sorts. As a drug and alcohol counselor.

Is it tough for her to come home from work right into a work environment? I feel for her, and the rest of your poor family. Maybe you should do the right thing for not only yourself, but the SuperTopo community, and your family.
Mimi

climber
Jul 21, 2010 - 10:46pm PT
MOre force Werner; direct frontal assault to the package with full monkey claw. Or bolt like Bolt. I like the sprint option better now that my grip isn't what it used to be.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 21, 2010 - 10:54pm PT
Yes edejom, we know there's massive fraud and bad accounting in the defense department and contractors. I want it cleared up as much as anyone.

What's your point?
Mimi

climber
Jul 21, 2010 - 11:09pm PT
I'll beat you to it. Have you figured out yet that oil isn't a chlorinated radioactive nucleotide more toxic than plutonium?
WBraun

climber
Jul 21, 2010 - 11:19pm PT
Back when we smoked that airplane weed from the Merced Lake we probably inhaled more than 2 grams of oil it was soaked in.

You think?
Mimi

climber
Jul 21, 2010 - 11:27pm PT
Twas the oil of wisdom. But bess not be talkin bout that shite hee-ah.

I like olive oil the best. Real peppery and green. Great to dip olive bread in.
edejom

Boulder climber
Butte, America
Jul 22, 2010 - 12:13am PT
Mono, no point--carry on...
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 22, 2010 - 07:23am PT
Rok...
But that poster (rrradam) was absolutely right. rrradam IS an ass. And I ain't winking MF. You are an ass, and I will say it to your face, punk.
Wow... You sure told me, again!

An internet tough guy. Perhaps you'll get the chance some day... Where do you climb? I'm pretty transparent, not just an anonymous username, as a simple google search will show who I am, where I live, etc... In fact, many on this site know who I am. I have no problem saying I can be an ass, and that I'm in recovery, because I don't live vicariously through some internet persona like a D&D character.

Bravado on the net is pretty laughable, guy... Worse than the kid who taunts others while standing next to the teacher at recess... That was you, wasn't it? Anybody can be 6' tall, undefeated in a fight, suave lady killen MENSAn brainiacs, when they are likely in their 30's, posting from their twin bed (with Scooby Doo sheets) still at mom and dad's house, and look like and talk like the comic book store guy from the Simpsons:


Back on track now...

Again... I have yet to see any verification of the numbers you provide, and even Jolly take as irrefutable fact (why? 'cause it's in an 'official report'? [irony]) other than someone else showing (with again unverified numbers) that the "wing" came down in 46.5 seconds, so you believe that it all hit the ground at the same time, regardless of shape/size and the drag it would offer.

Also, since we are to use the time the data recorder stopped as the time the large piece hit the ground, was the data recorder in that piece? Nope... Yet, you CONFIDENTLY believe that since the data recorder stopped at that time, all pieces came down at that time, thus ALL the numbers are "QUITE" accurate, thus irrefutable.

The way it is done is:
A+B+C+D=E

Not:
A=E

Your thinking, and Jollie's (you're not off the hook either) is not disciplined. The "laws of physics" don't describe physics or the universe as much as they limit and describe they way we must think (requires "disciplined thinking"*) about things... They outline the boundaries, and going outside those boundaries is going outside the laws of physics. Sure, it may be convenient to do so, but the results tend to be unreasonable and absurd. GIGO!


More food for thought...
(though, since it seems you are dieting, others may chew on this)

Do a little research and you will see that most WWII dive bombers reached a max speed in a dive of between 275 and 380 MPH, and these are aircract aerodynamicaly designed to fly, and dive with engines running at full throttle, and some with "dive brakes" deployed to slow the craft enough to maintain manuverability.

Now before you jump on dive brakes... You may want to research them first, to see their purpose and the amount of drag they added to the craft, and that not all were equipped with this feature.


So... We have planes specifically designed to FLY, in a dive, with engines running, but these go slower than your big piece of the Lockerbie plane, that has no aerodynamic properties anymore, that you believe was going 450MPH (and even up to 900MPH, according to your math) when it hit the ground.




Jolly... Again (what 4th or 5th time now?), I detailed my issues with what little of your vidoe I could watch (~25%) in items #2 and #4 pages back, in which the engineers I've shown this thread to pretty much agree.. And, you have not addressed these but instead admitted that you know he uses the incorrect formulas, oversimplifies the numbers, yet you still hold it up as proof. In fact, you even contradict yourself, as in one thread, you state that you never implied nor believe that the structure remaining would have arrested the fall, THEN you cite his saying that if his math is done correctly the fall would have been arrested, THEN you change to it would have been arrested and fallen like a tree. You confidently chose the speculation that supports your view the most, as an example "Molten Steel", which was verified "HOW"? Despite this lack of disciplined thinking, you confidently hold up "molten steel" as a proof.

Again, the way it works is:
A+B+C+D=E

Not:
A=E

Confirmation bias.

You keep saying that (paraphrasing) "all I do is parrot the official version", yet I never do this, as all I do is poke hole in the obvious and demonstratably false things I see said. I do this with plain reason, logic, and basic physics, and even showing the absurd math.

Examples... "The fire was hot enough to melt the steel..." Nobody says this, yet you guys keep saying that's what we believe. "There is no way the building could fall in less than 42 seconds, because..." Absurd, both considering the dynamic loads, and the absurd math you confidently cite as proof. "Huge conspiracy requiring literally thousands of people, and explosives on every floor, remote controlled air-plains, GWB evil empire..." All of this are easily shown to be absurd to believe. "The huge piece of plane in the Lockerbie bombing came down at 450MPG - 900MPH" This is also eaily shown to be false, by physics, and plenty of examples where clear thinking considering things like 'drag', 'skydivers', dive bombers' show that it is absurd.
Note - That these are just a few things that I have addressed, so, please, show me where I parrot the 'official version'. In fact, many of the pics I post, I get from both 'believer' and 'truther' sites, as well as independant ones.


And, again... Please explain how you, as an engineer, believe that the Lockerbiw piece can fall at greater than TV, as you FINALY seemed to get it, but then say that you "can't accept the known physics of TV, because it fell in just 46.5 seconds".

Careful, clear, disciplined thinking will show you that this can't be the case. Even hints like the 'dive bombers' should help, but they just don't when you suffer from such confirmation bias.

And since you missed it, or may be ignoring it... Another user, regarding your super math video proof, asked you:
Hey Jolly,

Regarding your 42 second collapse calculation video and since you are an engineer and have done structural analysis, why is the force of acceleration under gravity not a factor after the block encounters the first floor of resistance?

He calculates the velocity of the block when it hits the floor based on acceleration of gravity, but then no longer uses acceleration of gravity after this point?

Why is this Jolly?
It appears he got further into it than I could before it stopped.

No answer? But the video is still valid, right?


GIGO! As far as your lack of disciplined thinking, if your brain were my 4 or 6 year old, it would be in "time out".



Dude, you are over the place.



* re: disciplined thinking...
The lack of this is what is requiring me to italicize such words as most, as much as, such, etc... Because you guys miss these words and assume ALL.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 22, 2010 - 08:57am PT
Read #4 again, as I gave you detailed issues with his math... Namely, subtracting the static numbers (top floors weight from wild ass guess) form each other, THEN applying f=ma to determine dynamic loads, and this is not the way you do it.

To calc the force (dynamic load of the top floors impacting the next floor), he needs to calc the dynamic load of the top floors, not use absurdly incorrect math to yield an absurdly incorrect number.



I went off the information provided. I did no research what so ever. With the numbers given, the average speed was 460mph. That means at some point it was going a lot faster, and at some point it was going slower. All I ever said, is that it was probably fairly close, as there is no way to tell.
As an engineer, you should have seen the big waving red flag! That this would violate the laws of physics. You in fact later acknowledge this, to some degree, then suspend the laws of physics... Here, let me quote you:
this is a good little problem. Someone want to figure it out.

According to the wiki site, once an opbject reaches "TV" it's speed is reduced by 1% every 525ft. So if the object was at 460 at 31,000ft, it would be roughly traveling at 189mph when it hit the ground.

However, we cannot use this. We know the average was 460mph. There really is no point argueing, why not spend the time to figure it out.

See... "However, we cannot use this" (the laws of physics), since you "know the everage speed was 460MPH". You know that 'how'? Unverified assumptions carry more weight than the laws of physics?

Red flag! Both the one you missed, and now in your thinking processes.

As an engineer, you should've immediately questioned the numbers and looked into this, instead of willfully "not using" the laws of physics to guide you. Instead, you tossed the laws, and "knew" that the speed was 460MPH. Sloppy... Just like you math video.



GIGO! Because you lack disciplined thinking, likely due to confirmation bias.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 22, 2010 - 09:37am PT
okay, adam, roll up yer sleeves. we were talking about 9/11 and now it's the lockerbie crash. what is the gist of the argument here?
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 22, 2010 - 09:52am PT
No need to roll up the sleeves for me... But you may want to get your vision checked, as not only did you think I edited out a post (missed it, even when you were looking for it), you seemed to have missed this post, just two pages back, that even had a big pretty picture in it that explains what you just asked:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1199984&tn=1160#msg1223643


Does that answer your question?


If not, here's a hint from that post:
The reasoning being, if it came down at the same speed as Flight 93, Flight 93 should be in the same condition.
RJ introduced into this thread the argument that that big piece came down at 450MPH, just like Flight 93, but it wasn't smashed to bits. "Prooving" that it was a missle that destroyed Flight 93.

Get it now? His "proof" is absurd.

And remember, I don't "profess the 'official version' is correct" as all you you seem to keep saying, as I generally limit my arguments to statements and beliefs that can be shown to be unreasonable or even impossible, and I post why. I do this independantly of the "official version".
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 22, 2010 - 10:41am PT
Jolly said:

His math was very simple, and straight forward. On a video for the world to destroy, if they could. The point is the same. That amount of mass would not have crushed the entire structure.

Yes, his math was so simple, he forgot to factor in the force of gravity after contact with the first floor of resistance.

Why did YouTube Genius Boy suspend the laws of physics, Jolly.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 22, 2010 - 10:48am PT
sorry, adam, that doesn't cut it. we were talking about 9/11 and you're dumping a lockerbie photo in here. i can't follow the sh#t you spew out, and as the other guys say, you contradict yourself. you need to slow down and say a lot more with a lot fewer words.

i guess you're admitting to making an ass of yourself. the next step will be making a fool of yourself if you're not careful. try to be a better man. do it for your kids. they'll thank you some day.
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 22, 2010 - 11:01am PT
sheesh tony, i am pretty certain it was RJ that brought up the lockerbie stuff and the pics.

you see, when folks struggle with their points, can't except new information (such as hte Laws of Physics) then they go out of their way to find any shred of another off-topic item that might support their wild claims....that is where wolfboy (RJ) got hooked up.

adam's message has been pretty much the same and consistent. that is you truthers have so much invested emotionally into this that if their was a contradictory fact to your way of "thinking" (and i use that erm loosely) that you will not accept it.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 22, 2010 - 12:22pm PT
you have to understand one thing about truthers, hawkeye. most of us started out right where you guys are. we accepted all the anomalies. we accepted all seemingly rational explanations to explain this one and that one. but at one point, it was just too much. a big logjam came loose and it started making a hell of a lot of sense from another point of view. it takes awhile to get used to the idea, believe me, and then you have to start rethinking a lot of things you took for granted, questioning so much of the sacred. but you guys are the ones with the big investment now. we have nothing to lose for being wrong and lots of times we wish we were. these little ego spats don't mean a thing to me. i've argued this stuff in much more dignified forums and questioned real experts on both sides. the experts on the government side all stand on shaky legs and keep the back doors open for a speedy retreat.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 22, 2010 - 12:57pm PT
sorry, adam, that doesn't cut it. we were talking about 9/11 and you're dumping a lockerbie photo in here.
So, let me get this right... You 'truthers' can bring anything up you like that you think proves your point, but if someone addresses it, and proves it to false, then THEY (the 'believers') are bringing up stuff that doesn't belong?

Hell, looking through this thread would who you, that, as I said, it was RJ that introduced the photo and the false analogy as "proof".



OK... After I explained it to you in the above reply of mine, I asked in ther same reply:
Do you get it now?

I see that you don't, and now have a better understanding as to how more complicated issues would be well beyond your grasp.

Hell... You can't even find a single reply, just a few pages back, that you saw and replied to, even when you are looking for it, and surmise that 'it must have been edited out'. Perhaps I am part of the big conspiracy, an agent of the Illumianti, sent here to the taco stand to keep up the charade because you guys are onto us. Yea... That's what it must be! The whole world is out to get you, and I'm part of it.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 22, 2010 - 01:02pm PT
Gonna cal BS on this, Tony:
i've argued this stuff in much more dignified forums and questioned real experts on both sides. the experts on the government side all stand on shaky legs and keep the back doors open for a speedy retreat. .

Simple for you to prove you did as you say though... Link please.
I'd love to see these "real experts on both sides" that you have questioned. Bonus points if you had them in retreat.



Ooooh.... Busted talking out of your arse. Actually... What do they call people that make things up about themselves and state them as fact? Liars.



Link please.



You penned yourself into a corner now, as you can easily give us a link to said form, with said experts on both sides that you have questioned. Unless of course, you are lying, then all you can do is ignore this and/or offer up some retort, but still sans link.


See, this is what I have been doing in this thread... Poking holes in, and exposing such obvious crap for what it is, crap.

As I've said, I copy and paste the crap into a quote, then directly refute it.



Prove me wrong... Link please. I will gladly acknowledge I am wrong, and even apologize, as you will deserve it if you are not lying.

It's as simple as copy and paste into this thread by hitting this button:
But you are lying, arent you? Which is why you cannot/will not provide a link.



Link please.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jul 22, 2010 - 03:07pm PT
This thread has become a lot like a geeky climber physic thread where everybody has the math to show that a daisy fall will kill you and anchors are sure to fail in a factor 2 fall.

Lots of math, many, many untold variables can't be accounted for and are left out, and the result of the math proves little, because many of us have actually taken daisy falls and lived to tell about it.

Follow the people, the money, and other events.

Peace

karl

edit: I will say one thing is kinda strange. There buildings collapsing completely is so unusual in the first place, and the towers collapsed from a fire at the top, and building 7 collapse from a fire in the bottom, and yet they all collapsed almost perfectly into their footprints. What are the chances? Sadly the chances of either the conspiracy theory or the official conspiracy theory are both slim. Who knows?
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 22, 2010 - 03:45pm PT
just can the scolding, adam, and speak to the issue. you'd be the dad from hell if you talk to your kids this way, but i'll bet you're the sweetest guy in the world with them because you rag on everyone here.

i do believe i've talked about ronald o. hamburger here, a real expert. you're so full of your manic mode that your attention span doesn't last two posts, and you're so dependent on clicking your links that you can't begin to comprehend anything without it.
_

"sadly the chances of either the conspiracy theory or the official conspiracy theory are both slim."

so, can we have the "fat chance" karl baba theory? bet you're afraid to give it out. you won't be able to strike your above-the-fray stance of reasonability after that.
golsen

Social climber
kennewick, wa
Jul 22, 2010 - 04:07pm PT
Karl
I will say one thing is kinda strange. There buildings collapsing completely is so unusual in the first place, and the towers collapsed from a fire at the top, and building 7 collapse from a fire in the bottom, and yet they all collapsed almost perfectly into their footprints. What are the chances?

This was posted earlier in the thread.

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1199984&msg=1218120#msg1218120

Unfortunately, many posters on this thread disbelieve the experts at NIST.

Read this link,
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm


Further, other posters have maintained that the WTC was designed to withstand impact from a 707. Here is what NIST said about it....

As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”

I have over 20 years of Engineering experience on some extremely complex projects. That bold statement is unfortunately, common place as there are always difficult questions and sometimes there are "expert" opinions on what constitutes acceptable "defense in depth", or in other words, the calculations that would support certain assertions. I was first employed as an Engineer in MO, the Show Me state.

I am showing you now, experts detailing how the WTC failed within the NIST report. This is the same type of information that many conspiracy theorists blow off because the technical explanation does not match their own belief.

Peace back at you bro..

rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 22, 2010 - 04:10pm PT
Gonna cal BS on this, Tony:
i've argued this stuff in much more dignified forums and questioned real experts on both sides. the experts on the government side all stand on shaky legs and keep the back doors open for a speedy retreat. .

Simple for you to prove you did as you say though... Link please.
I'd love to see these "real experts on both sides" that you have questioned. Bonus points if you had them in retreat.



Ooooh.... Busted talking out of your arse. Actually... What do they call people that make things up about themselves and state them as fact? Liars.



Link please.



You penned yourself into a corner now, as you can easily give us a link to said form, with said experts on both sides that you have questioned. Unless of course, you are lying, then all you can do is ignore this and/or offer up some retort, but still sans link.


See, this is what I have been doing in this thread... Poking holes in, and exposing such obvious crap for what it is, crap.

As I've said, I copy and paste the crap into a quote, then directly refute it.



Prove me wrong... Link please. I will gladly acknowledge I am wrong, and even apologize, as you will deserve it if you are not lying.

It's as simple as copy and paste into this thread by hitting this button:
But you are lying, arent you? Which is why you cannot/will not provide a link.



Link please.
Didn't think so.

And I do "speak to the issue"... When I see something posted as fact, that I can easily disprove, I copy and paste the false statement or belief, and show where and/or how it is wrong. Transparently, no lying or making sh#t up, often with the relevant material to show this beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt..

Just so happens that the last "issue" was you LYING trying to add some dredibility to your arguments... You got caught. There is no doubt that you just got caught lying.


And I don't "rag on everyone here"... I ridicule those worthy of ridicule (very few actually) because they confidently believe and state things that are incorrect, some even demonstratably absurd. BUT, this is AFTER I calmly try to explain where they are wrong... When people say "show me", are shown, only to ignore it, then say "show me", they are worthy of ridicule.
golsen

Social climber
kennewick, wa
Jul 22, 2010 - 04:23pm PT
I think this was also posted...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-planes


I got to give it to the conspiracy theorists, they are able to spew out lots of words and thats not counting this thread...
WandaFuca

Social climber
From the gettin place
Jul 22, 2010 - 04:51pm PT
The crux of these kind of threads is, convincing the idiot that he's an idiot, when he thinks he knows a lot (but doesn't), and has access to info from a lot of other internet idiots who think they know a lot (but don't), while at the same time he is trying to convince you that you're an idiot who thinks he knows a lot (but doesn't) and has access to a lot of other internet idiots who think they know a lot (but don't).
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 22, 2010 - 04:55pm PT
Jolly said:

Dropping the top 15 floors, 15 feet creates a huge impact force. Using that force at the time of impact, he was able to determine the deceleration of that mass.

So Jolly, the 15 floors were accelerating at 9.8m/sec^2 when it hit the first foor. He then calculates the floor slowed the acceleration by .0223m/sec^2. Fair enough, even though the calculation reasoning is absurd.

But instead of subtracting .0223 from 9.8, he uses -.0223 as the acceleration for the block all the way to the ground and does not consider that gravity is still acting on the block.

Does that make sense to you Jolly, being an engineer and all?
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 22, 2010 - 04:57pm PT
Jolly, as I've said, NUMEROUS times... He is doing the math all wrong, then says there is a net upward force.

Go look where he does this up till 3:29 in that video... It still locks up on me after that.

But the FACT is, he is doing this:

-669,700,620
+668,181,816 = ma

Note that the bottom figure is the MASS of the top floors, yet he has is using that as a force (f=ma, remember?)

And comes up with:
a = -.0223 m/s^2 NEGATIVE ACCELERATION

That is f*#king absurd, and you should see that... Especially since it's been spelled out for you NUMEROUS times.

In order to calculate f:

You need to multiply m (the top of the building) times a (gravity)

THEN all that DYNAMIC force (f, remember) is what smashes into the floor below it, adding to m (mass), subtracting resistance, then applying a (acceleration) AGAIN to the already moving increased mass. Rinse and REPEAT all the way down.

If, as has been said (I wish I could get that far into the vid), he is NOT calcing in the continued acceleration from gravity working on it all the way down, and only subtracting for what he beleives resistance will offer, that is equally just as absurd.


And really calls into question your ability to think clearly.


GIGO!
WandaFuca

Social climber
From the gettin place
Jul 22, 2010 - 05:01pm PT
there is a net upward force.


The Illuminati must have access to anti-gravity technology.
dirtbag

climber
Jul 22, 2010 - 05:07pm PT
there is a net upward force.



The Illuminati must have access to anti-gravity technology.


Pssst...it's upsidasium.

Four prominent Illuminati/The They members who were involved in this and the 9/11 plot:


L to R: Boris, Natasha and Fearless Leader


L to R: Bullwinkle, Rocky, and the sinister Mr. Big.

golsen

Social climber
kennewick, wa
Jul 22, 2010 - 05:17pm PT
The crux of these kind of threads is, convincing the idiot that he's an idiot, when he thinks he knows a lot (but doesn't), and has access to info from a lot of other internet idiots who think they know a lot (but don't), while at the same time he is trying to convince you that you're an idiot who thinks he knows a lot (but doesn't) and has access to a lot of other internet idiots who think they know a lot (but don't).

Dooooooooooooooooooooood,

you seem to know a lot about idiots.

monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 22, 2010 - 05:27pm PT
Jolly said:

#1 - if it is that easy for a building to fall within itself, why do demolition companies spend months figuring the points, and sequence to bring down a building. If we could just take out one floor and let "GRAVITY" do its trick, using this phenomenal "Dynamic" physics, which is complete and absolutely flawless. Then why don't we do it. Why?

Cuz they don't want the building to spew debris for hundreds of yards and damage other buildings. Kinda like what happened to WTC7 you know.

You do know that more then 20 buildings were damaged that day right?

#2 - Do you really believe that two completely seperate impacts, and different levels and angles would bring the same result. Wouldn't the one that was hit lower, have the faster rate of Fall using your theories? Why is it they are within a second of each other.

They were not within a second of each other. The best videos and audio show at least 3 seconds difference.

Coffee break over, back to work.

WandaFuca

Social climber
From the gettin place
Jul 22, 2010 - 06:00pm PT
That mass that already decelerated. would then collect the remaining mass of the floor it collided with. At the point of impact..... 0.000001inches the deceleration in his exercise was 0.023. Now that mass doesn't have another 15ft of air to fall thru, it has 15ft of mass to fall thru. It would continually decelerate thru that mass. Colliding with the next floor, meeting resistance again, and again, and again. All the way down. He made it simple and kept it consistant. To actually calc it would take a lot of time.


What the hell are you talking about?


Each consecutive floor will cause less deceleration. It will continually accelerate.

As the falling mass increases and accelerates, each floor will provide the same amount of resistance as the floor above it did, but as far as how much they will slow things down, the lower floors might as well have been made of rice paper.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jul 22, 2010 - 06:00pm PT
Tony wrote

so, can we have the "fat chance" karl baba theory? bet you're afraid to give it out. you won't be able to strike your above-the-fray stance of reasonability after that.

Baba admits he doesn't know and therefore can't have a plausible theory. I know it stinks and an aggressive investigation needs to happen but won't because nobody in power wants to know. Even if it were an inside job, nobody in power would want to expose that.

just like the Iraq war. It was a conspiracy, totally unjust. We knew there weren't WMDs. But if we prove it was, we're liable so we'll never convict ourselves.

Peace

Karl
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jul 22, 2010 - 06:14pm PT
the lower floors might as well have been made of rice paper

Wanda, hate to break it to you but you got the wrong kind of paper...
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Jul 22, 2010 - 06:42pm PT
+668,181,816 (Bottom #) = ma

Note that the bottom figure is the MASS of the top floors, yet he has is using that as a force (f=ma, remember?)

Lets see. The mass of the top floors is 13.63% of 500,000tons; or 68,181.81Tons. Got it good.

Now F=ma soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooF =68,181.81Tx9.8m/s




Which is..........................you guessed it. 668,181,816N


Pay attention.
I stand corrected, partially...

68,181.81Tons x 9.8 m/s^2 is NOT 668,181,816 N, when it only falls 15' before it impats the floor you are trying to calc the failure for. It is far less than that, do the math AGAIN, but this time correctly, as it would impact the floor in less than a second, so you cannot mearly multiply by 9.8.. Remember, there is a m/s^2 there, So you need to do math correctly. His numbers for the the resistance of the floor it impacts is also far less than he calculated, more so that the dynamic load he miscalced, so again GIGO!

You/he is still grossly misunderstanding the dynamics of this if you believe that it will fall through 15' of mass, thus continual mass, all the way down. Hell, air is mass, so that is misleadnig.

The major component of resistance is when the falling mass meets each floor. Stating, and assuming otherwise in the calcs, leads to GIGO. Until the falling mass encountered another floor, it continued to accelerate, as the steel skin provided little resistance compared to the floors joined to the core. This is what is being left out.


When all that DYNAMIC mass smashed through the floor below it, it sheared or bent the supports that support and join the floor to the core, and did so all the way down gaining mass an momentum all the way down. Doing so (shearing or bending these members), SEVERELY damaged and weakened the core, the part of the structure that held up the lions share of the structure, and it collapsed right behind it... Which is why you can see pics of the core still standing, up to 60 floors(?) just seconds after the fall. SINCE it was so damaaged, it too fell. If you look closely at the pics of the standing core, you can see many of these members bent, straight down.



I give up with you dude... You arecurrently beyond help.

I am confident that at some time you will pull your head out of your ass, perhaops when someone whom you respect tells you you are wrong, and explains it to you.


Just remember, many tried to tell you here, for weeks, and you just wouldn't listen.
WandaFuca

Social climber
From the gettin place
Jul 22, 2010 - 06:51pm PT
What are you talking about. You clearly don't understand structures. Each subsequesnt floor is stronger than the one above it. This means more resistance. The basement floors need to carry 500,000tons(9.8), or 4,900,000N. The 95th floor has to hold a force of 668,700N. Keep in mind the lack of a safety factor in these numbers, which is in an order of a factor of 4.


Your idiocy is breathtaking.


No floor "held" the weight of any of the floors above. The core held (cantilevered) the weight of all the floors.

Each and every floor was only designed to hold its own weight plus 1,300 tons.
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jul 22, 2010 - 06:55pm PT
Some posters here seem to live in a world where gravity causes things to decelerate as they fall.
Captain...or Skully

Big Wall climber
Transporter Room 2
Jul 22, 2010 - 06:58pm PT
Rediculous is my favorite color.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 22, 2010 - 07:32pm PT
Jolly, yes you are right, I was thinking collapse time.

The collapse rate is similar because neither block fell to the ground intact.

As the blocks were crushing floors, their floors were also being crushed. See Bazant.

After both blocks were crushed, there was about the same amount of crushing debris in the building boundary, as the excess was continually spewing out.

Another way to think of how absurd it is for your youtube guy to use -.0223 acceleration all the way to the ground is to think of the power necessary to accelerate a 15 floor block upwards at .0223m/s^2 against gravity. The first floor impact energy is just not going to be anything near that.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 22, 2010 - 08:26pm PT
"Baba admits he doesn't know and therefore can't have a plausible theory. I know it stinks and an aggressive investigation needs to happen but won't because nobody in power wants to know. Even if it were an inside job, nobody in power would want to expose that.

"just like the Iraq war. It was a conspiracy, totally unjust. We knew there weren't WMDs. But if we prove it was, we're liable so we'll never convict ourselves.

"Peace

"Karl"

nice statement, karl, keeps your tits well clear of the clotheswringer. only problem is that word "peace". if you really want that, you have to roll up your sleeves and forget about your tits.



jolly, the core was just in the interior. we call the exterior the shell. the floors were suspended between the two and there is no evidence, in the videos coming down or in the rubble, of pancaking. as you said, pancaking would put the time considerably over freefall--i believe 42 seconds is the friendliest estimate--because each floor had to be broken. what we saw was complete and rapid destruction of all three elements of structure--floorpans, core and shell--floor by floor, and tremendous spewing of dust as that took place. very little structure was left in the dust, including office contents or people. the forces involved were incredible, way beyond what gravity would have created in a building with slowly deteriorating structure due to fires.

if you've ever gone through the process of building a building, whether a shed in your backyard or a house or a high-rise--and i've worked on all three of these--you understand that it takes an equal amount of work to take the building apart. it doesn't happen easily. and building 7 has to nag again here. steel grid structures generally don't pancake, they're just flat-out too strong. the big candidates for pancaking are steel-reinforced concrete where too much economizing went on and large, heavy floor spans don't have the support they need. examples of pancaking are seen mainly in third-world countries where engineering standards aren't high. and every pancake happens at far less than freefall speed.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Jul 23, 2010 - 10:11am PT
well jolly, before you head off maybe you could encapsulate the gist of all that. as i said before, i can't keep up with this thread, but i also know a bit about how people cut corners to produce disinformation.

is this a calculation for the speed of the twin towers coming down?
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Jul 24, 2010 - 04:48pm PT
Ahh, a week in the Meadows, what a nice break.

I wasn't going to post to this thread anymore, but rrrADAM's comments to my posts warrant a reply. Sorry for digging this up again, but I don't like being called ignorant, even by a sub-human.

rrrADAM tries to be a smart ass with a reply to a post of mine: "These people where in the buildings when the explosions went off causing it to immediately collapse, ..." He follows this with something about my mental aptitude, or lack thereof.

Well dude, if you watched the clip that I was referencing, you'd realize that the explosions did not cause the building "to immediately collapse." So please, when calling me ignorant, you make yourself look pretty much like a fool when you don't know the basic facts of the subject you reference.

And, you don't know me, so to say that I will probably not understand an article that you post, when it is so obvious that you don't understand a very basic fact in something that I posted...well, all I can say is I hope you don't pollute the gene pool like your parents did.
WandaFuca

Social climber
From the gettin place
Jul 24, 2010 - 05:05pm PT
The crux of these kind of threads comes down to convincing the idiot that he's an idiot, when he thinks he knows a lot (but doesn't), and has access to info from a lot of other internet idiots who think they know a lot (but don't) . . .

. . . while at the very same time the idiot is trying to convince you that you are the idiot who thinks he knows a lot (but doesn't) . . .



. . . but thankfully we each know which one we are.
edejom

Boulder climber
Butte, America
Jul 28, 2010 - 03:28am PT
...at least you do




All of the physics/formula gospel preaching is getting old--how 'bout something useful when it comes to bringing down a building?

http://www.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm


The click is better than a hack-job cut and paste of mine...
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Dec 5, 2012 - 04:20pm PT
Perhaps a better home for our ongoing 9/11 discussion. At least the title summarizes one of the key points when it states "unknowable."


Do you really not see that the damage on the building seems to be consistent with an airplane crash?
    Raymond

No, I do not see the Pentagon site being consistent with an airplane crash. And that is exactly why I have a problem with it. And, I'm not alone with my disbelief.
couchmaster

climber
pdx
Dec 5, 2012 - 04:21pm PT
THIS THREAD HAS LEGS....
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Dec 5, 2012 - 04:30pm PT
As is evidenced by the first page!
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Mar 24, 2019 - 06:29pm PT
This thread actually looks like the best place to post the latest news that's not in the news about 911;

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/512-lawyers-name-names-of-persons-with-material-information-in-9-11-grand-jury-filing

John Duffield

Mountain climber
New York
Mar 25, 2019 - 09:27am PT

I was hiking upstate yesterday and drove back to nyc and got a good look at our changed skyline. I would not have expected, that within one generation, we would have a lot of new buildings even thinner. There are a few around here in Tribeca.

I followed the Deutsche Bank Building tear down. The total process took around 10 years. My takeaway, was that the buildings go up a lot easier that taking them down. I think some of them will come down in the not so distant future. One in particular only a couple of blocks away from Ground Zero. It's up, but they tore down a building next to it and now it can't get a C of O.

dirtbag

climber
Mar 25, 2019 - 09:37am PT
The real beneficiaries of the internet’s rise have been the tin foil suppliers, who must be making a fortune.
Lorenzo

Trad climber
Portland Oregon
Mar 27, 2019 - 05:09pm PT
My takeaway, was that the buildings go up a lot easier that taking them down.

If they built with asbestos I don’t doubt it. The only reason the WTC buildings were replaced so quick was that process was circumvented. First responders are paying the tab.
John Duffield

Mountain climber
New York
Mar 28, 2019 - 07:44am PT
The 7WTC replacement took a while to get the paperwork through but afterwards it went up fast. Hard to imagine they used asbestos. There's a private hotel in there and some other stuff.

Meanwhile there is this going on about a block away from GZ. One of these new towers went up, and next door, where my favorite outdoor shoppe "Tent and Trails" was, they did some renovation.

Seems some floors collapsed during the reno and now the tower can't get a C of O. The project seems to be frozen now. Really tough for anyone owning property or businesses on this block, the street is closed.


Lorenzo

Trad climber
Portland Oregon
Mar 29, 2019 - 02:50pm PT


I
Hard to imagine they used asbestos.



Towers 2 and 3 were built around 1973.The original WTC7 was completed in 1987.

Asbestos was the standard fire insulation for steel columns in high rises until 1989 when it was outlawed.it was cheap and easy to spay on. It was even in the NYC building code as the preferred fire Insulation. When I worked remodeling high rises in the 70’s and 80’s we wallowed in it doing renovations. It was not recognized as harmful by OSHA or NIOSHA ( now NIOSH-CDC). even after 1989 there were no procedures in place for its safe removal until sometime in the 90’s.


It was all over the WCC buildings, and all over lower Manhattan when the buildings collapsed.

And asbestos has been used for boiler insulation for at least 100 years in residential and commercial use.
Messages 1 - 954 of total 954 in this topic
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta