This discussion is for everyone who would like to comment on the debate concerning whether 9/11 was an inside job to do so here.

The Debate thread is here. The Proposal thread is here.

Please note the following: I would like it so that no one does the following in this discussion thread:
Use words such as the f word in all of its permutations, moron, stupid, idiot, pea brain, bitch, whore or their derivatives (moronic, stupid argument, idiotic, etc.) or any other fairly insulting personal attack.

I am fine with put downs such as lame, obtuse and allusions to flocks and flock mentalities.

Spamming the forums - you should be banned.

if 9/11 was an inside job then why would the government allow civilians to perform the cleanup?
why would the government allow filming of such cleanup?

From the debate:


Ok, the one aspect I won't touch on is the WTC collapses- that has its own discussion thread here.

So:
The Pentagon attack/flyover; I've touched on the topic in previous 9/11 threads in pseudoscience and even had a short lived thread on the subject there before it was closed:
9/11- The Pentagon Attack

I believe there is a lot of evidence that no plane actually hit the pentagon; that, in fact, the damage was caused by explosives already placed in the building beforehand; the part of the building that was allegedly hit by the plane had been closed down for renovations- it seems quite possible that explosives were put in at some point during these renovations and the actual plane flew over the building instead of into it.

www.thepentacon.com provides ample evidence that witnesses saw the plane coming from a different angle from the official story. While they all apparently believed that the plane did, in fact, crash into the pentagon, there are 2 very important facts to consider:
1- If the explosion was well timed, happening right after the plane began flying over the pentagon, it could create the illusion that the plane was its cause when in fact it was explosives.

2- If the many eye witnesses who claim that the plane came from an angle contradictory to the official story's angle, there is an even more grave problem with the official story; because the damage to the building could -only- be consistent with a plane entering from the official story's side, it leaves only 2 possibilities; either a bunch of eye witnesses were lying, or else it's the official story eye witnesses who are lying. Due to the extensive work done by CIT, the people behind thepentacon.com, it seems clear that the people who were lying were those who provided the most direct accounts that the plane came from the official story's side.

9/11 War Games during 9/11 by the US military & CIA

There is ample evidence that the people behind 9/11 knew about the war games being conducted that day and the effect that would have on being able to intercept the attacking planes. This suggests that someone on the inside informed them.

The FBI charged Osama Bin Laden with other crimes but it -never- charged him with orchestrating 9/11. Even the official story has changed tack and now says that it was orchestrated by a sheikh who may in truth be a person with mental health issues.

I thought the debate was "Was 9/11 an inside job?", not "Did a plane hit the pentagon?" That was your one post, and no offense, Epic fail! :)
Who were the people behind 9/11? Not even a guess? What was their motives? How does your belief that the eyewitnesses are wrong prove 9/11 was an inside job?

If there was a flyover..what the hell is this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paWiZ2Y8fRg

What purpose would a flyover have for the insiders? Planes were already used as weapons, why change things up?..why would you even need to fake a plane crash, when real ones already happened?

Spamming the forums...

I'm not spamming the forums. As far as I know, before this discussion thread, there was absolutely no forum wherein you could talk about aspects about 9/11 other then the WTC collapses; as a result, the WTC collapses has begun to get a fair amount of posts regarding 9/11 that have nothing to do with the WTC collapses simply because there was no other place to adequately put them. With the opening of this discussion, there is now a place for such posts; however, I personally won't respond to posts that are overly offensive.

. . . however, I personally won't respond to posts that are overly offensive.
apparently you also won't respond to posts you have no answers for either because both my and macgyvers posts have remained unanswered by you.

From the debate:
I thought the debate was "Was 9/11 an inside job?", not "Did a plane hit the pentagon?"

Whether or not a plane hit the pentagon would certainly constitute evidence for or against the contention that 9/11 was an inside job.



Who were the people behind 9/11? Not even a guess?

Lots of guesses:

9/11 Security Courtesy of Marvin Bush (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911security.html)

Marvin Bush: mysterious death - connections to 9/11? (http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/10-16-03/discussion.cgi.16.html)

SECRECY SURROUNDS A BUSH BROTHER'S ROLE IN 9/11 (http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/10-16-03/discussion.cgi.17.html)

Kuwait-American Corporation (KuwAm) (http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=kuwait_american_corporation___ku wam__1)

9-11 Attacks: The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested on 9-11 (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html)

The Konformist - Mossad & 911 (http://www.konformist.com/911/mossad-911.htm)

Mossad - The Israeli Connection To 911 (http://www.rense.com/general64/moss.htm)



What was their motives?

From wikipedia's entry on 9/11 conspiracy theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories):
The common suspected motives were the use of the attacks as a pretext to justify overseas wars, to facilitate increased military spending, and to restrict domestic civil liberties.



How does your belief that the eyewitnesses are wrong prove 9/11 was an inside job?

Alright, that sentence may confuse some, so putting it in context:
In the 9/11 debate thread, I contended that eyewitnesses could have been fooled into thinking that the plane crashed into the pentagon. I believe this may have been done using 2 methods:
1- Explosives were set off so as to explode at around the same time that the plane went over the building.
2- After only a minor initial blip, all the media reports were saying that the plane did, in fact, crash into the building.

I'm amused at the fact that you fail to report the most important point, however: that if the plane came in from the angle that most if not all of the most reliable witnesess claim it did, the plane -could not- have hit the building, because the damage was done in such a way that the plane could only have come in from the official story angle; either that or the plane didn't hit at all and the damage was done by explosives, which supports the flyover theory.



If there was a flyover..what the hell is this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paWiZ2Y8fRg

An explosion. Did you even see the video? It supports the theory that the plane didn't hit the building :-p.



What purpose would a flyover have for the insiders? Planes were already used as weapons, why change things up?..why would you even need to fake a plane crash, when real ones already happened?

I remember hearing that it may have been to make things easier to do. However, I decided to ask the question over at pilots for 9/11 truth:
Motive For Flyover? (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=16380)

An explosion. Did you even see the video? It supports the theory that the plane didn't hit the building :-p.


Actually no...I posted that link at work, where I don't have rights to view video..I thought this was the grainy surveillance video of the "object" that you once believed to be a missile, hitting the pentagon. Obviously I posted the wrong link..because now that I look at it ..their footage has been edited. Please disregard this link.

edit:

And Scott..I'm sorry if I was a little harsh with you..it's just because I'm very disappointed. You really wanted this formal debate, and I even helped you try to get it started. You had one post to "bring it" and prove you could form a formal argument for you beliefs...and instead you chose to go off topic. Formal arguments are different than replies to discussion threads. Where is your introduction? Where is the body of your argument? Where is your conclusion? If Uno doesn't respond in a fair amount of time...I'm going to present my TS argument on "Was 9/11 an inside job"...just to show you what a formal argument looks like. I would hope James will tell me if I get the format right. :)

An explosion. Did you even see the video? It supports the theory that the plane didn't hit the building :-p.

I remember hearing that it may have been to make things easier to do. However, I decided to ask the question over at pilots for 9/11 truth:
Motive For Flyover? (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=16380)

The link to the 'pilots' page just has a video's to buy.

The camera footage, i have seen it before, is a stop motion frame camera to capture still image frames of cars going through the gate, as can be seen by frames of police car.

The camera is not FMV (full motion video), the narrow field of view and high rate of speed that jet was traveling at cannot be captured by stop motion camera. Size isnt the issue and the same principal would apply to a bullet given narrow field of view and extremely high rate of speed of the object.

In addtion to that it loks to be on an incline whereas the field of view is higher than jet itself. Needless to say this camera probably pickup hi rez images at close range due to the type of lens.

This post is in response to Uno Hoo's post in the Debate: Was 9/11 an inside job? (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90778) thread.


My respected colleague is complimented for covering a lot of bases in good fashion. As the ensuing discussion thread unfolds, time will tell whether he presents sufficient convincing evidence for his position that the Pentagon disaster was a conspiratorially contrived incident originating not from alien terrorists, but from the evil hearts of native sons. Who knows. Even I might become convinced.

Sounds good to me :-)



Points in favor of Pentagon 9/11 being alien terrorists include:

1. Eyewitness reports say that a plane was seen crashing into the building.

I believe that some eyewitnesses may well have been lying even being in a position to see it, while many others may have been fooled into -thinking- that the plane crashed into the building, when in fact it was simply a matter of the explosion going off almost immediately after the plane went over the pentagon.



2. Eyewitness reports say that the plane was a large jetliner type.

The size of the plane is not in question, not by me at any rate.



3. Radar reports say that a plane was tracked at the Pentagon at the time of the crash.

Again, not a problem by me- I believe that a plane definitely went into the pentagon's airspace; I just don't believe that it crashed into it.



4. Eyewitness reports and photos show an impressive fireball at the location subsequently deemed to be the point of impact according to structural damage.

I think we can all agree that an explosion took place; the debate is what caused the explosion.



5. Photos show a number of debris on the lawn immediately in front of the crash point which look like jetliner remnants.

I have heard that jetliner remnants were planted there. Speaking of photos and articles pointing out important aspects of them, I think you may find the following articles interesting:
The Attack on The Pentagon (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm)

The 911 Mystery Plane (http://www.rense.com/general76/missing.htm)

The 9/11 Mystery Plane (Part II) (http://www.rense.com/general76/wdb.htm)

The lost terror drills -11A - 9 11 training exercises wargames 2001 (http://911review.org/inn.globalfreepress/lost_terror_drills_11a.html)

I have yet to do much more then skim them, but depending on the vigour of the discussion here, I may go further in the future.


6. Jetliner parts and an engine compressor wheel were discovered in the interior regions of the building.

Again, I contend that they could have been planted there.



7. Although the responding fire department reported that the fire was completely knocked down within about 10 minutes or so, obviously there was a large amount of jet fuel dispersed into the building because it was reported that fires still flared up during 60 hours or so. A jetliner carries a large amount of fuel, something like 10,000 gallons. If fires flared up for 60 hours, a large amount of fuel in the building had to have come from a large plane, not a smaller plane, or, no plane, as some people claim.

Incendiaries could have done it as well.



8. The official report says that DNA from everyone on the jetliner was found and identified. How could this be true if some other plane, or, no plane, was involved?

Who did this official report?



9. If conspiracy favorers are correct, then all of the passengers and crew of the jetliner would have to just vanish and never be seen or heard from for these 8 years or so.

What happened to the actual jets and alleged passengers of said jets is indeed an interesting mystery if no plane actually hit the pentagon. The last link I gave above, The lost terror drills -11A - 9 11 training exercises wargames 2001 (http://911review.org/inn.globalfreepress/lost_terror_drills_11a.html), gets into it, atleast in part.



Here, in America, how could it be possible that someone could be made to vanish and not have contact with any of their family of friends for such a long time? It is like they were taken to an island somewhere and kept in cages. That idea is just really absurd.

It's much easier if they're killed, ofcourse; I have heard that they may have been killed over an ocean in one of the war games; the people who shot the planes down may have thought that they were dummy planes with no actual passengers in them. Unfortunately, I can't find that particular link right now- I believe it was brought up in one of the 9/11 threads in pseudoscience, but may be a while before it's found, laugh :-p.



That is all I can think of for now to present the establishment point of view that Pentagon 9/11 was the act of terrorist aliens and not the act of conspiratorial miscreants.

In closing I wish to thank my worthy colleague opponent, scott3x, for his invitation to take part in starting a civil and respectful discussion on this important subject.

Thanks, you were very civil and respectful yourself :-).



And I wish to thank JamesR Righteous Administrator for patience while getting this thing started.

I took thank James for bearing with the frequently getting off topic in the proposal thread until we finally got this thread started :-).



Gentlemen, Start your thread arguments!

Boogety! Boogety! Boogety!

Let's go thread arguin', boys!

( NASCAR fans will recognize this trash talk as friendly traditional beginning of a race ).

Ah, I see, laugh :-).

I'm not spamming the forums. As far as I know, before this discussion thread, there was absolutely no forum wherein you could talk about aspects about 9/11 other then the WTC collapses; as a result, the WTC collapses has begun to get a fair amount of posts regarding 9/11 that have nothing to do with the WTC collapses simply because there was no other place to adequately put them. With the opening of this discussion, there is now a place for such posts; however, I personally won't respond to posts that are overly offensive.

In other words, you're expanding your conspiracy theories on the premise there are other aspects of 9/11 that don't include the collapses. Hence, you are free to flood the forums with any conspiracy theory that entertains your pea brain as long as you believe you can justify it as something other than the previous conspiracy theory presented.

What's really a travesty here is that you wouldn't even consider the fact that your theories are "overly offensive."

An explosion. Did you even see the video? It supports the theory that the plane didn't hit the building :-p.

Actually no...I posted that link at work, where I don't have rights to view video..I thought this was the grainy surveillance video of the "object" that you once believed to be a missile, hitting the pentagon. Obviously I posted the wrong link..because now that I look at it ..their footage has been edited.

How are you so sure?



Please disregard this link.

Perish the thought; it's a welcome addition to those who believe that 9/11 was an inside job :-).



And Scott..I'm sorry if I was a little harsh with you..it's just because I'm very disappointed. You really wanted this formal debate, and I even helped you try to get it started. You had one post to "bring it" and prove you could form a formal argument for you beliefs...and instead you chose to go off topic.

I don't believe that I went off topic.



Formal arguments are different than replies to discussion threads. Where is your introduction? Where is the body of your argument? Where is your conclusion?

For me, a formal debate simply means that the participants agree to some rules for the discussion. We did and we had the debate. I personally found that it was fine.



If Uno doesn't respond in a fair amount of time...I'm going to present my TS argument on "Was 9/11 an inside job"...just to show you what a formal argument looks like. I would hope James will tell me if I get the format right. :)

Well Uno Hoo has now put up his side to the debate, the debate has now been closed and I've responded to Uno Hoo's side in this discussion forum. Perhaps we could have another formal debate at some point in the future but I hope that this discussion thread can stay open because at present it's the only thread I know of where -all- aspects concerning 9/11 can be discussed, other then the WTC collapses, which have established threads.

I'm not spamming the forums. As far as I know, before this discussion thread, there was absolutely no forum wherein you could talk about aspects about 9/11 other then the WTC collapses; as a result, the WTC collapses has begun to get a fair amount of posts regarding 9/11 that have nothing to do with the WTC collapses simply because there was no other place to adequately put them. With the opening of this discussion, there is now a place for such posts; however, I personally won't respond to posts that are overly offensive.

In other words, you're expanding your conspiracy theories on the premise there are other aspects of 9/11 that don't include the collapses.

I'm not expanding my conspiracy theories. Rather, there are more conspiracy theories then what happened to the WTC buildings.



Hence, you are free to flood the forums with any conspiracy theory [insults removed]

If I have the freedom to talk about the various issues concerning 9/11 in this forum, it's only because the administrators who moderate it allow it.



What's really a travesty here is that you wouldn't even consider the fact that your theories are "overly offensive."

Look, people can offended by many things. I'm sure that many theories that the truth movement believe in can be considered "overly offensive" to some. What the truth movement is trying to do, however, is reveal what they believe to be the truth. And unlike -some- conspiracy theory movements, the truth movement is truly massive. As far as I know, there is no conspiracy theories enjoy more popular support then some of those concerning 9/11.

If I have the freedom to talk about the various issues concerning 9/11 in this forum, it's only because the administrators who moderate it allow it.

There are no qualms about your freedom to look the idiot, the question is why do you want to look the idiot and continue to expand your idiocy?



Look, people can offended by many things. I'm sure that many theories that the truth movement believe in can be considered "overly offensive" to some. What the truth movement is trying to do, however, is reveal what they believe to be the truth. And unlike -some- conspiracy theory movements, the truth movement is truly massive. As far as I know, there is no conspiracy theories enjoy more popular support then some of those concerning 9/11.

So, you too decided to jump on the idiot bandwagon and offend the intellects of everyone else, because it's popular. Clearly, you've demonstrated beyond a doubt you're unable to think for yourself, don't understand any of the physics or engineering aspects of what happened, and are just following blindly the idiocies of others.

And, by the fact that you admit you are supporting popular conspiracy theories demonstrates further the need to corral your threads into a single conspiracy theory garbage bin.

if 9/11 was an inside job then why would the government allow civilians to perform the cleanup?
why would the government allow filming of such cleanup?
what about this scott?



I believe that some eyewitnesses may well have been lying even being in a position to see it, while many others may have been fooled into -thinking- that the plane crashed into the building, when in fact it was simply a matter of the explosion going off almost immediately after the plane went over the pentagon.
of course the witnesses that fall into this catagory are the ones that uphold the what really happened.
i've also noticed that you haven't provided a list of witnesses.

The size of the plane is not in question, not by me at any rate.
because you aren't interested in finding the truth.
you have it in your mind that it was "a bomb".
the size of the plane is most certainly relevant.

I have heard that jetliner remnants were planted there.
again you have provided no witnesses to the actual "plant".
who was it that saw theses pieces being "planted"?
you do realize that the pentagon, AND washington DC, gets thousands of visitors each year right?

Speaking of photos and articles pointing out important aspects of them, I think you may find the following articles interesting:
who gives a ratsass about photos and articles?
i want to see your list of WITNESSES, not some "he said, she said" crap.

I have yet to do much more then skim them, but depending on the vigour of the discussion here, I may go further in the future.
you need to produce witnesses scott.

Again, I contend that they could have been planted there.
on what grounds? because someone in california says so?

Incendiaries could have done it as well.
a plane could have done it as well too, it also has the added advantage of "disposing" of the passengers

Who did this official report?
you haven't produced a single eye witness to airplane parts being planted but ask your opponent to produce proof of their assertions?

What happened to the actual jets and alleged passengers of said jets is indeed an interesting mystery if no plane actually hit the pentagon.
you were asked by uno hoo to do this debate in your own words.
so, in you own words what happened to the passengers scott?
don't forget the proof part.

Well I reported you (Q), as you called me an idiot and I specifically said it shouldn't be allowed in this discussion. Now I don't know if I can actually have that enforced, but I figured it'd be worth the effort. Anyway, if you want to generally have your points ignored, using base insults is a generally surefire way of getting this accomplished with me.

* * * * NOTE FROM A MODERATOR * * * *

* sigh* ... I have not seen this thread and in fact I resolutely stay away from this board because I don't find it the least bit interesting. But whenever anyone files a Report on a post in the Formal Debates subforum, it goes out to ALL THE MODERATORS. Apparently it's our job to moderate this little looney-tunes sandbox whether we have better things to do or not.

Scott has reported TWO of the posts in this discussion so I finally came over here to see what the yelling was about, and discovered that none of the other Moderators have weighed in. * sigh *
This discussion is for everyone who would like to comment on the debate concerning whether 9/11 was an inside job to do so here.That's not a "formal debate" by the rules of any debating society. But I suppose you get to make your own rules here.
Please note the following: I would like it so that no one does the following in this discussion thread: Use words such as the f word in all of its permutations, moron, stupid, idiot, bitch, whore or their derivatives (moronic, stupid argument, idiotic, etc.) or any other fairly insulting personal attack.Then you came to the wrong website. Those words are common currency here. Personal insults are a violation of the forum rules, but it's difficult to enforce. Especially if none of the Moderators read this stuff!
I am fine with put downs such as lame, obtuse and allusions to flocks and flock mentalities.Those are personal insults too. Apparently we all have our own ideas about what constitutes civil discourse. Do you see my problem?
Spamming the forums - you should be banned.I don't see how what he's doing is a violation of our rule against trolling, much less spamming.
In other words, you're expanding your conspiracy theories on the premise there are other aspects of 9/11 that don't include the collapses. Hence, you are free to flood the forums with any conspiracy theory that entertains your pea brain as long as you believe you can justify it as something other than the previous conspiracy theory presented.Hey dude, this is a place of science so feel free to help us enforce the scientific method. If an extraordinary assertion is posted without extraordinary evidence to support it, invoke the Rule of Laplace and challenge it. If the evidence is not forthcoming then the poster must SHUT UP and never pursue that line of reasoning again. And BTW, calling someone a "pea brain" is a personal insult and therefore a violation of the forum rules. I've called you before on your hair trigger. It takes two to drag a discussion into the mud.
What's really a travesty here is that you wouldn't even consider the fact that your theories are "overly offensive."I don't know what you mean by that but as an American I support free speech. We prohibit racism and personal insults and that's about it. Everything else, as far as I'm concerned, is governed by the scientific method. If a theory is simply crackpottery, then invoke the Rule of Laplace. A second posting of the same theory without substantiation is trolling and grounds for banning. It's as simple as that. The administrators are big on turning this website back into the place of science it was ten years ago, so let's help them out.
Well I reported you (Q), as you called me an idiot and I specifically said it shouldn't be allowed in this discussion. Now I don't know if I can actually have that enforced, but I figured it'd be worth the effort.Your report is duly noted and Q is hereby reprimanded. If he does it again, please PM the Moderator of the subforum on which this discussion would have to take place if it didn't fall into the bizarre, misnamed category of "Formal Debates."

In closing, based on what I've gleaned from a quick review of this thread, I'd say it's not going anywhere and you're all wasting your time. You'd probably get more action and even some scholarship on the World Events or Engineering board.

I currently live in the Washington metropolitan area and drive past the Pentagon routinely. It's in Arlington, a densely populated urban area with an enormous volume of foot and vehicle traffic. It's a couple of blocks from an elevated freeway, a shopping mall, and rows of high-rise hotels and government office buildings. It even has its own subway station. I wasn't here on 9/11, but there is no controversy among the local people about the events of that date.

* * * * NOTE FROM A MODERATOR * * * *

* sigh* ... I have not seen this thread and in fact I resolutely stay away from this board because I don't find it the least bit interesting. But whenever anyone files a Report on a post in the Formal Debates subforum, it goes out to ALL THE MODERATORS. Apparently it's our job to moderate this little looney-tunes sandbox whether we have better things to do or not.

Scott has reported TWO of the posts in this discussion so I finally came over here to see what the yelling was about, and discovered that none of the other Moderators have weighed in. * sigh *

Lol :-). Thanks Fraggle.





This discussion is for everyone who would like to comment on the debate concerning whether 9/11 was an inside job to do so here.

That's not a "formal debate" by the rules of any debating society.

True.



But I suppose you get to make your own rules here.

That's what I was hoping, yes :-). This is the only forum in sciforums, as far as I know, where I would hope that a little more civility could be enforced; after all, the title of the forum is 'formal debates'. If people want the usual brawling, I think it'd be best to take it to more informal forums.




Please note the following: I would like it so that no one does the following in this discussion thread: Use words such as the f word in all of its permutations, moron, stupid, idiot, bitch, whore or their derivatives (moronic, stupid argument, idiotic, etc.) or any other fairly insulting personal attack.

Then you came to the wrong website. Those words are common currency here. Personal insults are a violation of the forum rules, but it's difficult to enforce. Especially if none of the Moderators read this stuff!

Definitely, laugh :-p. Fortunately for me, you showed up :-).




I am fine with put downs such as lame, obtuse and allusions to flocks and flock mentalities.

Those are personal insults too. Apparently we all have our own ideas about what constitutes civil discourse. Do you see my problem?

Not exactly. You mentioned that enforcing the 'personal insults' rule is difficult. While I agree with this in principle, I also think that if only a -few- personal insults are restricted, it makes the job of a moderator much easier. This is why I stated specific insults that should be worthy of censorship. As to the last bit, "or any other fairly insulting personal attack", I meant it only as a guideline; clearly, someone could say 'but i think obtuse is fairly insulting' for instance and make a mess.




Spamming the forums - you should be banned.

I don't see how what he's doing is a violation of our rule against trolling, much less spamming.

:-)



Hey dude, this is a place of science so feel free to help us enforce the scientific method. If an extraordinary assertion is posted without extraordinary evidence to support it, invoke the Rule of Laplace and challenge it. If the evidence is not forthcoming then the poster must SHUT UP and never pursue that line of reasoning again. And BTW, calling someone a "pea brain" is a personal insult and therefore a violation of the forum rules. I've called you before on your hair trigger. It takes two to drag a discussion into the mud.

Woot :-). I added 'pea brain' to the list of insults that shouldn't be allowed in this thread :-). I won't add anymore without a moderator saying that it's not allowed. I would also contend that I refuse to get into the mud with the likes of (Q) or anyone else. I have in the past stated that someone had a flock mentality, but I figure that that's not so bad :-).




What's really a travesty here is that you wouldn't even consider the fact that your theories are "overly offensive."

I don't know what you mean by that but as an American I support free speech.

I think he means that the idea that certain individuals within the U.S. government could possibly have been involved in what happened on 9/11 is overly offensive. My counter is, if it's true, even if it is offensive to some to hear this view, then I think that it should be known.



We prohibit racism and personal insults and that's about it.

While I do believe that you do enforce the censuring of racism, you yourself have said it; you don't generally enforce the rule on personal insults. I think, however, that the main reason is that sometimes something that is insulting also describes a person; depending on the insult it can be more or less true. I think that some insults, however, are generally unhelpful in a discussion; it is these types of insults that I have tried to censor from the start of this discussion.





Well I reported you (Q), as you called me an idiot and I specifically said it shouldn't be allowed in this discussion. Now I don't know if I can actually have that enforced, but I figured it'd be worth the effort.

Your report is duly noted and Q is hereby reprimanded. If he does it again, please PM the Moderator of the subforum on which this discussion would have to take place if it didn't fall into the bizarre, misnamed category of "Formal Debates."

I don't think that it's misnamed. Just because it wouldn't pass muster with a debating team doesn't mean that it can't be formal. I think it can simply mean that the rules here are somewhat more structured then elsewhere in sciforums and (hopefully) certain insults are not as tolerated as they are elsewhere.



In closing, based on what I've gleaned from a quick review of this thread, I'd say it's not going anywhere and you're all wasting your time. You'd probably get more action and even some scholarship on the World Events or Engineering board.

Are you saying that we can open up a thread on, say, the WTC collapses in the engineering board? Long ago, I asked if the WTC collapses thread could be moved over there in the SF Open government, but it was turned down; BenTheMan, for one, was against it. So I created a WTC collapses thread here. I think it's been relatively civil. Unfortunately, perhaps because there is a fairly active WTC collapses thread over in pseudoscience, it has gone dormant. I'm fine with creating a new one in the Engineering forum, however.



I currently live in the Washington metropolitan area and drive past the Pentagon routinely. It's in Arlington, a densely populated urban area with an enormous volume of foot and vehicle traffic. It's a couple of blocks from an elevated freeway, a shopping mall, and rows of high-rise hotels and government office buildings. It even has its own subway station. I wasn't here on 9/11, but there is no controversy among the local people about the events of that date.

I believe you haven't spoken to the right people; I believe that Citizen's Investigation Team did a very good job of speaking to such people; their work can be seen here:
www.thepentacon.com

I currently live in the Washington metropolitan area and drive past the Pentagon routinely. It's in Arlington, a densely populated urban area with an enormous volume of foot and vehicle traffic. It's a couple of blocks from an elevated freeway, a shopping mall, and rows of high-rise hotels and government office buildings. It even has its own subway station. I wasn't here on 9/11, but there is no controversy among the local people about the events of that date.
the death knell rings.

if 9/11 was an inside job then why would the government allow civilians to perform the cleanup?

Listen, leopold, I know you don't approve of the evidence I provide when it's from from 9/11 Research. However, you've provided absolutely no evidence that 9/11 Research isn't a credible site, while Headspin and I think it's quite good and even shaman_ has used it to back up his official story claims. Here is what they have to say concerning the cleanup in their WTC Steel Removal (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html) article:


WTC Steel Removal

The Expeditious Destruction of the Evidence at Ground Zero

Steel was the structural material of the buildings. As such it was the most important evidence to preserve in order to puzzle out how the structures held up to the impacts and fires, but then disintegrated into rubble. Since no steel-framed buildings had ever collapsed due to fires, the steel should have been subjected to detailed analysis. So what did the authorities do with this key evidence of the vast crime and unprecedented engineering failure? They recycled it!

Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage. 1 (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html#ref1)


why would the government allow filming of such cleanup?

After a few weeks filming was -not- allowed. I've told you this and you simply say that it didn't happen from the start. So what? I have never stated that every government official was in on the deception; far from it.

I believe that some eyewitnesses may well have been lying even being in a position to see it, while many others may have been fooled into -thinking- that the plane crashed into the building, when in fact it was simply a matter of the explosion going off almost immediately after the plane went over the pentagon.

of course the witnesses that fall into this catagory are the ones that uphold what really happened.

Or atleast that's what you believe.



i've also noticed that you haven't provided a list of witnesses.

http://www.thepentacon.com/ does more then provide a list; it interviews the relevant witnesses and captures the interviews on video.

* sigh* ... I have not seen this thread and in fact I resolutely stay away from this board because I don't find it the least bit interesting. But whenever anyone files a Report on a post in the Formal Debates subforum, it goes out to ALL THE MODERATORS. Apparently it's our job to moderate this little looney-tunes sandbox whether we have better things to do or not.

Scott has reported TWO of the posts in this discussion so I finally came over here to see what the yelling was about, and discovered that none of the other Moderators have weighed in. * sigh *

That's not a "formal debate" by the rules of any debating society. But I suppose you get to make your own rules here.

It sounds to me like you haven't read any of the sticky threads that head this subforum. If you're going to moderate the forum, you really should familiarise yourself with its special format and rules.

While this particular debate may not follow the "rules of any debating society", that does not necessarily disqualify it from being a valid debate, especially according to the rules of the subforum.

If you take a look at previous debates, you will in fact find that several of them do closely follow a traditional debate format similar to that of virtually any debating society you'd care to name.

I don't mind criticism, but I'd prefer informed criticism rather than uninformed tangential sniping, thanks Fraggle.

The size of the plane is not in question, not by me at any rate.

because you aren't interested in finding the truth.
you have it in your mind that it was "a bomb".
the size of the plane is most certainly relevant.

On second thought, I've come to think that you're right in regards to the size of the plane in one way; while I'm fine with the idea that the size of the plane flying over the pentagon was the same size as the flight 77, the size of the hole that the plane allegedly made is far too small for the plane to have actually made the impact.

I have heard that jetliner remnants were planted there.
”
again you have provided no witnesses to the actual "plant".

So what? It seems that if you don't hear of someone catching the crooks red handed, it won't cut it for you. There's lots of evidence that suggests it was planted though:
Did Flight 77 really crash into the Pentagon? - Suspicious plane debris... (http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/debris.html)



you do realize that the pentagon, AND washington DC, gets thousands of visitors each year right?

That doesn't mean that any of them were in a position to see debris being planted.

Speaking of photos and articles pointing out important aspects of them, I think you may find the following articles interesting:

Speaking of photos and articles pointing out important aspects of them, I think you may find the following articles interesting:
The Attack on The Pentagon (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm)

The 911 Mystery Plane (http://www.rense.com/general76/missing.htm)

The 9/11 Mystery Plane (Part II) (http://www.rense.com/general76/wdb.htm)

The lost terror drills -11A - 9 11 training exercises wargames 2001 (http://911review.org/inn.globalfreepress/lost_terror_drills_11a.html)

I have yet to do much more then skim them, but depending on the vigour of the discussion here, I may go further in the future.

who gives a ratsass about photos and articles?

When they represent evidence, I'd think that any person serious in finding out the truth.



i want to see your list of WITNESSES

Here's an excellent list of witnesses:
Witness List Broken Down - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=10632)

7. Although the responding fire department reported that the fire was completely knocked down within about 10 minutes or so, obviously there was a large amount of jet fuel dispersed into the building because it was reported that fires still flared up during 60 hours or so. A jetliner carries a large amount of fuel, something like 10,000 gallons. If fires flared up for 60 hours, a large amount of fuel in the building had to have come from a large plane, not a smaller plane, or, no plane, as some people claim.

Incendiaries could have done it as well.

a plane could have done it as well too, it also has the added advantage of "disposing" of the passengers

I've now gotten an answer as to why they didn't simply crash flight 77 into the pentagon:
Motive for flyover? (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=16380&view=findpost&p=10765104)






8. The official report says that DNA from everyone on the jetliner was found and identified. How could this be true if some other plane, or, no plane, was involved?

Who did this official report?

you haven't produced a single eye witness to airplane parts being planted

I have never claimed to have any eye witnesses to airplane parts being planted. Uno -did- claim that an official report claimed that "DNA from everyone on the jetliner was found and identified". For this reason, I think it's a perfectly valid question.




What happened to the actual jets and alleged passengers of said jets is indeed an interesting mystery if no plane actually hit the pentagon.

you were asked by uno hoo to do this debate in your own words.

That was the rule for the debate part. We're now in the discussion part and no such rule was stipulated for that part of it.

After a few weeks filming was -not- allowed.
i have no idea, but i do know that access to the site by civilians wasn't restricted during the early hours and days after the attack.
like i stated before, the cleanup and the rescue effort was civilian (non government) directed. these civilians arrived from all parts of the US.

http://www.thepentacon.com/ does more then provide a list; it interviews the relevant witnesses and captures the interviews on video.
i looked for a list of witnesses but couldn't find any.


On second thought, I've come to think that you're right in regards to the size of the plane in one way; while I'm fine with the idea that the size of the plane flying over the pentagon was the same size as the flight 77, the size of the hole that the plane allegedly made is far too small for the plane to have actually made the impact.
if i remember correctly the hole was about the location of where the right engine would have struck the building. the hole does look small though.



Here's an excellent list of witnesses:
Witness List Broken Down - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=10632)
a forum?

What happened to the actual jets and alleged passengers of said jets is indeed an interesting mystery if no plane actually hit the pentagon.

you were asked by uno hoo to do this debate in your own words.
so, in you own words what happened to the passengers scott?

I already answered the question to Uno Hoo; I even did so in my own words; as a matter of fact, you're quoting my answer.



don't forget the proof part.

I don't need to prove where they are. I only need to offer solid evidence that the official story as to where they ended up has fatal flaws. As to theories as to what happened to the passengers, or even if there -were- passengers, there's a thread on the subject in Pilots for 9/11 Truth:
Where Might Be The Bodies (like Barbara Olsen)?, Claims (or theories) about victims' bodies? (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=13537&st=0). I just now asked 2 questions in the thread to clarify why 2 different people believe in separate theories regarding this point.

I believe I've seen a better theory before, involving the plane being shot down in an ocean in what was supposed to be one of the war games going on that day, but I can't find it now..

I don't see how what he's doing is a violation of our rule against trolling, much less spamming.

Scott created identical threads in two forums, what does that constitute in your opinion?


Hey dude, this is a place of science so feel free to help us enforce the scientific method. If an extraordinary assertion is posted without extraordinary evidence to support it, invoke the Rule of Laplace and challenge it. If the evidence is not forthcoming then the poster must SHUT UP and never pursue that line of reasoning again.

Sorry, and you've seen that occuring here? Where?


And BTW, calling someone a "pea brain" is a personal insult and therefore a violation of the forum rules. I've called you before on your hair trigger. It takes two to drag a discussion into the mud.

The discussion never came out of the mud to begin with, Fraggle.


The administrators are big on turning this website back into the place of science it was ten years ago, so let's help them out.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA! http://www.smileyshut.com/smileys/new/Laughing/lol-049.gif

Good one, Frag!!!


Your report is duly noted and Q is hereby reprimanded.

Yes, let's protect and coddle the wackos, nice work, Frag. That will really help in bringing back to science. Well done. :bravo:

I don't need to prove where they are.
I only need to offer solid evidence that the official story as to where they ended up has fatal flaws.
well you made some excellent arguements in that regard EXCEPT for the list of witnesses that actuall y seen the jet fly over the pentagon instead of into it.
even a list of witnesses will do little good for the fact that their character cannot be ascertained. are they attention whores? are they pathological liars? are there cops and firemen that seen the flyover?


As to theories as to what happened to the passengers, or even if there -were- passengers, there's a thread on the subject in Pilots for 9/11 Truth:
Where Might Be The Bodies (like Barbara Olsen)?, Claims (or theories) about victims' bodies? (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=13537&st=0). I just now asked 2 questions in the thread to clarify why 2 different people believe in separate theories regarding this point.
why not just fly the plane load of passengers into the building scott?
doesn't that make more sense than what you are proposing?
be honest with yourself scott, doesn't it make more sense to do tat?

my references earlier as to the cleanup and rescue efforts was in regards to WTC 1 and 2.

Yes, let's protect and coddle the wackos, nice work, Frag. That will really help in bringing back to science. Well done. :bravo:

I assume I'm one of the people you're labelling as a 'wacko'. I'm glad that Fraggle stepped in, but I'm not exactly feeling coddled by the people I'm actually debating. I thought I could do this, but I'm just beginning to think that the whole thing is too toxic right now. Perhaps I'll be able to address other points made here at some point in time, but not now.

I completely agree with McG, this debate was a huge disappointment!!! After all the proposal setup, a huge letdown! You failed to convince us. I might read your links provided in this thread and I have a feeling this thread is going to be actually more interesting than the debate...

This whole flyover idea is plain silly, because of Occam's razor. Why not just let the plane hit whatever they can?(assuming it can reach an important target) What is the guarantee that the plane actually can make it to the Pentagon? Or it can go actually close enough to the "bombed" area??? Why complicate things when it isn't necessery???

And wouldn't there be a bunch of eyewitnesses, (specially after an explosion) stating that they saw a plane flying away???

There are some inconsistencies with the Pentagon attack, but this flyover theory just makes the rest look bad...

As a judge I have to give a draw though for the debaters. Scott had 2 points and the 2nd one was actually a good one and Uno completely failed to address it. The statistical probability of having the wargames randomly on the same day as the attack is probably around 1 to 1-200, assuming there are 1-2 this kind of wargames a year.

I generally agree with Scott that certain organizations (foreign secret services) and some people high up in the US administration knew about the upcoming attack, but it is a question just how much they knew (how many details) and one has to realize there isa huge difference between letting something happen and actively participating in it.

Just like PH, they let it happen, but they didn't actively participated in it. Why would they? They had the Arabs set up for that...

By the way one very good evidence for you Scott is the large option purchases in a German bank, that had a high ranked CIA guy as a former director. It is well documented, although not very well known... I don't believe in such a coincidence...

I'm glad that Fraggle stepped in, but I'm not exactly feeling coddled by the people I'm actually debating.
how would you like the debate to be served up? on fine china?

I thought I could do this, but I'm just beginning to think that the whole thing is too toxic right now.
in other words you really can't think of any good reason why the jet would fly over the pentagon instead of into it.
i also noticed that your last post did not include any witnesses stating the jet flew over the pentagon instead of into it.

As a judge I have to give a draw though for the debaters. Scott had 2 points and the 2nd one was actually a good one and Uno completely failed to address it. The statistical probability of having the wargames randomly on the same day as the attack is probably around 1 to 1-200, assuming there are 1-2 this kind of wargames a year.
the military is ALWAYS conducting readiness tests, all kinds of them.

I generally agree with Scott that certain organizations (foreign secret services) and some people high up in the US administration knew about the upcoming attack, but it is a question just how much they knew (how many details) and one has to realize there isa huge difference between letting something happen and actively participating in it.
there are always "bomb threats" being called into our airports by all manner of attention seekers. i assume this same scenario can be applied to the white house, so in this regard one could say the governmemt "knew" it.

I completely agree with McG, this debate was a huge disappointment!!! After all the proposal setup, a huge letdown! You failed to convince us.

The Debate was only ever a thinly-veiled pretext to have yet another 9/11 endless conspiracy thread. I can only assume that's why scott3x put so little effort into it.

The Debate was only ever a thinly-veiled pretext to have yet another 9/11 endless conspiracy thread. I can only assume that's why scott3x put so little effort into it.

Just my personal opinion - but I believe several others here agree with it: We've had ALL the 9/11 conspiracy threads we can stand! The proponents - mostly Scott - do nothing in them but regurgitate the same old tired arguments over and over again. It's VERY boring!! There's NOT a thing new that can possibly be added to them and keeping all these threads is nothing but a huge waste of space.

Read-Only:

Apparently, there are plenty of members who still wish to participate in such discussions.

the military is ALWAYS conducting readiness tests, all kinds of them.

Always is a bit too much. But please post how many wargames were planned in 2001 where the notion was terrorists ovetaking an airplane. I bet there were no more than 2-3.....

The Debate was only ever a thinly-veiled pretext to have yet another 9/11 endless conspiracy thread. I can only assume that's why scott3x put so little effort into it.

I object to the idea that I put so little effort into it; I didn't write an essay, true, but I've found that it's good to start with a few premises and then expand from there. The problem with a debate is that people get into the idea that you can only put one post per response and things like that. In discussions, there are no such limitations. As I've said many times, what I like about the Formal Debates forum in general is that more civilized discussion is expected. When dealing with highly emotional issues, I think this is definitely advantageous. However, while it's true that here, atleast, there can be some rules as to what insults aren't allowed, this doesn't mean that it's smooth sailing- there are myriads of insults and at the end of the day it can tire.

Read-Only:

Apparently, there are plenty of members who still wish to participate in such discussions.

Perhaps - but just take notice how many of them go off-topic. AND inside formal debate threads where it's not even supposed to be allowed!

But then again, Scott has been allowed to ignore the rules already in place for formal debates and create his own. Could that odor I seem to detect be that of special favoritism? Hmmmm...

Always is a bit too much. But please post how many wargames were planned in 2001 where the notion was terrorists ovetaking an airplane. I bet there were no more than 2-3.....
okay, i sheepishly admit "always" might not have been the best choice of words but i believe you understand what i mean. as to the "terrorist" part you may well be correct, i have no idea though.

However, while it's true that here, atleast, there can be some rules as to what insults aren't allowed, this doesn't mean that it's smooth sailing- there are myriads of insults and at the end of the day it can tire.
where are the "myraid of insults" in this thread scott?


But then again, Scott has been allowed to ignore the rules already in place for formal debates and create his own.
and? so?
scott starts the thread, he's allowed to post what is, and isn't, allowed.
in short he makes the rules for his threads, as can anyone else that posts in this particular sub-forum.

Could that odor I seem to detect be that of special favoritism? Hmmmm...
:rolleyes:

Read-Only:


Perhaps - but just take notice how many of them go off-topic. AND inside formal debate threads where it's not even supposed to be allowed!

There's no special restriction on discussion threads, apart from that they must be associated with a Debate.


But then again, Scott has been allowed to ignore the rules already in place for formal debates and create his own.

Debaters are free to create their own rules, as long as all parties to the debate agree, and as long as the result is some kind of Formal Debate.

However, if you look at scott's previous debate on a similar topic, you will see a note at the top of the threads, and you will also notice that they are now closed.


Could that odor I seem to detect be that of special favoritism? Hmmmm...

Yeah. scott3x gets special treatment, because I'm a 9/11 conspiracy theorist just like him.

Right.

because I'm a 9/11 conspiracy theorist just like him.

Right.

Dude!!! You gotta watch what you say! You going to end up getting quoted in the collapse thread. :)

There are like 3 regular SF members (members that post in threads OTHER than the 9/11 threads) that regularly participate in these threads. While I take guilty pleasure participating in these threads, I don't want them all over the board. I think the one thread should be kept open in pseudoscience. This whole formal debate was Scott's attempt to bypass Styder's closing of all the threads in PS, except the one. He knew the discussion thread could go on forever, so he created a formal debate in order to use it's discussion thread as a "new" 9/11 thread.

Read-Only:



There's no special restriction on discussion threads, apart from that they must be associated with a Debate.



Debaters are free to create their own rules, as long as all parties to the debate agree, and as long as the result is some kind of Formal Debate.

However, if you look at scott's previous debate on a similar topic, you will see a note at the top of the threads, and you will also notice that they are now closed.



Yeah. scott3x gets special treatment, because I'm a 9/11 conspiracy theorist just like him.

Right.

That's NOT the way I read the Formal Debate rules as posted. There's a particular format spelled out about presentation, rebuttal, limited participation (instead of just anyone/everyone jumping in) and a couple of other restrictions. If you are going to just have a free-for-all and ignore those rules, then why keep 'em posted? Just delete them.

And it wasn't you that I had in mind for allowing him to run rampant all over the rules - and the whole place, for that matter.

Dude!!! You gotta watch what you say! You going to end up getting quoted in the collapse thread. :)

There are like 3 regular SF members (members that post in threads OTHER than the 9/11 threads) that regularly participate in these threads. While I take guilty pleasure participating in these threads, I don't want them all over the board. I think the one thread should be kept open in pseudoscience. This whole formal debate was Scott's attempt to bypass Styder's closing of all the threads in PS, except the one. He knew the discussion thread could go on forever, so he created a formal debate in order to use it's discussion thread as a "new" 9/11 thread.

Precisely!!!

Dude!!! You gotta watch what you say! You going to end up getting quoted in the collapse thread. :)

There are like 3 regular SF members (members that post in threads OTHER than the 9/11 threads) that regularly participate in these threads. While I take guilty pleasure participating in these threads, I don't want them all over the board. I think the one thread should be kept open in pseudoscience. This whole formal debate was Scott's attempt to bypass Styder's closing of all the threads in PS, except the one. He knew the discussion thread could go on forever, so he created a formal debate in order to use it's discussion thread as a "new" 9/11 thread.

It's certainly true that I wanted a place where all aspects of 9/11 other then the WTC collapses could be discussed. The real question is, is there merit in discussing these issues? I think so.

I also wanted a place to discuss the WTC collapses in a place that could be a little more civil than pseudoscience, which is why I created a WTC collapses discussion as well. However, it seems that the WTC collapses thread is simply too entrenched over in pseudoscience; so unless Stryder gets tired of it, I have a feeling that the main action regarding that subject, atleast, will remain in pseudoscience.

That's NOT the way I read the Formal Debate rules as posted. There's a particular format spelled out about presentation, rebuttal, limited participation (instead of just anyone/everyone jumping in) and a couple of other restrictions.

The 2 debates I engaged in where only against 1 person each. As far as I know, it could have been expanded to include more then one person per side, but in the first case, MacGyver didn't want anyone else involved, and in the second case no one else stepped up to the plate (the debate with Uno Hoo). However, that's the debate part of the equation. The second part is the discussions.



If you are going to just have a free-for-all and ignore those rules, then why keep 'em posted? Just delete them.


I really have no idea where you think the free for all was in the debates. The discussions are more free-for-all, but there is -1- important difference between a formal debates discussion and a normal one- one can stipulate a few conditions at the beginning of them as well; as in, certain insults are not to be used. When discussing things that are very emotionally sensitive, such as 9/11, I think this can be very useful.



And it wasn't you that I had in mind for allowing him to run rampant all over the rules - and the whole place, for that matter.

You claim that I'm running rampant, but the truth of the matter is that the -only- reason that my threads get any time at all is that people actually respond to them. If no one responded they'd get deep sixed without any mod having to lift a finger; which may be the fate of the WTC collapses discussion thread, but I hope it can lie dormant to cover the possibility that Stryder gets tired of hosting the WTC collapses thread at one point and closes it down. Here, atleast, there would be some hard rules on what insults aren't allowed, which could arguably make the thread somewhat less toxic.

Anyway, I think you were referring to Fraggle Rocker; but while Fraggle may have admonished (Q) for using an insult that was proscribed for use as stipulated in the first post of this thread, James certainly didn't deny that this is things should be. And seriously, is it so wrong to want to have a more formal or civil discussion? Finally, I think there's no question that James is quite present in this forum and I seriously doubt that he's not capable of shutting me down, so even if you were referring to Fraggle Rocker I think it's clear that James could just as easily fit the bill in terms of allowing me to have the 2 threads I opened here.

Read-Only:

There's no special restriction on discussion threads, apart from that they must be associated with a Debate.

I was hoping that the same restrictions regarding insults could apply, atleast, to that there would still be something to the idea that the discussion is somewhat more formal then a regular sciforums discussion. There are many "guidelines" that personal attacks shouldn't be done, but I was hoping this is the one forum where atleast -some- personal attacks could actually be proscribed.

That's NOT the way I read the Formal Debate rules as posted. There's a particular format spelled out about presentation, rebuttal, limited participation (instead of just anyone/everyone jumping in) and a couple of other restrictions. If you are going to just have a free-for-all and ignore those rules, then why keep 'em posted? Just delete them.

Is it too much to ask that you actually read the sticky threads? Start here:

74142

In particular, note the difference between Debate threads and Discussion threads.

I was hoping that the same restrictions regarding insults could apply, atleast, to that there would still be something to the idea that the discussion is somewhat more formal then a regular sciforums discussion. There are many "guidelines" that personal attacks shouldn't be done, but I was hoping this is the one forum where atleast -some- personal attacks could actually be proscribed.

How about we limit the discussion to issues raised in the Debate, as well?

Is it too much to ask that you actually read the sticky threads? Start here:

74142

In particular, note the difference between Debate threads and Discussion threads.

Yep, I read them just before posting - and I read them again just now. Perhaps I was being more restrictive than required, but one thing I noticed was that the number and identity of the participants was not agreed on in each case and others joined in - sometimes completely off-topic. And there was no proposal post which was closed as soon as the debate began. :shrug:

Anyway, I think you were referring to Fraggle Rocker; but while Fraggle may have admonished (Q) for using an insult that was proscribed for use as stipulated in the first post of this thread, James certainly didn't deny that this is things should be. And seriously, is it so wrong to want to have a more formal or civil discussion? Finally, I think there's no question that James is quite present in this forum and I seriously doubt that he's not capable of shutting me down, so even if you were referring to Fraggle Rocker I think it's clear that James could just as easily fit the bill in terms of allowing me to have the 2 threads I opened here.

No, it wasn't Fraggle either - what is this anyway, a game of 20 questions?????

I was hoping that the same restrictions regarding insults could apply, atleast, to that there would still be something to the idea that the discussion is somewhat more formal then a regular sciforums discussion. There are many "guidelines" that personal attacks shouldn't be done, but I was hoping this is the one forum where atleast -some- personal attacks could actually be proscribed.

How about we limit the discussion to issues raised in the Debate, as well?

By the above, I take it that you agree that you agree that the discussions can be somewhat more formal then elsewhere on SF. If so, good stuff :-).

As to the your second point, I read the sticky post you posted and this, I believe, is the relevant part:
When a "Debate" thread is created, a "Discussion" thread with the same topic heading should also be created. This is the place where members who are not involved in the formal debate may make comments or discuss the debate.

I had been under the impression that we could bring up any issue related to the debate- in this case, whether 9/11 was an inside job, instead of only the points that were brought up in the debate thread itself. Why should we limit ourselves to what the 2 debaters had to say? I was one of them and I never felt that I was bringing up all the issues; 9/11 is an enormous topic, one that has spanned more then 4500 posts over in pseudoscience- I just wanted to get the debate over with so that we could proceed to this discussion part. If this isn't allowed, I would atleast hope it was possible that a thread could be created in some sci forum where a discussion concerning -all- aspects of 9/11 other then the WTC collapses could be discussed.

Yep, I read them just before posting - and I read them again just now. Perhaps I was being more restrictive than required, but one thing I noticed was that the number and identity of the participants was not agreed on in each case and others joined in - sometimes completely off-topic. And there was no proposal post which was closed as soon as the debate began. :shrug:

Are you thinking of the present debate, or the previous one on 9/11, WTC?

In the present case, the number and identity of the debaters was agreed in advance. No others joined in. And I closed the Proposal thread as soon as the debate started.

As for the previous debate, I wasn't around at the time those threads were started. As is clearly noted in the first posts of each of those threads, that debate did not follow the proper format. Hence, all three threads are now closed and the "debate" is effectively archived.

scott3x:

I'm happy for people to discuss whatever they want in the Discussion thread for now. However, I'm beginning to think the whole thing might be better off being moved elsewhere.

In fact, if the controversy continues, I might open a poll on this in Open Government.

Yep, I read them just before posting - and I read them again just now. Perhaps I was being more restrictive than required, but one thing I noticed was that the number and identity of the participants was not agreed on in each case and others joined in - sometimes completely off-topic. And there was no proposal post which was closed as soon as the debate began. :shrug:

If you're talking about the debates, there was most certainly proposal posts for both the WTC collapses thread and the "Was 9/11 an inside job?" threads. I was also clear to me that the participants were definitely resolved in both cases.

In the WTC collapses thread, it was between me and MacGyver.

In the "was 9/11 an inside job?" thread, it was between me and Uno Hoo.

I believe the only response I made to one of these people was essentially 'you're not supposed to be here'.

The fact that a few others posted in there was due to their lack of understanding of the rules, not due to the fact that the rules hadn't been set.

scott3x:

I'm happy for people to discuss whatever they want in the Discussion thread for now. However, I'm beginning to think the whole thing might be better off being moved elsewhere.

In fact, if the controversy continues, I might open a poll on this in Open Government.

I would absolutely -love- to have a conspiracy forum opened; I would also love to head it :-). Failing that, Fraggle Rocker or yourself sounds good. I hope it can be a place where some rules concerning insults can actually be enforced so that the conversation doesn't spiral downwards. I also would like to be assured that the approved threads don't get killed at some point just because a moderator gets tired of them.

After a few weeks filming was -not- allowed.

i have no idea, but i do know that access to the site by civilians wasn't restricted during the early hours and days after the attack.

So what? Some people took some of the WTC dust with them, but you don't pay attention to that part. But in terms of the heavy duty steel, you'd need quite a lot of equipment to walk away with something that size. A great deal of it, perhaps the most crucial parts, were allegedly stolen. A story from the London Telegraph, 250 tons of scrap stolen from ruins (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1357981/250-tons-of-scrap-stolen-from-ruins.html), has this to say concerning the matter:
By David Sapsted in New York Last Updated: 10:53PM BST 28 Sep 2001
THE theft of more than 250 tons of steel from the ruins of the World Trade Centre is being investigated by the FBI and New York police who believe that it was organised by one of the city's Mafia families....

It is estimated that the scrap metal value of the 255 tons so far recovered would be about £10,000. The detective said: "That is not a great deal in itself but the operation to steal from the WTC was obviously not going to be limited to the 255 tons we have found."...



like i stated before, the cleanup and the rescue effort was civilian (non government) directed. these civilians arrived from all parts of the US.

Wrong; FEMA controlled the investigation. From 9/11 Research's Access Restrictions - The Closure of Ground Zero to Investigators (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/restrictions.html):
While the steel was being removed from the site of the three largest and most mysterious structural failures in history, even the team FEMA had assembled to investigate the failures -- the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) -- was denied access to the evidence. 1 The Science Committee of the House of Representatives later identified several aspects of the FEMA-controlled operation that prevented the conduct of an adquate investigation: 2

* The BPAT did not control the steel. "The lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for investigation before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence."
* FEMA required BPAT members to sign confidentiality agreements that "frustrated the efforts of independent researchers to understand the collapse."
* The BPAT was not granted access to "pertinent building documents."
* "The BPAT team does not plan, nor does it have sufficient funding, to fully analyze the structural data it collected to determine the reasons for the collapse of the WTC buildings."

Gene Corley complained to the Committee that the Port Authority refused to give his investigators copies of the Towers' blueprints until he signed a wavier that the plans would not be used in a lawsuit against the agency. 3

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/105731/46ccb8cd/bouwkunde_gebouw_delft_stort_in_topic.html

We tend to lump conspiracy theories in with pseudoscience, scott3x. A separate forum would just encourage the crazies. :)

We tend to lump conspiracy theories in with pseudoscience, scott3x. A separate forum would just encourage the crazies. :)

Could it atleast be a sub forum and have someone -other- then Stryder lead it, someone who won't close down threads he himself initially approved when he gets tired of them? Also, it would be nice if certain insults weren't allowed to allow for a more civil discussion. I know you like to think of people like me as 'crazies', but what if we're right? Then you'd be impeding the progress of revealing the truth.

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/105731/46ccb8cd/bouwkunde_gebouw_delft_stort_in_topic.html

Well, I guess this thread is now for all aspects of 9/11, since the WTC discussion here has now been closed. I'm assuming it wasn't a demolition? In any case, the building may have been poorly constructed.

that is a steel frame building collapsing from fire alone and no 767 crashed into it unloading 10,000 gallons of fuel either.

that is a steel frame building collapsing from fire alone and no 767 crashed into it unloading 10,000 gallons of fuel either.

The link you provided was, I believe, in German. Certainly not in english. I've never heard of this collapse before. I don't even see any evidence that it wasn't a controlled demolition. Perhaps you can read German, but I can't; do you have an english link so I can verify what you say?

Dutch.

Dutch.

Ok, Dutch; it's still not a language I understand :-p.

the :p is getting old. every post you respond to me has that. WHY?

i prefaced the clip in my post.

the :p is getting old. every post you respond to me has that. WHY?

First of all, not all my responses to you have that smiley. Secondly of all, my :-p is not the same as :p. It's also not meant to be interpreted as the same thing either; I use it in place of you saying the wry grin on my actual face that it's meant to invoke.



i prefaced the clip in my post.

I see no preface.

every other post then.


my :-p is not the same as

yes it is.

every other post then.


I see no preface.

preface was the wrong word to use, wanted to see how you would wiggle around and use that intentional error to your advantage.

I was taking a look at Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11) and was reminded of an issue that I think is frequently unaddressed:
Bin Ladens allowed out of U.S. after 9-11 - Former White House official confirms operation said to be rumor (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34405).

Here's an excerpt from Michael Moore's movie:
The FAA has taken the action to close
all of the airports in the United States....

But really, who wanted to fly?


No one, except the bin Ladens.

We had airplanes pick up...

...Osama bin Laden's family and other Saudis...

...and transport them out of the U.S.

The White House approved planes...

... to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis.

At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes...

... carried the Saudis and bin Ladens...

... out of the U.S. After September 13th.

In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family...

... were allowed to leave the country.

Osama's always been portrayed as the black sheep in the family...

...that they cut off all relationship with him in 1994.

It's more complicated than that.

Moore: Osama has had contact with other family members?

Right. In the summer of 2001, just before 9l11, one of Osama's sons...

...got married in Afghanistan, and several family members...

...showed up at the wedding.

Moore: Bin Ladens?

That's right. So they're not cut off completely. That's an exaggeration.

every other post then.

Even that's not true.




my :-p is not the same as

yes it is.

John, you don't define what I mean by certain symbols, sorry.




I see no preface.

preface was the wrong word to use, wanted to see how you would wiggle around and use that intentional error to your advantage.

"wiggle around"? John, what word, exactly, -would- have been the right word? You posted a link and nothing else, to a page with a video of the partial collapse of a building, with the text in Dutch. I assume that you think that the building wasn't taken down by any type of controlled demolition. I haven't seen any direct evidence of this, but I'll buy it for now. In any case, there's no evidence that I can see that that building was a steel framed building.

And what does that mean? Many government officials were able to fly that day, not only Saudi

"wiggle around"? John, what word, exactly, -would- have been the right word? You posted a link and nothing else, to a page with a video of the partial collapse of a building, with the text in Dutch. I assume that you think that the building wasn't taken down by any type of controlled demolition. I haven't seen any direct evidence of this, but I'll buy it for now. In any case, there's no evidence that I can see that that building was a steel framed building.

i assumed you read my post after your initial response. office fire, steel fram building, no explosive, no super thermite\nano thermite\thernite\thermate.


In any case, there's no evidence that I can see that that building was a steel framed building

and what would you think it was made of.
:wallbang:

And what does that mean? Many government officials were able to fly that day, not only Saudi

You seem to be implying that the bin laden family were all government officials. If this is what you mean to say, do you have any evidence to support this claim? Anyway, here's another good excerpt from Michael Moore's film:

This is retired FBI agent Jack Cloonan. Before 9/11, he was a senior agent on the joint FBl-CIA al Qaeda task force.

Jack: I, as an investigator, would not want these people to have left. I think, in the case of the bin Laden family, it would have been prudent to hand the subpoenas out, have them come in, get on-the-record. You know, get on-the-record.

Moore: That's the proper procedure?

Jack: Yeah.

i assumed you read my post after your initial response. office fire, steel fram building, no explosive, no super thermite\nano thermite\thernite\thermate.

John, why can't you make this a little easier for me? You know, by putting all of the relevant material in a single post? There are times when, due to your dislike of quoting people, I have trouble even knowing who you're responding to.




In any case, there's no evidence that I can see that that building was a steel framed building

and what would you think it was made of.
:wallbang:

It was perhaps a concrete framed building, as was the Windsor Tower in Madrid (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html). Even so, it seems like it the partial collapse didn't need much fire, which certainly contrasts with the only other example I know of a partial collapse due to fires, the Windsor tower. The Windsor Tower had a concrete frame, and yet it still put up more of a fight then that. Perhaps it was very poorly designed, or perhaps it got a bit of help from some explosives. I know nothing about the building in that video clip other then what I can see in the actual clip.

You seem to be implying that the bin laden family were all government officials. If this is what you mean to say, do you have any evidence to support this claim? Anyway, here's another good excerpt from Michael Moore's film:

This is retired FBI agent Jack Cloonan. Before 9/11, he was a senior agent on the joint FBl-CIA al Qaeda task force.

Jack: I, as an investigator, would not want these people to have left. I think, in the case of the bin Laden family, it would have been prudent to hand the subpoenas out, have them come in, get on-the-record. You know, get on-the-record.

Moore: That's the proper procedure?

Jack: Yeah.

i am not implying that they were all govt. officials.

i suppose they could have interviewed them but i really dont know what someone would expect to get and you cannot just force people to interview because a relative committed a crime or is a suspect. most likely you would have to go to them but that is neither here no there. And of course you dont know when and if they were interviewed at a later time.

John, why can't you make this a little easier for me? You know, by putting all of the relevant material in a single post? There are times when, due to your dislike of quoting people, I have trouble even knowing who you're responding to.


who else would i be responding to?

So what? Some people took some of the WTC dust with them, but you don't pay attention to that part.
i would be more than glad to.
the only problem would be to insure the "evidence" wasn't tainted.

Wrong; FEMA controlled the investigation.
are you tired scott?
i specifically stated the rescue and cleanup was civilian directed.
these civilians comprised firemen, cops, construction engineers, and workmen alike.
contrary to what you have posted, and i have video evidence*, ground zero was not "roped off" by the military or any other agency during the early hours and days following the collapse.

*excerpt from the video:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2170056&postcount=1869

i am not implying that they were all govt. officials.

Ok.



i suppose they could have interviewed them but i really dont know what someone would expect to get and you cannot just force people to interview because a relative committed a crime or is a suspect.

The former FBI agent seemed to think so. They could, ofcourse, have pleaded the 5th, but atleast they would be on record as doing so. As it is, they flew the coop, with the help of the government officials at the highest levels.


most likely you would have to go to them but that is neither here no there.

Yes, at this point, I think the U.S. would have to request interviews from them and conduct them over there, that is, Saudi Arabia, since they're now there and quite free from the U.S. government's laws.



And of course you dont know when and if they were interviewed at a later time.

I think we would have heard about it, don't you? Anyway, a little more background info on some select Saudis, from WorldnetDaily's Bin Ladens allowed out of U.S. after 9-11 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34405):
WorldNetDaily has reported (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32642) the Saudi envoy donated millions of dollars to bin Laden's favorite charity, the International Islamic Relief Organization, or IIRO. And tens of thousands of dollars in donations made by Princess Haifa bint Faisal, the daughter of the late King Faisal and wife of Bandar, wound up in the hands of two al-Qaida operatives who later became 9-11 hijackers.

The recently released congressional report on the 9-11 attacks accused the Saudi government of financing al-Qaida operations through Saudi-based charities.

Twenty-eight pages of the 800-page report the Bush administration refused to declassify is said to detail suspected ties between the hijackers and agents of the Saudi government. Congressional sources claim the report was delayed for months over arguments with the Bush administration on details of Saudi involvement with al-Qaida.

who else would i be responding to?

I'm just saying it'd be easier if you could include all the relevant information in a single post; not one post say some things, and another say others and expect me to respond to information from 2 different posts in one.

all thread filler.


I think we would have heard about it, don't you?

obviously you assume too much.

So what? Some people took some of the WTC dust with them, but you don't pay attention to that part.

i would be more than glad to.
the only problem would be to ensure the "evidence" wasn't tainted.

Even the USGS found evidence of sulfidation in metal from the WTC buildings. While testing for thermate requires electron microscopes, surely the government can afford it? Steven Jones wasn't even funded by the government and yet he still managed to test for it.






like i stated before, the cleanup and the rescue effort was civilian (non government) directed. these civilians arrived from all parts of the US.

Wrong; FEMA controlled the investigation.

are you tired scott?
i specifically stated the rescue and cleanup was civilian directed.

From wikipedia:
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, is an agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security, initially created by Presidential Order on April 1, 1979)[1][3].



these civilians comprised firemen, cops, construction engineers, and workmen alike.

They didn't control the investigation. Here's what Bill Manning, editor of Fire Engineering had to say in his article $elling Out the Investigation (http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/article_display.html?id=131225):
Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation"... is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.



contrary to what you have posted, and i have video evidence*, ground zero was not "roped off" by the military or any other agency during the early hours and days following the collapse.

*excerpt from the video:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2170056&postcount=1869

So what? You need someone who can actually properly analyze the evidence in order for it to have much meaning. As it so happens, I think that a week or 2 in, there were actually some good pictures that had been taken; but this relative freedom didn't last long as the Boston Globe made clear in its article City: No more photographs of World Trade Center site - By Elisabetta Coletti, Associated Press, 09/26/01 (http://www.boston.com/news/daily/26/photo_ban.htm):
NEW YORK -- Photography at the World Trade Center site, where thousands of curious New Yorkers and tourists have gathered with still and video cameras since the terrorist attacks, was banned by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

"No photographic equipment or video equipment may be brought into the area or used, except with the approval of the Police Commissioner," said a statement issued by the mayor's office on Tuesday.

The statement said that the ban was issued because the site is a crime scene and that cameras and video equipment could be seized. No one from the mayor's office was available early Wednesday to explain why the order wasn't issued earlier.

Small signs were posted around the Trade Center site late Tuesday, warning passers-by that they risk prosecution for a Class B misdemeanor for taking pictures or violating any of the order's other provisions, including no pedestrian or vehicular traffic or occupancy of buildings within site boundaries.

And of course you dont know when and if they were interviewed at a later time.

I think we would have heard about it, don't you?

obviously you assume too much.

I'm only assuming that it would be probable that we would have heard about it. Who knows, perhaps they -were- interviewed; over tea and crumpets, say.

The Bush family enjoyed some close connections with the Bin Laden family. It's #4 in the Top 25 Censored Stories for 2003 (http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/4-bush-administration-hampered-fbi-investigation-into-bin-laden-family-befo/) over at project censored:
4. Bush Administration Hampered FBI Investigation into Bin Laden Family Before 9/11

An FBI file coded 199, which means a case involving national security, records that Abdullah bin Laden, who lived in Washington, originally had a file opened on him “because of his relationship with the Saudi-funded World Assembly of Muslim Youth - a suspected terrorist organization.” The BBC reiterated a well-known claim, made by one of George W. Bush’s former business partners, that Bush made his first million dollars 20 years ago from a company financed by Osama’s elder brother, Salem. It has also been revealed that both the Bushs and the bin Ladens had lucrative stakes in the Carlyle Group, a private investment firm that has grown to be one of the largest investors in US defense and communications contracts.

ok...but in this case the parties involved can interact with one another or have business dealings from years ago due to their positions. Bush is one out of hundreds or thousands this person had dealings with, but of course this rationale does not FIT the conspiracy. There are many people who have relatives in mafia (as an example) or criminal behavior and are judges or law enforcement etc. One person cannot be held responsible for what a relative does if they, themselves, are not guilty of any crime.

OK, call me stupid, but what was the point of having such a short Debate? Why the 2 parties couldn't go at least 2-3 rounds? Usually at least one respond to a respond is expected.

And this thread should be closed down because it has nothing to do anymore with the debate's topic. If Scott wants to pursue his conspiracy thesis in other forum, so be it...

I am generally not against a good discussion, but he is not answering questions but throwing out an incredible amount of data instead of explaining event WITH HIS OWN WORDS.

OK, call me stupid, but what was the point of having such a short Debate? Why the 2 parties couldn't go at least 2-3 rounds? Usually at least one respond to a respond is expected.

my guess?
scott persuaded uno hoo to sign up here specifically for this very reason.
scott, by his own admission, wasn't interested in a debate, he was only interested in getting this topic moved out of the pseudoscience forum.
why else hasn't uno hoo made any remarks in this thread?

Even the USGS found evidence of sulfidation in metal from the WTC buildings.
ever hear of acid rain?

From wikipedia:
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, is an agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security, initially created by Presidential Order on April 1, 1979)[1][3].
the investigation is different than the rescue/ cleanup.
the rescue/ cleanup was conducted and directed by civilians.
some of the above civilians were professionals and nearly all of them heard the phrase on TV "it almost looks like one of those controlled demolitions".
do i really need to spell this out to you like this scott?

They didn't control the investigation. Here's what Bill Manning, editor of Fire Engineering had to say in his article $elling Out the Investigation (http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/article_display.html?id=131225):
Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation"... is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.
too bad he couldn't get any firemen to say the same thing on the record.
i tried to search the above site but you must register to do so.

So what? You need someone who can actually properly analyze the evidence in order for it to have much meaning. As it so happens, I think that a week or 2 in, there were actually some good pictures that had been taken; but this relative freedom didn't last long as the Boston Globe made clear in its article City: No more photographs of World Trade Center site - By Elisabetta Coletti, Associated Press, 09/26/01 (http://www.boston.com/news/daily/26/photo_ban.htm):
[B]
the fact of the matter is that cameras and videos WAS allowed immediately after the collapse.
this disproves your assertion that federal employees "removed evidence" AKA unexploded bomb material, from the site.

scott persuaded uno hoo to sign up here specifically for this very reason.
scott, by his own admission, wasn't interested in a debate, he was only interested in getting this topic moved out of the pseudoscience forum.


Hmmm, a conspiracy theory on a conspiracy theorist!!! I like it!!!

He should be able to discuss this topic if there are any takers, just maybe in another forum. The problem is that most likely he won't convince anyone and he won't be convinced otherwise either, so the whole discussion is rather moot....

Generally I have 2 problems with Scott:

1. He doesn't explain things in simple sentences using his own words. Puring out too many links has an opposite effect.

2. He doesn't seem to be able to acknowledge that knowing something and letting it happen doesn't equal actively helping it to happen. Once he is able to do so, there won't be any need for the explosives...

OK, call me stupid, but what was the point of having such a short Debate? Why the 2 parties couldn't go at least 2-3 rounds? Usually at least one respond to a respond is expected.

When dealing with a complex post, I have been known to expand my response to more then one post. As a matter of fact, I did just that in the previous debate concerning an issue of 9/11, the WTC collapses and got some complaints because of it. As a matter of fact, that may well have happened with the debate; I wanted to make it so that it would have been ok; but in order for the debate to not stretch on too long, I wanted to terminate the debate part after I finished my response to what I thought would have been Uno Hoo's original post. However, it didn't happen; I found out that Uno Hoo actually wanted -me- to go first and that changes things; while I can be fairly lengthy when responding to a post, I'm generally not so lengthy when starting a thread.



And this thread should be closed down because it has nothing to do anymore with the debate's topic.

You're not serious are you?



If Scott wants to pursue his conspiracy thesis in other forum, so be it...

Before this thread was opened, I knew of no other thread where all aspects of 9/11 could be discussed. Originally, this thread wasn't supposed to include the WTC collapses sub topic because it had its own discussion thread in this very forum, but that thread has now been closed, so I guess it now includes all aspects of 9/11. While there is another thread in the pseudoscience forum that deals with the WTC collapses, there are essentially no rules on the type of language that can be used there; I personally like a more civil approach.



I am generally not against a good discussion, but he is not answering questions

I believe that I have done my best to answer a fair amount of questions. While there are actually some rules here as to the language that can be used, this doesn't mean that everyone's being incredibly amicable, however, and what this means is that at times I get a little tired of the at times toxic style of responses even here.


but throwing out an incredible amount of data instead of explaining event WITH HIS OWN WORDS.

I have explained certain aspects of 9/11 in my own words; however, I feel that using my own words is frequently unnecessary- many things that I'd like to get across have been admirably explained by others in the past and I feel it makes far more sense to quote these people then the 'reinvent the wheel', so to speak.

what about this scott?


of course the witnesses that fall into this catagory are the ones that uphold the what really happened.
i've also noticed that you haven't provided a list of witnesses.

because you aren't interested in finding the truth.
you have it in your mind that it was "a bomb".
the size of the plane is most certainly relevant.

again you have provided no witnesses to the actual "plant".
who was it that saw theses pieces being "planted"?
you do realize that the pentagon, AND washington DC, gets thousands of visitors each year right?

who gives a ratsass about photos and articles?
i want to see your list of WITNESSES, not some "he said, she said" crap.

you need to produce witnesses scott.

on what grounds? because someone in california says so?

a plane could have done it as well too, it also has the added advantage of "disposing" of the passengers

you haven't produced a single eye witness to airplane parts being planted but ask your opponent to produce proof of their assertions?

you were asked by uno hoo to do this debate in your own words.
so, in you own words what happened to the passengers scott?
don't forget the proof part.


Uno Hoo also thinks he remembers asking a condition to be that the Formal Debate and the subsequent Discussion Thread be conducted in a civil and respectful fashion. Admittedly, "civil" and "respectful" were not defined down to a gnat's nose hair, but it is my humble(?) opinion that a bit of dialog already gone over the spillway round here which is way too uncivil. And disrespectful too.

Uno Hoo also thinks he remembers asking a condition to be that the Formal Debate and the subsequent Discussion Thread be conducted in a civil and respectful fashion. Admittedly, "civil" and "respectful" were not defined down to a gnat's nose hair, but it is my humble(?) opinion that a bit of dialog already gone over the spillway round here which is way too uncivil. And disrespectful too.

Uno Hoo, I've gotten used to merely somewhat disrespectful. I'm simply trying to proscribe the seriously bad, such as descriptions of a person that include the f word, etc.

He says crap, I've said shoddy to describe NIST's work. As long as no one uses the insults that I proscribed at the beginning of the thread and that isn't clearly over the top, I'll go with it; it doesn't mean that I will actually respond if I find it to be fairly offensive, but I can atleast content myself that everyone is following -some- rules in regards to offensive comments.

Well I reported you (Q), as you called me an idiot and I specifically said it shouldn't be allowed in this discussion. Now I don't know if I can actually have that enforced, but I figured it'd be worth the effort. Anyway, if you want to generally have your points ignored, using base insults is a generally surefire way of getting this accomplished with me.

Uno Hoo did not "get persuaded" to take part in the Formal debate. Uno Hoo became interested in the 9/11 thing and especially wanted to participate in a Pentagon thread on the same day that JamesR Evil Administrator axed the ex-Pentagon thread. When Uno Hoo got wind of the possibility of a debate and then a polite and respectful thread discussion, the rest was history.

If my Swiss Cheese memory might be right, JamesR Righteous Administrator was agreeable to the Uno Hoo condition that the Discussion Thread be "civil and respectful".

Uno Hoo has a day job which is vexingly demanding on time and energy. Day job has even much more important consequence to nation and humanity than issue of 9/11 conspiracy or not. While wishing that it could be otherwise, my participation must be "hit and run", or, "hit and miss".

It has seemed that every day of perusing information re 9/11 has given me more apprehension that the official explanation may be doubted. However, there are certainly elements of the official story which seem likely and verified. But there are also a growing number of loose ends that don't add up.

And in recent days there was an unfortunate flap between myself and a participant in the World Trade Center thread which pissed me so much that I lost interest for a while.

So this is my first real personal opportunity to dip my toe into this Pentagon thread.

Having a strong personal history of experience in structural design allows me to notice that there was a huge seeming difference between the behavior of the structure of both airplane and the building in Pentagon versus WTC. The official story of the airplane crash behavior and building response behavior is remarkably different for Pentagon versus WTC. I personally think of this as my launching point for figuring out whether there was a conspiracy or simply a terrorist assault.

* * * * NOTE FROM A MODERATOR * * * *

* sigh* ... I have not seen this thread and in fact I resolutely stay away from this board because I don't find it the least bit interesting. But whenever anyone files a Report on a post in the Formal Debates subforum, it goes out to ALL THE MODERATORS. Apparently it's our job to moderate this little looney-tunes sandbox whether we have better things to do or not.

Scott has reported TWO of the posts in this discussion so I finally came over here to see what the yelling was about, and discovered that none of the other Moderators have weighed in. * sigh *That's not a "formal debate" by the rules of any debating society. But I suppose you get to make your own rules here.Then you came to the wrong website. Those words are common currency here. Personal insults are a violation of the forum rules, but it's difficult to enforce. Especially if none of the Moderators read this stuff!Those are personal insults too. Apparently we all have our own ideas about what constitutes civil discourse. Do you see my problem?I don't see how what he's doing is a violation of our rule against trolling, much less spamming.Hey dude, this is a place of science so feel free to help us enforce the scientific method. If an extraordinary assertion is posted without extraordinary evidence to support it, invoke the Rule of Laplace and challenge it. If the evidence is not forthcoming then the poster must SHUT UP and never pursue that line of reasoning again. And BTW, calling someone a "pea brain" is a personal insult and therefore a violation of the forum rules. I've called you before on your hair trigger. It takes two to drag a discussion into the mud.I don't know what you mean by that but as an American I support free speech. We prohibit racism and personal insults and that's about it. Everything else, as far as I'm concerned, is governed by the scientific method. If a theory is simply crackpottery, then invoke the Rule of Laplace. A second posting of the same theory without substantiation is trolling and grounds for banning. It's as simple as that. The administrators are big on turning this website back into the place of science it was ten years ago, so let's help them out.Your report is duly noted and Q is hereby reprimanded. If he does it again, please PM the Moderator of the subforum on which this discussion would have to take place if it didn't fall into the bizarre, misnamed category of "Formal Debates."

In closing, based on what I've gleaned from a quick review of this thread, I'd say it's not going anywhere and you're all wasting your time. You'd probably get more action and even some scholarship on the World Events or Engineering board.

I currently live in the Washington metropolitan area and drive past the Pentagon routinely. It's in Arlington, a densely populated urban area with an enormous volume of foot and vehicle traffic. It's a couple of blocks from an elevated freeway, a shopping mall, and rows of high-rise hotels and government office buildings. It even has its own subway station. I wasn't here on 9/11, but there is no controversy among the local people about the events of that date.

NOTE FROM A FORMAL DEBATER

Prior to engaging in Formal Debate, I asked a small number of conditions be granted for both the Debate and the subsequent Thread (Unless my worn out old memory has finally croaked). I asked for civil and respectful. Is someone having a serious problem with meaning of the words "civil" and "respectful"?

I have explained certain aspects of 9/11 in my own words;

OK, let's try one more times with the flyover plane:

What is the point of overcomplicating an attack with this supposed flyover, when a flying away plane can be seen by 100s of people? Sometimes the simplest is the best solution.

Also, even without the Pentagon attack the country would have been outraged anyway, so it wasn't really needed. There were 4 planes, just in case if 1-2 can't reach its destination. The whole flyover story just doesn't add up and unexplainable...

It sounds to me like you haven't read any of the sticky threads that head this subforum. If you're going to moderate the forum, you really should familiarise yourself with its special format and rules.

While this particular debate may not follow the "rules of any debating society", that does not necessarily disqualify it from being a valid debate, especially according to the rules of the subforum.

If you take a look at previous debates, you will in fact find that several of them do closely follow a traditional debate format similar to that of virtually any debating society you'd care to name.

I don't mind criticism, but I'd prefer informed criticism rather than uninformed tangential sniping, thanks Fraggle.


While my old man memory has been proving more suspicious all the time, I believe i asked for a condition that both the Debate and the Thread be civil and respectful. And I seem to remember that JamesR Righteous Administrator agreed, or, at least, did not disagree.

On second thought, I've come to think that you're right in regards to the size of the plane in one way; while I'm fine with the idea that the size of the plane flying over the pentagon was the same size as the flight 77, the size of the hole that the plane allegedly made is far too small for the plane to have actually made the impact.

My present sentiment exactly. It seems to me that crash damage endemic to the moment of impact was that of something quite smaller than a jetliner. I have not seen 58 tons of Aluminum plus many more tons of Titanium, Steel, Stainless Steel, Tungsten, and such like.

I've now gotten an answer as to why they didn't simply crash flight 77 into the pentagon:
Motive for flyover? (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=16380&view=findpost&p=10765104)




I have never claimed to have any eye witnesses to airplane parts being planted. Uno -did- claim that an official report claimed that "DNA from everyone on the jetliner was found and identified". For this reason, I think it's a perfectly valid question.




That was the rule for the debate part. We're now in the discussion part and no such rule was stipulated for that part of it.

It is my memory that my condition(s) for the Debate were also to pertain to the Thread.

well you made some excellent arguements in that regard EXCEPT for the list of witnesses that actuall y seen the jet fly over the pentagon instead of into it.
even a list of witnesses will do little good for the fact that their character cannot be ascertained. are they attention whores? are they pathological liars? are there cops and firemen that seen the flyover?


why not just fly the plane load of passengers into the building scott?
doesn't that make more sense than what you are proposing?
be honest with yourself scott, doesn't it make more sense to do tat?

my references earlier as to the cleanup and rescue efforts was in regards to WTC 1 and 2.


If you are a dumb and crazy conspirator, you still might have just enough of a spark of lucid mind that you realize that you can never be certain that things will go like you plan.

What if one or more passenger survives and testifies against you?

What if the pilot or copilot balk at committing suicide by flying into a building at 500 MPH?

I completely agree with McG, this debate was a huge disappointment!!! After all the proposal setup, a huge letdown! You failed to convince us. I might read your links provided in this thread and I have a feeling this thread is going to be actually more interesting than the debate...

This whole flyover idea is plain silly, because of Occam's razor. Why not just let the plane hit whatever they can?(assuming it can reach an important target) What is the guarantee that the plane actually can make it to the Pentagon? Or it can go actually close enough to the "bombed" area??? Why complicate things when it isn't necessery???

And wouldn't there be a bunch of eyewitnesses, (specially after an explosion) stating that they saw a plane flying away???

There are some inconsistencies with the Pentagon attack, but this flyover theory just makes the rest look bad...

Cheez! You don't let an airplane hit a building. You have to make an airplane hit a building.

If you are a dumb and crazy conspirator and you have a nefarious reason to wreak havoc upon the Pentagon, you might possibly find yourself in the awkward situation where your best bud, Osama, is not interested in borrowing some airplanes and their crew and passengers, and crashing them. So, if your bud Osama is not going to do the nasty, you have to do it yourself, big guy.

You are thinking in terms of being a little punk conspirator. Think in terms of being a big guy conspirator. If Osama won't do it, then you choreograph the crashes and invent evidence of alien terrorists, presence of crew, and presence of passengers.

If you are a big guy conspirator and want to rouse nation resentment against Osama et al, possibly in addition to other complicated issues, then you want to make it look like O did it.

Occam Razor is a good idea in many science issues. But when a detective is trying to figure out a big crime, Occam Razor is not very reliable. Human motives can easily be so devious and irrational, especially in the minds of crooks, that the simplest possibility is most often the wrong one.

Just my personal opinion - but I believe several others here agree with it: We've had ALL the 9/11 conspiracy threads we can stand! The proponents - mostly Scott - do nothing in them but regurgitate the same old tired arguments over and over again. It's VERY boring!! There's NOT a thing new that can possibly be added to them and keeping all these threads is nothing but a huge waste of space.

There are too many loose ends.

The official story has holes like a Swiss Cheese.

The conspiracy theory has holes like a Swiss Cheese.

If you don't like what is on the telly, look away, or, turn it off.

Don't try to turn my telly off till I am tired of my telly.

The Debate was only ever a thinly-veiled pretext to have yet another 9/11 endless conspiracy thread. I can only assume that's why scott3x put so little effort into it.

Hey! Don't single out scott3x for all the credit!

JamesR Righteous Administrator surely knows that Uno Hoo also wanted to have a civil and respectful place to contemplate the truth of 9/11. Uno Hoo will match his ability to put minimal effort into an enterprise against all comers.

where are the "myraid of insults" in this thread scott?

and? so?
scott starts the thread, he's allowed to post what is, and isn't, allowed.
in short he makes the rules for his threads, as can anyone else that posts in this particular sub-forum.

:rolleyes:


Wrong again, Leo.

Uno Hoo especially asked for a very few conditions (rules) for the Debate and the Thread. One condition was that they be civil and respectful. One insult is too many. And ONE has already happened way back down the road.

By the above, I take it that you agree that you agree that the discussions can be somewhat more formal then elsewhere on SF. If so, good stuff :-).

As to the your second point, I read the sticky post you posted and this, I believe, is the relevant part:
When a "Debate" thread is created, a "Discussion" thread with the same topic heading should also be created. This is the place where members who are not involved in the formal debate may make comments or discuss the debate.

I had been under the impression that we could bring up any issue related to the debate- in this case, whether 9/11 was an inside job, instead of only the points that were brought up in the debate thread itself. Why should we limit ourselves to what the 2 debaters had to say? I was one of them and I never felt that I was bringing up all the issues; 9/11 is an enormous topic, one that has spanned more then 4500 posts over in pseudoscience- I just wanted to get the debate over with so that we could proceed to this discussion part. If this isn't allowed, I would atleast hope it was possible that a thread could be created in some sci forum where a discussion concerning -all- aspects of 9/11 other then the WTC collapses could be discussed.


Being the other debater, perhaps I have a valid opinion also. I was interested in having a civil and respectful thread in which to discuss especially the Pentagon 9/11, but also the other 9/11 events. In open posts between scott3x and myself, it was my understanding that the Formal Debate was, indeed, a formality. That may be some kind of a pun, albeit a serious one. It was my beforehand expectation that the Thread would encompass the Pentagon and also any other relevant 9/11 matter.

I had developed a respect for scott3x integrity, or else i would not have so easily volunteered my participation. I have no diminished respect, and so am completely satisfied presently that scott3x active influence upon the Thread will lend it possibility to explore 9/11 and hopefully, if possible, realize the real truth behind those events.

OK, call me stupid, but what was the point of having such a short Debate? Why the 2 parties couldn't go at least 2-3 rounds? Usually at least one respond to a respond is expected.

And this thread should be closed down because it has nothing to do anymore with the debate's topic. If Scott wants to pursue his conspiracy thesis in other forum, so be it...

I am generally not against a good discussion, but he is not answering questions but throwing out an incredible amount of data instead of explaining event WITH HIS OWN WORDS.


OK.

Syzygys; You are stupid.

Short debate was like limited number of warm up pitches in baseball game.

Understand?

If you and other kibitzers want to talk about 9/11 facts and theories, nobody is holding you back. Most posters have kibitzed by bitching about procedures and rules. Nothing is stopping any of you from talking about WTC, Pentagon, or Pennsylvania.

my guess?
scott persuaded uno hoo to sign up here specifically for this very reason.
scott, by his own admission, wasn't interested in a debate, he was only interested in getting this topic moved out of the pseudoscience forum.
why else hasn't uno hoo made any remarks in this thread?

Uno Hoo is too irascible to be persuaded by anyone.

Why don't you try to persuade me about anything? Or why don't you try to coerce me, bad boy?

Better question for you than yours for me: Why don't you ask some pertinent question regarding 9/11, instead of just wasting all your energy trying to argue about what the meaning of the word is is?

Hmmm, a conspiracy theory on a conspiracy theorist!!! I like it!!!

He should be able to discuss this topic if there are any takers, just maybe in another forum. The problem is that most likely he won't convince anyone and he won't be convinced otherwise either, so the whole discussion is rather moot....

Generally I have 2 problems with Scott:

1. He doesn't explain things in simple sentences using his own words. Puring out too many links has an opposite effect.

2. He doesn't seem to be able to acknowledge that knowing something and letting it happen doesn't equal actively helping it to happen. Once he is able to do so, there won't be any need for the explosives...


The structural design of the twin towers was so good, in basic principle, that it is incredible that an aircraft strike alone could have brought one down. Especially in view of the fact the famous F4 Phantom movie showed how the airplane would have poofed into Aluminum confetti rather than blowing away all those columns and spandrels. And, the Pentagon crash showed how the airplane would have only made a hole for the fuselage, rather than blowing away all those other building parts.

The F4 Phantom movie showed how the airplane would poof into Aluminum confetti rather than do much damage to the obstacle.

The Pentagon crash showed how the airplane would make a small hole for the fuselage but the wings and engines would not knock down much of anything.

The WTC crash(es) showed how the airplane(s) would blow away massive steel columns and spandrels to leave huge gaping holes.

The Pentagon crash showed how a crash would make a fire that was knocked down in ten minutes and which did not melt 58 tons of Aluminum or melt hundreds of gallons of steel.

The WTC crash showed how a crash could make a fire that melted 58 tons of Aluminum and also melted enough steel to make hundreds of gallons of molten yellow steel.

Something is wrong here. The answer is to argue about Thread procedure and what the meaning of the word is is.

are you feeling alright there uno hoo?

are you feeling alright there uno hoo?

Like Jerry Lee Lewis once said, ( because of 9/11 puzzles ), I'm a little mixed up, but I'm feelin fine.

Why don't you try to persuade me about anything? Or why don't you try to coerce me, bad boy?

obviously the mods disagree with your assertion i've been uncivil and disrespectful because my posts are still here and i haven't received any PMs from them.

i can't convince you of anything, all i can do is present the facts as i know them to be.

I think there is a good chance that Uno is Scott. He was supposed to be on the other side and now he is arguing Scott's points.



What if one or more passenger survives and testifies against you?

What if the pilot or copilot balk at committing suicide by flying into a building at 500 MPH?

1. Testifies against whom? Me, the terrorist dead guy? Who cares?

2. This is a chance they had to take. Also there were 4-5 guys, so 1 balking doesn't necessery mean the attack doesn't go as planned.

OK.

Syzygys; You are stupid.

Why, because I haven't put you on Ignore? That can come very fast. :)


Short debate was like limited number of warm up pitches in baseball game.
Understand?

Actually, I don't understand. Or you don't understand the purpose of Formal Debate forum. The major part of the debate should be in the Debate thread. End of story.

Cheez! You don't let an airplane hit a building. You have to make an airplane hit a building.

You are an idiot son. Your whole conspracy is based on that NOBODY wanted to hit anything in the US, thus was the need for insider action. Unfortunatelly, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, so our conversation is over.

You are neither educating nor entertaining, so off you go to my Ignore...

Well, the WTC collapses thread has been closed in pseudoscience. I believe that a response to the closing remarks of the moderator who closed it (Stryder) should be allowed. Here's to hoping it is allowed to stay up...


Tony Szamboti, a mechanical engineer and a well known figure in the 9/11 truth movement, having worked on a peer reviewed paper (http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM) with such notables as physicist Steven Jones (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones) and whistle blower Kevin Ryan (http://www.ultruth.com/Kevin_Ryan.htm), stated:

The fact that forensic testing wasn't performed on the steel from WTC 7 and the twin towers is a reality no matter when the point is made.

Stryder opened his response with a fairly well known quote:

"The Evidence of Absence does not mean the Absence of Evidence". If something stuck out a mile, investigators would of found it.

I agree wholeheartedly. The problem is that thermate doesn't stick out a mile; the only way you can know if it's there is if you scan for it, I believe with an electron microscope. Only one person bothered to do this as far as I know: Steven Jones.


Stryder continued:

you aren't talking about a sophisticated data crime that can go nearly transparent, you are referring to the destruction of an entire building.

Most people are fully aware that the WTC collapses were destroyed. However, it takes a fair amount of knowledge to realize that the only way they could have come down the way they did was by controlled demolition.

OK.

Syzygys; You are stupid.

Szygys, not that I mind your take on 9/11 here, but this thread specifically stated in the opening post:

Please note the following: I would like it so that no one does the following in this discussion thread:
Use words such as the f word in all of its permutations, moron, stupid, idiot, pea brain, bitch, whore or their derivatives (moronic, stupid argument, idiotic, etc.) or any other fairly insulting personal attack.

I am fine with put downs such as lame, obtuse and allusions to flocks and flock mentalities.

I know there are many more insults, but I'm just trying to see if we can avoid these few. I have reported neither Uno Hoo or you, perhaps in part because neither of you were referring to my fine self, but also because I am -hoping- that it was simply an honest mistake.



Short debate was like limited number of warm up pitches in baseball game.

Understand?

Apparently he doesn't. I'll work on him :-).



If you and other kibitzers want to talk about 9/11 facts and theories, nobody is holding you back. Most posters have kibitzed by bitching about procedures and rules. Nothing is stopping any of you from talking about WTC, Pentagon, or Pennsylvania.

True enough...

Short debate was like limited number of warm up pitches in baseball game.
Understand?

Actually, I don't understand. Or you don't understand the purpose of Formal Debate forum. The major part of the debate should be in the Debate thread. End of story.

According to who? Certainly not me. I like the more formal aspect of the formal debates forum only in one sense: that you can limit the amount of -insults- in it. The debate thread is a bit too formal for my tastes and I personally wanted any civil person to be able to discuss the issues, responding to a post with as many posts as they saw fit. However, many didn't like this idea, so in the ending, I wrote one post and Uno Hoo wrote one response. Then, as far as I was concerned, the real discussion could take place, unhindered by so many restrictions. The only restriction I wanted to keep was to censure certain insults.

Now, however, I see that first Uno Hoo and now you have used proscribed insults. Perhaps neither of you were aware of the proscribed words mentioned in the opening post of this thread, but I hope that you will both review them now.

Cheez! You don't let an airplane hit a building. You have to make an airplane hit a building.

You are an idiot son.

I know that Uno Hoo was the first to use one of the proscribed words, but now you have done so as well. From the opening post:

Please note the following: I would like it so that no one does the following in this discussion thread:
Use words such as the f word in all of its permutations, moron, stupid, idiot, pea brain, bitch, whore or their derivatives (moronic, stupid argument, idiotic, etc.) or any other fairly insulting personal attack.

I am fine with put downs such as lame, obtuse and allusions to flocks and flock mentalities.



Your whole conspracy is based on that NOBODY wanted to hit anything in the US, thus was the need for insider action.

I never saw Uno Hoo claim any such thing. Just because some foreigners wanted to, however, doesn't mean they were actually capable of doing it; certainly not without insider help.

Szygys, .

It is kind of funny, that you are addressing ME, when I was insulted first. Not to mention I NEVER namecall, I simply state facts. Thus if I state that a person is mentally not up to pair, you can take poison on it.

By the way, have you answered my flyover question???

According to who?

According to common sense. I know, for a conspiracy theorists common sense might not mean much, but it makes sense:

Proposal: There is a challenge and acceptance of it.

Debate: There is a debate

Discussion: We discuss the debate

Call me stupid, but the debate thread is called as such because that's where the debate is SUPPOSED to take place, in the discussion we are supposed to discuss the debate and might add more. But generally still stick to the topic, which wasn't the WTC...

I never saw Uno Hoo claim any such thing.

Now I can't see it either, because he is on my Ignore. :)

You replied 3 posts of mine and still no explanation for the flyover. Bad, bad approach...

Bad, bad approach...
which isn't a bad line. :)

Structural Design lesson for those who are a faux structural designer, pretending to be a structural designer, or, want to be a structural designer ( real structural designers may skip this section ):

Building Codes require floor structures ( and their supporting structure ) to be designed for a specific amount of live load. I think that i remember correctly from perusing the online Structural Blueprints, that the WTC was required to be designed for 150 pounds per square foot live load. Live load is simply the stuff that is not "bolted down". That is; people walking to and fro, furniture that may be moved here and there, and such like. In the normal conduct of business in an office , an office's floor area does not get anywhere near a total of 150 pounds for every square foot. If an office space had a party where everybody was invited, and the donuts were free, and people were standing cheek to jowl, it would probably average out to be 150 pounds on every square foot of floor. In virtually every office space in the normal routine, you will have just a very few people and a very few hundred pounds of furniture. So, in WTC you probably had much less than 150 pounds per square foot live load on the floor. Especially considering the fact that people who could get off the affected floor(s) left, and shortly after that, all the combustible furniture and paper and such like went up in smoke and so were no longer a weight burden. So, we had a floor required to be designed for 150 pounds per square foot which, while the building was still standing, actually was supporting only a very few pounds per square foot, of its original pre-crash load. Except, of course, for 58 tons of newly acquired Aluminum. And, about 50 more tons of Steel, Stainless Steel, Titanium, and such like. Very roughly 100 tons ( 200,000 pounds ) on half the building average storey floor area 20,000 square feet. 200,000 pounds divided by 20,000 square feet. Izzat about 10 pounds per square foot? What'd I say? What'd I say right now? 10 pounds per square foot more after a jetliner landed on it? Somebody check my arithmetic. That is only 10 pounds per square foot extra on a floor required by Building Code to carry 150 pounds per square foot.

Wait a minute. Not the whole story. According to the summary of the online Structural Blueprints, the WTC was actually designed to carry 5X the load required by the Building Code. Holey Moley. The WTC was actually designed to carry 5 x 150 pounds per square foot = 750 pounds per square foot. Of course, all the load reactions into all the floor supports had to be also designed to carry 750 pounds per square foot. The spandrels therefore were designed to resist the inward pull provided by 750 pounds per square foot. The columns were designed to resist the inward pull provided by 750 pounds per square foot. You understand we are talking about live load? The WTC was designed, according to the summary of the online Structural Blueprints, to carry 750 pounds per square foot live load. And, at the moment of collapse, with very few unfortunate people on the floor, and with all combustible furniture up in smoke, the floor had 10 pounds per square foot of new Aluminum on the floor. But, it is likely that the Aluminum melted and flowed out down the wall, and was not there. Aluminum has left the building. So, the structure was designed to carry 750 pounds live load per square foot of floor area, and was actually carrying almost no pounds per square foot live load at the moment of collapse.

Get another bag of popcorn and another bottle of beer. More to come:

Structural Design practice is extremely conservative. Manufacturing mill procedures are not carefully controlled to the extent that a NASA lab is. Steel may have rare minute flaws in the crystal structure. Standard structural engineering practice takes this into account and requires that normally manufactured steel be rated with a SAFETY FACTOR of 3x. This means that every normally manufactured piece of steel must be considered as having 1/3 the strength of a perfectly manufactured piece of steel would have. This means that most of the time a steel beam or whatever ( which is free of the rare crystal flaw ) will carry 3X the load that the Building Code requires.

Most of the time, in most circumstances, most steel does not have any flaws in its crystal structure. Most of the time, most steel structures will gladly support 3X the load that any responsible structural designer will design them for.

So, what do we have here. Every WTC piece of steel would probably have safely carried 3X its design load. And, according to the summary of the online Structural Blueprints, the WTC was designed for 5X the Building Code requirement. 3X times 5X = 15X the Building Code requirement for live load. At the moment of collapse, there was practically no live load.

At the moment of collapse, the steel structural members had much more than 15X structural capacity except for the temperature factor. Steel loses strength at lower temperature than its melting point. This has been extensively tested, published, and is very well known among structural designers.

At the moment of collapse, if the correct theory is that the trusses and their supports were so weakened by high temperature that they no longer resisted inward pull, then all the related steel structural members had to have lost somewhat more than 14/15 of their normal strength. All the involved steel members would have to have been at very close to their melting point to have lost that much strength.

This is not a trivial problem for anyone trying to claim the establishment story of simple airplane crash and jet fuel fire.

According to common sense. I know, for a conspiracy theorists common sense might not mean much, but it makes sense:

Proposal: There is a challenge and acceptance of it.

Debate: There is a debate

Discussion: We discuss the debate

Call me stupid, but the debate thread is called as such because that's where the debate is SUPPOSED to take place, in the discussion we are supposed to discuss the debate and might add more. But generally still stick to the topic, which wasn't the WTC...

I'm getting tired of this, but, OK, since you request:

You are stupid.

Szygys, not that I mind your take on 9/11 here, but this thread specifically stated in the opening post:

Please note the following: I would like it so that no one does the following in this discussion thread:
Use words such as the f word in all of its permutations, moron, stupid, idiot, pea brain, bitch, whore or their derivatives (moronic, stupid argument, idiotic, etc.) or any other fairly insulting personal attack.

I am fine with put downs such as lame, obtuse and allusions to flocks and flock mentalities.

I know there are many more insults, but I'm just trying to see if we can avoid these few. I have reported neither Uno Hoo or you, perhaps in part because neither of you were referring to my fine self, but also because I am -hoping- that it was simply an honest mistake.




Apparently he doesn't. I'll work on him :-).




True enough...



Sgygys asked to be called stupid, in his, her or its (?) post.

To be polite, I was seduced by his/her/its begging, and said: OK. You are stupid.

How can he, she, or, it, beg to be called stupid, then afterward complain when a gallant hero grants his, her, or, its pitiful plea?

Sgygys asked to be called stupid, in his, her or its (?) post.

To be polite, I was seduced by his/her/its begging, and said: OK. You are stupid.

How can he, she, or, it, beg to be called stupid, then afterward complain when a gallant hero grants his, her, or, its pitiful plea?

I don't believe he was really asking to be called by that term; I think he was implying the opposite, that people who -would- call him by that term would more fit the bill for the term. However, -regardless- of whether he was asking to be called it or not, it's a term that's not supposed to be used when describing people in this thread.

I'm getting tired of this, but, OK, since you request:

You are stupid.

Uno Hoo, I have already made it clear that such a term shouldn't be used to describe people in this thread. Since there is no doubt that you knew this when you used the term to describe someone this time, I feel obligated to report this new breach of the rules and report this post of yours. For all I know, Fraggle Rocker may have gotten tired of intervening and no other administrator will be interested, but I figure I might as well give it a go...

Structural Design lesson for those who are a faux structural designer, pretending to be a structural designer, or, want to be a structural designer ( real structural designers may skip this section ): ...

This is not a trivial problem for anyone trying to claim the establishment story of simple airplane crash and jet fuel fire.

A very good post Uno Hoo.

I'm getting tired of this, but, OK, since you request:

You are stupid.

If you were so smart you would not past nonsense like you did in that previous post and pretend you made it up yourself...because you didnt.

From the pasted thread, which has been reproduced more times than the Wizard of Oz:


Structural Design lesson for those who are a faux structural designer, pretending to be a structural designer, or, want to be a structural designer ( real structural designers may skip this section ):

Well, Scott, since you repeatedly failed to address my question I have to declare Uno the winner of the debate.

Moderator, it is time to close down this thread... Converstaion is offtopic and unrelated to the debate...

Structural Design practice is extremely conservative. Manufacturing mill procedures are not carefully controlled to the extent that a NASA lab is. Steel may have rare minute flaws in the crystal structure. Standard structural engineering practice takes this into account and requires that normally manufactured steel be rated with a SAFETY FACTOR of 3x. This means that every normally manufactured piece of steel must be considered as having 1/3 the strength of a perfectly manufactured piece of steel would have. This means that most of the time a steel beam or whatever ( which is free of the rare crystal flaw ) will carry 3X the load that the Building Code requires.
.
Yep, engineering and science and mathematics are not quite the same things. Reality does not conform to the perfection of mathematics and engineering has to take into account the imperfections of manufacturing processes. So these people who say the buildings came down because of some kind of design flaw just kill me. It is easier for them to believe in a design flaw than a complicated conspiracy. So how did the buildings stand for 28 years? I want to just reach through the screen and smack them up side the head.

Morons primarily use Occam's Razor to cut their own throats.

psik

PS - Uh,oh! I see I used a FORBIDDEN word. Should I change that to, "Individuals of very limited intellectual capacity primarily use Occam's Razor to cut their own throats."? LOL

PS2 - How do you debate something when the opposition can just declare that the distribution of steel in a skyscraper is irrelevant even when it supposedly collapsed from the top down and therefore had to crush that steel in sequence? It just amounts to, "Turn off your brain and believe the video." "We won the debate." THE END!

What does your beeper go off whenever someone posts in these threads? That bizarre rambling of Uno Hoo (do we know who?) has been posted all over the internet.

What does your beeper go off whenever someone posts in these threads? That bizarre rambling of Uno Hoo (do we know who?) has been posted all over the internet.
.
Actually I have a program that monitors web pages and can notify me of changes but I found it too annoying. No, these are just random checks.

I don't find him bizarre or rambling. It's the NORMAL people that don't see simple physics as obvious that I find bizarre, and usually boring.

psik

Well you cant just determine that somehting should not have happened and make up whatever you want to prove a point. The Hindenburg disaster was not supposed to happen either. Must be a conspiracy as well then.


The Hindenburg disaster took place on May 6, 1937 as the German rigid airship Hindenburg caught fire and was destroyed within one minute while attempting to dock

within one minute??? impossible......

Well you cant just determine that somehting should not have happened and make up whatever you want to prove a point. The Hindenburg disaster was not supposed to happen either. Must be a conspiracy as well then.



within one minute??? impossible......

Thermite!! Superthermite! It has to be!

(Actually..one of the components of the doping compound they put on the skin of the Hinderburg was powdered aluminum, to reflect the heat of the sun. To bad its also the main fuel for thermite. Some think this was the cause of the rapid spread of the fire.)

Well you cant just determine that somehting should not have happened and make up whatever you want to prove a point. The Hindenburg disaster was not supposed to happen either. Must be a conspiracy as well then.

within one minute??? impossible......
.
You mean you can't just claim that the distribution of steel and concrete in a 1360 foot skyscraper is irrelevant while at the same time claiming it collapsed from the top down?

So why hasn't an official source provided us with a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE in SEVEN YEARS? Did the Conservation of Momentum cease to function on 9/11?

That's IMPOSSIBLE!! I don't give a damn about a conspiracy or an Inside Job.

psik

PS - Is damn a forbidden word?

Well, Scott, since you repeatedly failed to address my question I have to declare Uno the winner of the debate.

Sorry, been busy with lots of threads. What was your question?



Moderator, it is time to close down this thread... Converstaion is offtopic and unrelated to the debate...

I think that the discussion is still fairly on topic and I really don't think that the discussion should be closed- this is now the -only- place on sciforums where one can discuss un-official theories regarding 9/11.

Sorry, been busy with lots of threads. What was your question?

Nevermind, you are too busy in the conspiracy circles and probably couldn't answer it anyway.

let's make this thread worth something:

http://avalon.albuquerque.nm.us/images/libra.jpg

The jury is still out on the debate... :)

Moderator's note:

I am leaving this one single instance of this photo intact, since it qualifies as art. However, I have deleted all replications of it in responses, since it is pointless and starts to look like nothing more than soft porn.

I can't promise that the next Moderator or Administrator who sees it will agree with my interpretation of the rules, so don't push it.

--Fraggle Rocker

OK, let's try one more times with the flyover plane:

What is the point of overcomplicating an attack with this supposed flyover, when a flying away plane can be seen by 100s of people? Sometimes the simplest is the best solution.

Ok, let's imagine that the planes were -not- hijacked by actual terrorist pilots. Instead, the passengers of the original planes were put onto planes that could be piloted by remote control. Now, in the case of the twin towers, they were demolished; there was little left of the planes, but apparently some spook times did manage to steel the black boxes before anyone else could get them. No, I don't have a link for that at present, there's just -too- much information and I don't have an encyclopedic memory. I may be able to get it if you're interested, though.

Ok, carrying on to the pentagon flyover. Apparently there was a switch in this case too, but the switch may have happened in mid air; that is, a decoy plane took over the route of the original plane. Remember, in the case of the pentagon 'crash', the building was -not- flattened and if the plane had managed to actually crash into the building (which is in doubt, there's a lot of cables and such that might have taken it out before it even got there, never mind the self defense mechanisms of the pentagon that apparently didn't do much that day), it would have become obvious that the plane that crashed into the pentagon was -not- the plane that the passengers had originally boarded.

As you can see, I have provided no links to this. I think that it's fair to say, however, that in a crime scene, motive may frequently be difficult to determine, but determining -what actually happened- is the best first step. I believe it's fairly clear that what actually happened is that a plane approached the pentagon, but that (a) it didn't approach the pentagon from the side that the official story says it did and (b) if it didn't approach the pentagon from the official story side it was -impossible- for it to have done the damage it did, according to the official story itself. For this reason, the witnesses that testified that the plane did -not- approach the pentagon from the official story side are golden, as is the one witness who allegedly saw the plane break down telephone poles on the official story side, and who can be seen frantically trying to fit his story with the reality in CIT's excellent video on the subject, The Eye of the Storm (http://www.thepentacon.com/eyeofthestorm.htm).

Nevermind, you are too busy in the conspiracy circles and probably couldn't answer it anyway.

let's make this thread worth something:

soft porn deletedLol :-). Nice picture. I'm actually a libra myself, though of the male variety ;). Anyway, I've finally answered your question, now you can stop huffing :D

Nevermind, you are too busy in the conspiracy circles and probably couldn't answer it anyway.

let's make this thread worth something:

soft porn deleted

The jury is still out on the debate... :)
.
So you mean you CAN just claim that the distribution of steel and concrete in a 1360 foot skyscraper is irrelevant while at the same time claiming it collapsed from the top down.

Should we assume she is a Libra?

psik

look ma! That thar lady done drawn on her boobies! Makes me wanna take up art.

was 911 an inside job?
the facts:
1.it was stated on TV "it almost looks like one of those controlled demolitions"
2. in the hours and days after the collapse people from all over the US arrived at ground zero.
3. these people included structural engineers, firemen, policemen, reporters, and doctors.
4. ground zero was not "roped off" by the military or any other agency during this time.
5. the rescue and cleanup was civilian directed.
6. no bomb debris was ever found in the pile.

I don't believe he was really asking to be called by that term; I think he was implying the opposite, that people who -would- call him by that term would more fit the bill for the term. However, -regardless- of whether he was asking to be called it or not, it's a term that's not supposed to be used when describing people in this thread.* * * * NOTE FROM A MODERATOR * * * *

Scott, every Moderator is considered a moderator of this board, since it is not restricted to any specific subject. Therefore, like all the other Moderators, I received your complaint about this. I have only one thing to say to you:

LIGHTEN UP, DUDE!

Apparently you consider us "the law" here, which I suppose we are. So please bear in mind the well-established legal principle in most of the anglophone countries:

The law does not deal with trifles.

If a guy says, "Call me stupid," in THIS CROWD, you can be 100% certain that someone is going to call him stupid. The average age here is around seventeen and the average IQ is probably 120. That's an explosive combination. Take a chill pill.

However, the tattooed naked boobs verge on soft porn, and that comes very close to VIOLATING THE FORUM RULES. Will everybody at least stop copying it so it doesn't show up fifty times in one thread????

Thanks Fraggle! You rock!

* * * * NOTE FROM A MODERATOR * * * *

Scott, every Moderator is considered a moderator of this board, since it is not restricted to any specific subject. Therefore, like all the other Moderators, I received your complaint about this. I have only one thing to say to you:

LIGHTEN UP, DUDE!

Apparently you consider us "the law" here, which I suppose we are. So please bear in mind the well-established legal principle in most of the anglophone countries:

The law does not deal with trifles.

The main problem is that various people have various opinions on what a trifle is. I, for instance, don't think it's a trifle when people insult each other.



If a guy says, "Call me stupid," in THIS CROWD, you can be 100% certain that someone is going to call him stupid. The average age here is around seventeen and the average IQ is probably 120. That's an explosive combination. Take a chill pill.

What if the guy -doesn't- say 'call me stupid' and yet he still does? That's happened as well. If you make the line too vague, it can discourage people from reporting; this can lead to toxic threads and then the relatively civil posters that made the thread worthwhile may decide to go elsewhere or the thread can be closed down due to its extreme toxicity. In large part, I came to Formal Debates because I wanted to get away from the insults, etc. of other forums here. If Formal Debates isn't for that, why can't a new forum be made, perhaps called 'civil discussion', where a moderator or 3 can ensure that certain insults aren't used? I think one might find that it could gather quite a crowd.



However, the tattooed naked boobs verge on soft porn, and that comes very close to VIOLATING THE FORUM RULES. Will everybody at least stop copying it so it doesn't show up fifty times in one thread????

Ah ok. I figured if Syzygys didn't get in trouble for posting it, it was all good. Personally, I think this is a serious problem with our society; we get upset with a picture of a part of the human body but it's 'no big deal' to be calling each other stupid, f word derivatives, and the like.

What if the guy -doesn't- say 'call me stupid' and yet he still does?

You beg to be called stupid. Your conspiracy theories are offensive and insulting to the intellect. Calling you stupid is mild in comparison.

I havent read rest of the thread so I dont know who stands where. To me its so obvious as daylight - It was an inside job just like they shot down JFK. If it wasn't, govt wouldn't have had any troubles releasing the details of the investigation to public. Its easy to establish if we follow the money in either cases. Both incidents were closely followed by a war. Who profits out of a war?

I can't believe it, we are having an actual ON TOPIC discussion!! Hallellujahh!!! Man, you are really the king of conspiracy theorists. The problem is that more notions you introduce, the less believable the story is. Let's see:


Ok, let's imagine that the planes were -not- hijacked by actual terrorist pilots.

OK, whatever happened to the terrorists? Did they exist? Did they board the planes?


Instead, the passengers of the original planes were put onto planes that could be piloted by remote control.

Whatever happened to the original pilots? Do you mean new planes (how do they transfer so many passengers) or the original planes that have an extra remote control on them?


Apparently there was a switch in this case too, but the switch may have happened in mid air; that is, a decoy plane took over the route of the original plane.

Again, Occam's razor. You don't think it is possible with relative little traning to fly a plane and hit a large object? It is much easier to train willing people than going the extra miles with this whole switchero..


Remember, in the case of the pentagon 'crash', the building was -not- flattened

Holy smokey, the Pentagon is one of the world's largest building!!! You need a nuke to flatten it!!!


if the plane had managed to actually crash into the building....it would have become obvious that the plane that crashed into the pentagon was -not- the plane that the passengers had originally boarded.

This is an unsupported assumption. If the replacement plane is the same type, as the original, after hitting a building and blowing up there isn't much leftover what THEY couldn't cover up.

So whatever happened to the original plane?



(which is in doubt, there's a lot of cables

Because a couple of cables are going to stop a freaking plane going 3-400 miles per hour????



As you can see, I have provided no links to this.

God bless you!!!

But I did notice that you didn't explain a plane flying AWAY from the Pentagon. And that was in the original verison of the conspiracy. Now you are changing the story.

Your version at every turn just rises more and more questions. The simplest explanation is that yes, a Microsoft flight simulator with a few dozen hours of real training can be sufficient and if you have willing people to do so the attacks were possible...

But feel free to answer the questions in this post...

they shot down JFK. Both incidents were closely followed by a war. Who profits out of a war?

I must have missed that history class, but which war followed the death of JFK???

Also, a government (or anyone)can cover up not necessery wrong doings but INCOMPETENCE to avoid taking responsibility....

I must have missed that history class, but which war followed the death of JFK???

Lyndon B. Johnson expands the [Vietnam] war, 1963–1969 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Lyndon_B._Johnson_expands_the_war.2C_1 963.E2.80.931969)

... and like 911, there was the right catalyst for a war-Gulf of Tonkin Incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident)


Also, a government (or anyone)can cover up not necessery wrong doings but INCOMPETENCE to avoid taking responsibility.... These kind of things cannot be covered up by just anyone. Its not a small robbery. If there is a cover up, then it can only be planned and organized at govt. level for an incident of this magnitude.

Lyndon_B._Johnson_expands_

The operative word is EXPANDS. That means it didn't start after JFK's death. I didn't miss the English class. :)

But I have to correct myself, I didn't realize that the Tonkin incident was with LBJ. I do agree with theobserver that the USA had been using these incidents to enter wars, including Pearl Harbor.

See my post above. I was just being sarcastic because the involvement with Vietnam was already on with JFK, although one could argue that it really escalated under LBJ, so we can count as the real start from there. Anyway...



These kind of things cannot be covered up by just anyone. Its not a small robbery. If there is a cover up, then it can only be planned and organized at govt. level for an incident of this magnitude.

Yes, so? Again, that doesn't necesserily mean the whole government knew (not to mention actively helped) about the attacks. If you are part of the government (or a company) when there is a big fuckup, you most likely help to cover up because you don't want your organization to look bad and you can say, "there is nothing we can do about it now".

Also, just because some high ranking people knew about the attack (I agree that some did) that doesn't mean every high places official knew about it. Nevertheless they could be pressured NOT to help any investigation into matters that would show incompetence or negligence.

The funny part is that you guys don't bring up the obvious evidence, the put buying in the German bank. That wasn't just a lucky guess and well documented...

OK, here is an analogy for conspiracy theorists, just to understand why even decent people cover up:

Let's say I work for a big company with a good salary, where because of costcuttings, there is a fire where quite a few people dies. I might knew about the inadequate fire extinguishing system (cover my ass) but that doesn't mean I caused the fire. The real cause of fire is ambiguous or let's say a guy caused it accidentally.

Now the building has burnt down, there is serious damage to the company's image and a few deaths, who wants to take the rap?? Of course nobody. Let's say I could testify about the inadequacy of the firesystem, but I would lose my job, and it wouldn't bring back the dead. I might even catch some bad shit. So what do I do?? I keep my mouth shut...

Same with the government. A few government officials (specially the one who bought the puts) sure knew about that something was going to happen but just how detailed there knowledge was, or how highly ranked they were, or how much evidence they had is not known.

Without evidence it is really hard to rock the boat and usually means professional suicide. Not very many people do that.

Now unless I am very bored I am done with this thread because you guys don't make much sense and you are not very entertaining either...

P.S.: Oh yeah, and you don't want to learn...

consequences of gulf of tonkin

As a result of his testimony, on 7 August, Congress passed a joint resolution (H.J. RES 1145), titled the Southeast Asia Resolution, which granted President Johnson the authority to conduct military operations in Southeast Asia without the benefit of a declaration of war. The Resolution gave President Johnson approval "to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom."

isn't this the same kind of thing that son of a bush was granted after the 911 thingy?



Yes, so? Again, that doesn't necesserily mean the whole government knew (not to mention actively helped) about the attacks. If you are part of the government (or a company) when there is a big fuckup, you most likely help to cover up because you don't want your organization to look bad and you can say, "there is nothing we can do about it now".

True. The whole govt need not be aware of it. But the ones who had the power to cover it up obviously knew. Because they sure did managed to cover it up and destroy evidences and use misdirection to an extend which gave them enough reasons to go for war in Afghan and Iraq. I wouldn't say that the fire department knew. Because they lost a lot of their own people.

Now the organization looking bad possibility is the question which need to be addressed only if it was an outside job or an accident. If it was a deliberate attack on US soil by the US govt or its contractors, then its Govt. level priority to cover it up. Now if there was really a flight which had hit the pentagon as they claim it, why can't they release the video footage's from all the security cameras?

* * * * NOTE FROM A MODERATOR * * * *

Scott, every Moderator is considered a moderator of this board, since it is not restricted to any specific subject. Therefore, like all the other Moderators, I received your complaint about this. I have only one thing to say to you:

LIGHTEN UP, DUDE!

Apparently you consider us "the law" here, which I suppose we are. So please bear in mind the well-established legal principle in most of the anglophone countries:

The law does not deal with trifles.

If a guy says, "Call me stupid," in THIS CROWD, you can be 100% certain that someone is going to call him stupid. The average age here is around seventeen and the average IQ is probably 120. That's an explosive combination. Take a chill pill.

However, the tattooed naked boobs verge on soft porn, and that comes very close to VIOLATING THE FORUM RULES. Will everybody at least stop copying it so it doesn't show up fifty times in one thread????


Like somebody once said, " Be careful what you ask for. You might get it."

In an ongoing attempt to try to make some sense out of the 9/11 PUZZLE, I am starting to try to figure out, on topic, more or less, how jetliners could have punched such prodigious holes in the outer structure of the WTC buildings. In my first-blush thinking, when the robust structural design of the buildings is taken into account, it is rather like you would take an empty plastic liter bottle previously having contained soda pop and smash it as hard as you can into the grill of a 1953 Buick, and be amazed to see the grill demolished.

That is what happened at WTC on 9/11.

Exact structural engineering information is proving to be not easy to find, but I am engaged in trying to ferret out enough data to calculate the mass of a column/spandrel module at the crash locations and then to figure out how much momentum and kinetic energy transfer could have been accomplished by impingement of essentially an air-inflated Aluminum blimp. One of the keys will be how much resistance to shear the bolts connecting column to column, and, spandrel to spandrel, were designed to have. I copied this information after recent internet searches, but have misplaced the copies somewhere on my archive drives.

At this time, I am greatly amazed that the relatively flimsy fuselage, and, especially, very flimsy, wings , of a jetliner could have so easily knocked away such heavy column/spandrel modules.

Such was not said to be true at the Pentagon, or in the famous F4 Phantom rocket sled test movie. And such is not true every time i smash an empty plastic bottle against the grill of my 1953 Buick.

Exact structural engineering information is proving to be not easy to find, but I am engaged in trying to ferret out enough data to calculate the mass of a column/spandrel module at the crash locations and then to figure out how much momentum and kinetic energy transfer could have been accomplished by impingement of essentially an air-inflated Aluminum blimp. One of the keys will be how much resistance to shear the bolts connecting column to column, and, spandrel to spandrel, were designed to have.

a jetliner could have so easily knocked away such heavy column/spandrel modules.
.
The only weight I have seen for a perimeter wall module was for the heaviest type at 22 tons. That can be found in an old engineering magazine from 1970. That is one of the things I complain about in the NCSTAR1 report. They should have told us the number and weights of each of the 12 grades of wall panels long ago.

Plus since those spandrels held the edges of floor slabs it should have been extremely difficult to push them in. So there is reason to wonder about those flashes seen just before the noses of the planes hit the towers.

psik

and the wrod of the day is?????

spannnnndrelllllll

Originally Posted by theobserver
they shot down JFK. Both incidents were closely followed by a war. Who profits out of a war?

omg...like so was the Himmelberg sifastify.

it is rather like you would take an empty plastic liter bottle previously having contained soda pop and smash it as hard as you can into the grill of a 1953 Buick, and be amazed to see the grill demolished.

That would be relevant if in fact the jetliner was an empty vessel like the soda pop bottle, it was not.


... to figure out how much momentum and kinetic energy transfer could have been accomplished by impingement of essentially an air-inflated Aluminum blimp.

But, it wasn't just 'air-inflated' - the plane was full of things that would add to the kinetic energy being transferred; people, cargo, luggage, fuel, instruments, etc. etc.


At this time, I am greatly amazed that the relatively flimsy fuselage, and, especially, very flimsy, wings , of a jetliner could have so easily knocked away such heavy column/spandrel modules.

The wings were full of fuel, which is mass, which adds greatly to the transferred kinetic energy.

Take your empty soda pop bottle, fill it with jet fuel and smash it as hard as you can against your 1953 Buick grill.

Make sure the soda pop bottle is moving at several hundred miles per hour, please.

and the wrod of the day is?????

spannnnndrelllllll
.
My wrod is bigger than your wrod.

Obviously the words are not "relevant intellectual contribution".

psik

.
My wrod is bigger than your wrod.

Obviously the words are not "relevant intellectual contribution".

psik

I believe John thinks that spandrels were a large part of the collapse of the WTC buildings. Uno Hoo already addressed this issue back in post 2111 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2180866&postcount=2111) on page 106 (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=87960&page=106) of the [now closed, but still viewable] WTC collapses thread:
Notice how massive the spandrels are. The inward pull of a floor structure that was trying to collapse would need to cause the spandrels to buckle if the structure as a whole were to fail. The floor structure was designed to support 5 times the Building Code required load. Therefore, the spandrels were designed to resist buckling under an inward pull equal to 5 times the Building Code required load.

go scratch your ass.

I would like to contribute to the further degradation of this thread, so here we go:

http://www.secondbrigademc.com/titty2.jpg

I would like to contribute to the further degradation of this thread, so here we go...

Lol :-). Syzy, it's not that I mind the pics, but I have a feeling that they close the thread- is that your objective?

You little conspiracy theorist, you! :)

By the way if you wanted discussions, I still have unanswered questions posted earlier..

Lol :-). Syzy, it's not that I mind the pics, but I have a feeling that they close the thread- is that your objective?

You little conspiracy theorist, you! :)

Laugh :-p.



By the way if you wanted discussions, I still have unanswered questions posted earlier..

Care to state them again? Or if they're all in a post or 2, tell me the numbers...

Post #150 that actually deals with the Debate topic

This post is in response to Syzygys' post 150 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2186194&postcount=150) in this thread.


I can't believe it, we are having an actual ON TOPIC discussion!! Hallellujahh!!! Man, you are really the king of conspiracy theorists. The problem is that more notions you introduce, the less believable the story is.

Syzygys, I didn't come up with these notions, I've gotten them from people who have been studying these issues for quite some time now. You point out the weaknesses of the alternate theories but it seems that you fail to look at the weaknesses of the official story.



Let's see:

Ok, let's imagine that the planes were -not- hijacked by actual terrorist pilots.

OK, whatever happened to the terrorists? Did they exist?

That's a very good question. There are some very interesting points to consider concerning the 9/11 hijackers, many of which are delineated here:
At Least 7 of the 9/11 Hijackers are Still Alive (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers.html)

Here's a good passage from the above link:

In September 2002, [FBI Director Robert Mueller] told CNN twice that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers."

[I]So, one fact is apparent. If those who hijacked the 9/11 airplanes were using stolen identities, then we don't know who they were or who they worked for. We can't. It's impossible.


Did they board the planes?

If we don't know if any hijackers actually existed, then I think it's safe to say that it's impossible to know if they did or did not board the planes. I suggest you take a look at the following link to get an idea of a very interesting quark in the video footage of the alleged hijackers:
9/11 Airport Surveillance Video: What's the Time?
(http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers_video.html)




Instead, the passengers of the original planes were put onto planes that could be piloted by remote control.

Whatever happened to the original pilots?

Yet another good question. It generally hasn't been addressed by conspiracy theorists from what I've seen but it's certainly not their obligation to do so; they have made it quite clear that the official story doesn't hold water. One could imagine that the original pilots and the passengers were all hearded into a remote controlled plane.


Do you mean new planes (how do they transfer so many passengers)

The same way they all got on the plane; it really isn't all that difficult, especially if it's made out to be that the old plane had something wrong with it or what not.



or the original planes that have an extra remote control on them?

From what I've heard, it would have been hard to make the original planes have remote controls on them; easier to simply put them into planes that already could be remote controlled.




Apparently there was a switch in this case too, but the switch may have happened in mid air; that is, a decoy plane took over the route of the original plane.

Again, Occam's razor. You don't think it is possible with relative little traning to fly a plane and hit a large object? It is much easier to train willing people than going the extra miles with this whole switchero..

Syzygys, I am not claiming to understand every detail of why the people behind the 9/11 attacks did what they did. Neither is anyone else, as far as I know. The main point is that the official story doesn't wash. But if you can't see this, then there's no point in speculating on issues that no one I have heard of has yet resolved.




Ok, carrying on to the pentagon flyover. Apparently there was a switch in this case too, but the switch may have happened in mid air; that is, a decoy plane took over the route of the original plane. Remember, in the case of the pentagon 'crash', the building was -not- flattened

Holy smokey, the Pentagon is one of the world's largest building!!! You need a nuke to flatten it!!!

The twin towers weren't exactly small potatoes either. But my point is that because the buildings didn't get demolished, it would probably have been -much- more obvious that the crashed plane wasn't Flight 77 then it would be if one of the planes hitting the twin towers wasn't the alleged planes that crashed into them.




if the plane had managed to actually crash into the building (which is in doubt, there's a lot of cables and such that might have taken it out before it even got there, never mind the self defense mechanisms of the pentagon that apparently didn't do much that day), it would have become obvious that the plane that crashed into the pentagon was -not- the plane that the passengers had originally boarded.

This is an unsupported assumption. If the replacement plane is the same type, as the original, after hitting a building and blowing up there isn't much leftover what THEY couldn't cover up.

I think that at this point we're both engaging in speculation. I think it's rather unnecessary. As I'm sure psikeyhackr and Headspin would say, let's stick to what we know best. What we know best is that the plane that camer at the pentagon did -not- come from the direction that the official story states. And if it didn't come from the direction that the official story states it could -not- have crashed into the pentagon because the damage could only have come from one direction if it had been done by a plane. Anyway, if you'd like to hear theories as to why they would fly a plane over the building instead of crashing it, feel free to take a look at the thread I created on the subject over in the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum:
Motive For Flyover?, Why fly a plane over the pentagon instead of just crash it into it (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=16380)

Even the National Transportation Safety Board's video of the event doesn't support the official story version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-Q8nSEeUec



So whatever happened to the original plane?

I don't know. I've heard that it may have been shot down in a war game over some ocean (Atlantic perhaps). I can't even remember where I got the link with that info, although I believe I saw it on 9/11 Research. I know no truther who claims to have all the answers. But we do know -some- things and I think that that's what we should focus on.




(which is in doubt, there's a lot of cables

Because a couple of cables are going to stop a freaking plane going 3-400 miles per hour????

Perhaps they would offset its course. I actually meant to say light poles; the official story itself contends that some light poles were knocked down by the plane, but the official story's angle is contested by most of the pivotal witnesses. There is only one witness who was allegedly on the scene when the plane clipped the light poles. The Citizens Investigation Team, who manage thepentacon.com web site interviewed him in their video The Eye of the Storm (http://www.thepentacon.com/eyeofthestorm.htm) and found his logic to be wanting, to put it mildly.




As you can see, I have provided no links to this.

God bless you!!!

Do you actually -want- evidence or just a bunch of speculation?



But I did notice that you didn't explain a plane flying AWAY from the Pentagon. And that was in the original version of the conspiracy. Now you are changing the story.

There's many points to be covered; I simply didn't mention that one this time. The story hasn't changed. I find that the people who have done the most research on all of this is the Citizen's Investigation Team, who also play key roles in the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum. You can see their videos at their site, thepentacon.com (http://www.thepentacon.com/), which include evidence that atleast one witness did indeed see a plane fly -over- the pentagon.



Your version at every turn just raises more and more questions.

Indeed.

At Least 7 of the 9/11 Hijackers are Still Alive (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers.html)

http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html



If we don't know if any hijackers actually existed, They know they existed, they know who they were, they know where they trained, they know there movements leading up to the event, they were witnessed and filmed at the airports ect ect.... no mystery here.



What we know best is that the plane that camer at the pentagon did -not- come from the direction that the official story states. The witness testimony and physical evidence which supports the official story is overwhelming. The vast majority of witnesses tell a completely consistent story that matches the physical evidence..


Perhaps they would offset its course. I actually meant to say light poles; the official story itself contends that some light poles were knocked down by the plane, Which is backed up by multiple witnesses.



but the official story's angle is contested by most of the pivotal witnesses. That is a lie. The testimony of the majority very clearly supports the official story. This testimony is completely ignored (they must be all in on it) and a biased (mis)interpretation is taken of just a few. The pentacon guys cling to these few, some of whom actually report seeing the plane hit the pentagon I believe, and consider that to outweigh all the remaining testimony. It's ridiculous.


There is only one witness who was allegedly on the scene when the plane clipped the light poles. That is a lie. There was more than one. We have been through this, do I need to chase up the list again? The pentacon guys are just ignoring the testimony that is damaging to their fantasy.




If you were the government and trying to perform this absurdly complex and completely implausible master conspiracy wouldn’t you just crash the same damn plane into the pentagon?!!

If you really thought you could get a way with pretending that a plane hit the pentagon, while knocking the light poles over with a truck, faking an explosion, leaving plane parts and bodies (with matching dna) everythere, then paying off or threatening the witnesses (none have come forward after all this time), all the while hoping that no one films the event and gets the footage on the internet, wouldn’t you at least fly the plane in from the same direction?

There are some very interesting points to consider concerning the 9/11 hijackers, many of which are delineated here:
At Least 7 of the 9/11 Hijackers are Still Alive (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers.html)

Here's a good passage from the above link:

In September 2002, [FBI Director Robert Mueller] told CNN twice that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers."

[I]So, one fact is apparent. If those who hijacked the 9/11 airplanes were using stolen identities, then we don't know who they were or who they worked for. We can't. It's impossible.

http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

The author of that article thinks the problem was resolved when "the FBI released their official list of hijackers, complete with photographs", on September 27th, 2001. If you'd read what I'd posted above, you would have realized that a year later, FBI Director Robert Mueller was making it clear that there was "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers" a year later.





If we don't know if any hijackers actually existed, then I think it's safe to say that it's impossible to know if they did or did not board the planes. I suggest you take a look at the following link to get an idea of a very interesting quark in the video footage of the alleged hijackers:
9/11 Airport Surveillance Video: What's the Time?
(http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers_video.html)

They know they existed

I think we can both agree that if the planes in question were actually boarded by some or all of the non hijacker passengers listed on the flight manifests and subsequently died, some people have to have had a hand in bringing it about. The issue is who those people were.



they know who they were, they know where they trained, they know their movements leading up to the event, they were witnessed and filmed at the airports ect ect.... no mystery here.

I suggest you take a look at the link I posted concerning the filming of the alleged hijackers:
9/11 Airport Surveillance Video: What's the Time? (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers_video.html)




What we know best is that the plane that camer at the pentagon did -not- come from the direction that the official story states. And if it didn't come from the direction that the official story states it could -not- have crashed into the pentagon because the damage could only have come from one direction if it had been done by a plane. Anyway, if you'd like to hear theories as to why they would fly a plane over the building instead of crashing it, feel free to take a look at the thread I created on the subject over in the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum:
Motive For Flyover?, Why fly a plane over the pentagon instead of just crash it into it (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=16380)

Even the National Transportation Safety Board's video of the event doesn't support the official story version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-Q8nSEeUec

The witness testimony and physical evidence which supports the official story is overwhelming.

Not by a long shot.



The vast majority of witnesses tell a completely consistent story that matches the physical evidence..

I suggest you take a look at CIT's excellent documentary with interviews of many of the most credible witnesses concerning the flight path of the plane that approached the pentagon, over at their site, http://www.thepentacon.com/




Perhaps they would offset its course. I actually meant to say light poles; the official story itself contends that some light poles were knocked down by the plane,

Which is backed up by multiple witnesses.

I believe CIT has made it clear that while there are multiple witnesses whose credibility on the issue is marginal back the official story line, all but one of the pivotal witnesses don't. They interview that particular alleged witness, Lloyd England, at length in their video The Eye of the Storm (http://www.thepentacon.com/eyeofthestorm.htm). I believe they make it clear that his story is irrational, with Lloyd even trying to modify his story to fit the facts but failing to do so.




but the official story's angle is contested by most of the pivotal witnesses.

That is a lie.

I disagree.



The testimony of the majority very clearly supports the official story. This testimony is completely ignored (they must be all in on it)

It's by no means ignored. It may well be that no one has analyzed the testimonies of all the witnesses in question as much as Aldo Marquis, from the Citizen's Investigation Team (one of the people who you referred to as 'the pentacon guys'). Here is his work on the matter:
Witness List Broken Down, No such thing as 104 "impact" witnesses (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=10632)



and a biased (mis)interpretation is taken of just a few.

I disagree. Why do you think that they misinterpreted the key witnesses they interviewed?



The pentacon guys cling to these few, some of whom actually report seeing the plane hit the pentagon I believe

I believe that the people who were truly behind 9/11 definitely went out of their way to make it -appear- as if the plane actually hit the pentagon. To do this, they must have set off the explosives almost instantly after the pentagon flew over the pentagon. The reason that the plane couldn't have actually crashed -into- the pentagon is because it was coming in from the wrong angle; the damage to the pentagon simply -couldn't- have been made by the plane if it were to have crashed into the building from the direction that the key witnesses have described.




There is only one witness who was allegedly on the scene when the plane clipped the light poles. The Citizens Investigation Team, who manage thepentacon.com web site interviewed him in their video The Eye of the Storm (http://www.thepentacon.com/eyeofthestorm.htm) and found his logic to be wanting, to put it mildly.

That is a lie. There was more than one.

Alright, who else then?



We have been through this, do I need to chase up the list again?

Ofcourse not. You can simply continue to allude that you know things that I don't and leave it at that if you wish.



If you were the government and trying to perform this absurdly complex and completely implausible master conspiracy wouldn’t you just crash the same damn plane into the pentagon?!!

I have already put up many plausible explanations for why they didn't do it this way. The weakest point in the official story, however, is currently solidly in what happened. I think we can focus on the why in more depth if we can simply agree that the official story's 'what happened' is hopelessly flawed.



If you really thought you could get away with pretending that a plane hit the pentagon, while knocking the light poles over with a truck

Not a truck; it looks like they were probably cut with a blow torch or something similar.



faking an explosion,

The explosion was quite real. It wasn't made by the aircraft that flew over the pentagon, though.

I'll deal with the DNA stuff next time around...

There is only one witness who was allegedly on the scene when the plane clipped the light poles. ”

That is a lie. There was more than one. We have been through this, do I need to chase up the list again? The pentacon guys are just ignoring the testimony that is damaging to their fantasy.

"pentacon guys are just ignoring testimony" - how can you say that???
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread310614/pg1

Most of what you deem to be "testimony" of an aircraft hitting light poles is not legitimate testimony at all.

Outside of your fantasy, there is no list of witnessess who saw the light poles being hit by a plane.

There is however, a long list of witnesses that place the plane in a location that make it impossible for it to have hit any lightpoles.

This list is not comprised of hearsay, edited journalist accounts, and distorted anti-truther quotations.

This list is comprised of detailed and thorough full first hand filmed interviews freely available to the public.
http://www.thepentacon.com/

If you were the government and trying to perform this absurdly complex and completely implausible master conspiracy wouldn’t you just crash the same damn plane into the pentagon?!!if you were foreign jihadis trying to perform this absurdly complex and completely implausible aircraft maneuver wouldn't you just crash the plane into the roof of the pentagon?


<snip ludicrous mis-representations>


then paying off or threatening the witnesses (none have come forward after all this time)That's not true, April Gallop has come forward and said she was told what to say to the press by the secret service.
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=April+Gallop&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8


..all the while hoping that no one films the event and gets the footage on the internetthe internet did not exist when this was being planned, at least in the form that it exists today. youtube only arrived in 2005, you know this already because I pointed it out to you before.


wouldn’t you at least fly the plane in from the same direction?it would have crashed into the 200 foot VDOT antennae way before reaching the pentagon. so there was no way to fly a plane into the light poles AND strike the exact pentagon offices containing the pentagon auditors (investigating the missing trillions)

That's not true, April Gallop has come forward and said she was told what to say to the press by the secret service.
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=April+Gallop&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

not at all surprising seeing as she had a top secret security clearance.

Syzygys, I didn't come up with these notions,

It really doesn't matter who came up with it, if you brought them up as an argument, I have to assume you believe in them.


You point out the weaknesses of the alternate theories but it seems that you fail to look at the weaknesses of the official story.

This isn't true, I am on record saying certain government officials KNEW about the coming attack. Again, knowing and actively participating are 2 different things.

There are plenty wrong with the official version. The problem is that there are even more wrong with the conspiracy version. :)


At Least 7 of the 9/11 Hijackers are Still Alive

I am willing to bet that they aren't...

Now one could say that the identity of the hijackers are not fully known, but that doesn't mean there were no hijackers at all.


[I]So, one fact is apparent. If those who hijacked the 9/11 airplanes were using stolen identities, then we don't know who they were or who they worked for. We can't. It's impossible.

See above. Just becasue we don't know who the murderer is, that doesn't mean there wasn't one or a murder didn't take place.


If we don't know if any hijackers actually existed,

But we do know. Multiple phonecalls from multiple planes clearly stated that there were hijackers. End of story...


One could imagine that the original pilots and the passengers were all hearded into a remote controlled plane.

One could imagine lots of things, like god's existence. :)

Is it probable or likely? No...


The same way they all got on the plane; it really isn't all that difficult, especially if it's made out to be that the old plane had something wrong with it or what not.

But seriously. Wouldn't there be eyewitnesses seeing it??? And I mean dozens of people in multiple locations???


The main point is that the official story doesn't wash.

But I agree with that. I don't agree with making up an incredible and very complicated scenario that doesn't wash either.


Anyway, if you'd like to hear theories

Yes, indeed. From you. I am not debating other websites. If you believ the flyover happened, be ready to explain it.


Do you actually -want- evidence or just a bunch of speculation?

I am fine with speculation as long as it makes sense. Occam's razor, common sense and such.

So although you tried to address my questions and concerns, I am not sure you did a good job. You either linked to a website or said the government lies. Again, just because they do that doesn't mean your version is true...

if you were foreign jihadis trying to perform this absurdly complex and completely implausible aircraft maneuver wouldn't you just crash the plane into the roof of the pentagon?

You mean hitting one of the world's biggest building while descending in a straight line? I did it in the Microsoft flightsimulator, I could probably do it in real life too. :)

if you were foreign jihadis trying to perform this absurdly complex and completely implausible aircraft maneuver wouldn't you just crash the plane into the roof of the pentagon? ”
You mean hitting one of the world's biggest building while descending in a straight line? I did it in the Microsoft flightsimulator, I could probably do it in real life too. :)so why didn't they fly the obvious flightpath like you did on your simulator? occams razor right? maybe you are not aware of the official flight path?
here is the offical flight path:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzR-q0ijbV0&feature=related

professional pilots with many years experience are on the record saying the flight path was difficult even for them.

do you disagree with the professional pilot Russ Wittenburg who actually flew two of the planes used on 911?
http://americanbuddhist.net/pilot-who-flew-2-planes-used-9-11-doesnt-believe-official-story

do you disagree with US navy Commander Ted Muga Retired Naval aviator Grumman E-1 and E-2, and commercial airline pilot Boeing 707 and 727:

"The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. ...

When a commercial airplane gets that high, it gets very, very close to getting into what you refer to as a speed high-speed stall. And a high-speed stall can be very, very violent on a commercial-type aircraft and you never want to get into that situation. I just can't imagine an amateur even being able to come close to performing a maneuver of that nature.

And as far as hijacking the airplanes, once again getting back to the nature of pilots and airplanes, there is no way that a pilot would give up an airplane to hijackers. ...

I mean, hell, a guy doesn't give up a TV remote control much less a complicated 757. And so to think that pilots would allow a plane to be taken over by a couple of 5 foot 7, 150 pound guys with a one-inch blade boxcutter is ridiculous.

And also in all four planes, if you remember, none of the planes ever switched on their transponder to the hijack code. There's a very, very simple code that you put in if you suspect that your plane is being hijacked. It takes literally just a split-second for you to put your hand down on the center console and flip it over. And not one of the four planes ever transponded a hijack code, which is most, most unusual. ...

Commercial airplanes are very, very complex pieces of machines. And they're designed for two pilots up there, not just two amateur pilots, but two qualified commercial pilots up there. And to think that you're going to get an amateur up into the cockpit and fly, much less navigate, it to a designated target, the probability is so low, that it's bordering on impossible."
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_080112_twenty_five_u_s__mil.htm

so why didn't they fly the obvious flightpath like you did on your simulator?

Lack of experience? Change of target plans?

As about pilots not giving up their planes, several of them were immediatelly killed, some of them thought it was just a simple hostage situation...

You guys forget to remember the 4th plane that went down in Pennsylvania. We have multiple phonecalls from it stating that hijackers did take over the plane, the pilots were immediatelly killed and they actually put up a fight and the passengers first thought there is a bomb.

Get your facts freaking straight...

Also don't forget what surprize can do...

Lack of experience? Change of target plans?

As about pilots not giving up their planes, several of them were immediatelly killed, some of them thought it was just a simple hostage situation...

You guys forget to remember the 4th plane that went down in Pennsylvania. We have multiple phonecalls from it stating that hijackers did take over the plane, the pilots were immediatelly killed and they actually put up a fight and the passengers first thought there is a bomb.

Get your facts freaking straight...

Also don't forget what surprize can do...

so good for you that you now acknowledge your initial mistake in thinking the flight path was just a slow straight descent, which validates the initial question of why did the plane flight path follow a steep banked spiral turn descent instead of the simpler and more effective manuevre of just pushing the stick and diving down into the roof of the building.

You responded to the question with "lack of experience" which means you disagree with Ted Muga when he said "it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that". You are suggesting we should accept your opinion which you base on playing with some basic pc simulation performing a very simple straight slow descent, over the testimony of Ted Muga an experienced commercial and navy pilot. I am sure you agree that isn't a convincing argument.

"change of target"- how does that address the question of why the plane performed a tight 360 degree spiral descent from 7000 feet when the hijacker could have just pushed the stick forward and dropped it into the roof.
did you watch the flight path I gave you? you'll notice the plane was for a long time flying towards the pentagon and then turns away and spirals down....etc.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2190042&postcount=180

you then bring up other events that we are told happened with regard to flight 93 but that does not address what happened to flight 77 (which is what I thought we were discussing). I have no idea what argument you are addressing here, something you saw somewhere else?

you then, after presenting facts all bent out of shape, suggest that "I get my facts straight". what facts do you think i have that you consider are not straight?

what can surprise do <confused>?

so good for you that you now acknowledge your initial mistake in thinking the flight path was just a slow straight descent,

Well, I don't. I just said it that probably that was their plan. That in reality it went different? When an inexperienced pilot makes some changes specially sudden ones sure he will fly completely differently than an experienced pilot.


which validates the initial question of why did the plane flight path follow a steep banked spiral turn descent instead of the simpler and more effective manuevre of just pushing the stick and diving down into the roof of the building.

And I just answered that above...


You are suggesting we should accept your opinion which you base on playing with some basic pc simulation performing a very simple straight slow descent, over the testimony of Ted Muga an experienced commercial and navy pilot.

1. I didn't really fly it, I just used it as an argument. :)

2. Again, what an inexperienced pilot does is most likely completely different then what the pro pilot would do. But that doesn't mean the inexperienced pilot couldn't have done that.



how does that address the question of why the plane performed a tight 360 degree spiral descent from 7000 feet when the hijacker could have just pushed the stick forward and dropped it into the roof.

Because of inexperience? Actually coming down lower in a circle makes more sense to me (and even a beginner pilot could do it) then pushing the nose down and hit it like a missile...


did you watch the flight path I gave you? you'll notice the plane was for a long time flying towards the pentagon and then turns away and spirals down....etc.

Tried losing altitude? Was thinking of which target to hit? Makes sense to me...


you then bring up other events that we are told happened with regard to flight 93 but that does not address what happened to flight 77 (which is what I thought we were discussing).

Not really. You guys keep saying there were NO hijakcers. I just proved there were.


what can surprise do <confused>?

Your neck being suddenly cut with a knife sure makes you forget to push any kind of signaling button. Got it?

"pentacon guys are just ignoring testimony" - how can you say that???
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread310614/pg1 How can I say that (???). Look at how they discard any testimony they don’t want to see. Let’s start with the first witness they address.

1. Mark Bright, a police officer at the Pentagon, saw the plane hit the building. He had been manning the guard booth at the Mall Entrance to the building. "I saw the plane at the Navy Annex area," he said. "I knew it was going to strike the building because it was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down." The plane would have been seconds from impact -- the annex is only a few hundred yards from the Pentagon. He said he heard the plane "power-up" just before it struck the Pentagon. "As soon as it struck the building I just called in an attack, because I knew it couldn't be accidental," Bright said. He jumped into his police cruiser and headed to the area. [31]

What do you think he is describing there? It is clear that he is describing what he saw. The pentacon guys pick out the one the one sentence regarding the light poles and then discard his testimony because that particular sentence didn’t have the words ‘I saw” at the beginning of it. If you actually read the whole paragraph he makes it clear he was watching the plane.

They do the same with Afework Hagos
"There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in."
He is clearly describing what he saw.

In future when addressing the accounts of molten material which are assumed by truthers to be molten steel, I will just take one sentence out of context and if it is “there was molten metal” we can just ignore the testimony because that isn’t saying “I saw molten metal”


They don’t mention the account from DS Khavkin. - "We were watching the events unfolding on TV in New York. Then, at about 9:40 am Eastern Daylight Time, my husband and I heard an aircraft directly overhead. At first, we thought it was the jets that sometimes fly overhead. However, it appeared to be a small commercial aircraft. The engine was at full throttle.
First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles, then headed directly for the Pentagon and crashed on the lawn near the west side the Pentagon. A huge fireball exploded with thick black smoke."

Steve Riskus

“I am sorry to rain on your parade, but I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the ground first.... It did not hit the roof first... It hit dead center on the side... I was close enough (about 100 feet or so) that I could see the "American Airlines" logo on the tail as it headed towards the building... The plane looked like it was coming in about where you have the "MAX APPROACH" on that picture... I was at about where the "E" in "ANGLE OF CAMERA" is written when the plane hit... It was not completely level, but it was not going straight down, kind of like it was landing with no gear down... It knocked over a few light poles in its way... I did not see any smoke or debris coming from the plane. I clearly saw the "AA" logo with the eagle in the middle... I don't really remember the engine configuration, but it did have those turbine engines on the wing... and yes, it did impact the Pentagon... There was none of this hitting-the-ground first crap I keep hearing... It was definitely an American Airlines jet... There is no doubt about that... When I got to work I checked it out."
Their response - "Steve Riskus does not claim to have seen the plane hit the poles." He is describing what he saw.

Noel - Sepulveda 18. “ struck a light pole…The plane tried to recover, but hit a second light pole and continued flying at an angle.”[403]

Their response - I'll admit Noel Sepulveda sounds like he is claiming he saw the plane hit the poles. But he does NOT specifically state it and he may be relaying what he was told. This is why first-hand confirmation is so important. Plus it allegedly hit 5 poles not 2.
You are kidding me!? Maybe he only saw it hit two of them?

Mike Walter - "...it turned and came around in front of the vehicle and it clipped one of these light poles ... and slammed right into the Pentagon right there."
Their response - Once again....does not claim to have seen the poles hit. We had dinner at Mike Walter's house. He also specifically told us that he did NOT see the plane hit the poles.
Right. I have no problems taking their word for it. :rolleyes: He is describing what he saw. Look at the context!


This one is a gem. Wanda Ramey -“I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant.”[401]

Their response - Here is the one account. Wanda Ramey. She is the ONE known witness who is directly quoted as having "seen" the plane hit the poles. She is or was a Pentagon police officer just like Chad Brooks. Chad had also said in the past that he saw the plane hit the poles. When we interviewed him he clarified and said that he didn't actually see it happen but simply saw the poles on the ground after the fact. No doubt Wanda is also deducing this and simply honestly embellishing her account just like Chad did.
The just know she must have embellished.






Most of what you deem to be "testimony" of an aircraft hitting light poles is not legitimate testimony at all. This is amusing considering what you will accept as evidence for molten steel.



Outside of [i]your fantasy, there is no list of witnessess who saw the light poles being hit by a plane.

There is however, a long list of witnesses that place the plane in a location that make it impossible for it to have hit any lightpoles. A long list? How many people is a long list?

Is there as many people in this ‘long list’ as there is in the list of people who saw a PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON???!! Yes ignore that list and concentrate on discrediting the accounts of light poles and approach direction.


This list is not comprised of hearsay, edited journalist accounts, and distorted anti-truther quotations. Their investigations are absurdly biased.



This list is comprised of detailed and thorough full first hand filmed interviews freely available to the public.
http://www.thepentacon.com/



if you were foreign jihadis trying to perform this absurdly complex and completely implausible aircraft maneuver wouldn't you just crash the plane into the roof of the pentagon? Perhaps he was trying to and missed?!




That's not true, April Gallop has come forward and said she was told what to say to the press by the secret service.
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=April+Gallop&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 What exactly did she say? Your google search took me to a slc story with her saying “Jim Mars distorted that comment for his gain.”




the internet did not exist when this was being planned, at least in the form that it exists today. Lol I was using the internet in the 90s.



youtube only arrived in 2005, The internet and video format did not begin with youtube headspin.

So forget the internet, they could have filmed it, taken copies and sent it to all the TV stations.



it would have crashed into the 200 foot VDOT antennae way before reaching the pentagon. so there was no way to fly a plane into the light poles AND strike the exact pentagon offices containing the pentagon auditors (investigating the missing trillions)Nonsense.

"surprise", now that is curious because flight 77 took off from Dulles airport. One would think "surprise" would have been hijacking the plane just after take off and heading straight for the pentagon, a mere 9 miles away.

But what we are told happened is that flight 77 immediately travelled away from the pentagon half way across the US, then it was hijacked and then turned all the way back, being in the air for one hour and 25 minutes, explosed to being shot down. The meticulous syncronicity in the attacks was remarkable (check the major events of all flights and you will see various events occurred syncronised to the minute between flights), but they didn't use "surprise" one of the most important warfare tactics. Also curious was the simulation drill involving a wayward aircraft trying to land at Dulles airport but actually crashing into the NRO building. this drill was going on at the same time as flight 77 was allegedly crashing into the pentagon.

bear in mind here that the NRO building is 20 miles east of the pentagon.
so we we have a drill of an aircraft approaching (and crashing into) the NRO building at the same time flight 77 is approaching the NRO building. flight 77 flies over the NRO building and heads to the pentagon. I would suggest that these two events are linked, for them not to be linked would seem to be fortuitous to the hijackers and obscenely unlikely since the NRO building operates the nations reconnaisance satellites for the CIA and the defence department, the drill involved an evacuation of most of the NRO's 2000 staff thereby hobbling the defence department and CIA spy satellite functionality during the attacks.
http://www.nro.gov/
flight 77 then ploughs into the only pentagon "wedge" that has recently been modernised and blast-reinforced, the contracted works completed by AMEC (for $150,000,000) a lengthy contract completed on the very day of 911, and luckily had very few staff occupying that particular wedge except of course for the civilian auditor staff investigating the missing 7.2 trillion dollars unaccounted for in the pentagon books, the auditors would normally have occupied other offices but were unfortunately moved to the front of that particular wedge just for the morning of the attack. AMEC were one of four companies sub contracted to clean up the mess at the world trade centre and also had the contract to rebuild the pentagon again ($200,000,000), oh...and the water and sewage rebuilding contracts for iraq (£1,000,000,000), ohh..and the rebuilding contract for the iraqi power grid ($500,000,000). Enough money, I am sure you'll agree, to pay one of their sub contracters Kingstar demolition, whose van was positioned next to the London bus which exploded on 7/7 killing an AMEC executive at the same time that Peter Power's Visor Consulting drills exactly mimicking the exact same bus and train bombings were occurring, and almost killing Rudy Guiliani who was nearby, Rudy Guiliani had travelled down from York to London the day before with his company LLC who specialised in "terror drills" and had worked prior with Power's Visor company, took the exact same route that the London Bombers took from York to London. I'm reminded at this point of the man who just escaped with his life when his home in Hiroshima was destroyed but luckily he found shelter with his relatives in Nagasaki, he of course wasn't the mayor of either of those cities, nor was he running drills of nukes going off in his cities, etc, etc. Coincidence or conspiracy?

"surprise", now that is curious because flight 77 took off from Dulles airport.

you give a bad name to conspiracy theorist not to mention don't make sense. by surprise I meant the speed of the attack.


The meticulous syncronicity in the attacks was remarkable...

So you just explained your own question. They waited 1 + hour to SYNCRONIZE their attAcks, end of story....


nor was he running drills of nukes going off in his cities, etc, etc. Coincidence or conspiracy?

That is a good point, and I never disagreed against it. But here is an explanation. If the terrorists get to know when a drill is going to take place, they just plan their act on the same day. Now feeding them with info is possible but pretty much impossible to prove.

Funny thing with you guys is that once refuted at one thing, you immetiatly switch to another one, even if that wasn't discussed earlier...

flight 77 then ploughs into the only pentagon "wedge" that has recently been modernised and blast-reinforced, the contracted works completed by AMEC (for $150,000,000) a lengthy contract completed on the very day of 911, and luckily had very few staff occupying that particular wedge except of course for the civilian auditor staff investigating the missing 7.2 trillion dollars unaccounted for in the pentagon books, the auditors would normally have occupied other offices but were unfortunately moved to the front of that particular wedge just for the morning of the attack.

Wow. Just wow.

I think it's a much more dramatic example of what happened in regards to the WTC 7 building. Here's an excerpt from whatreallyhappened.com's article Larry Silverstein, WTC 7, and the 9/11 Demolition (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/cutter.html):

Citigroup says some information that the committee is seeking [about WorldCom] was destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center. Salomon had offices in 7 World Trade Center, one of the buildings that collapsed in the aftermath of the attack. The bank says that back-up tapes of corporate emails from September 1998 through December 2000 were stored at the building and destroyed in the attack. [TheStreet (http://www.thestreet.com/markets/matthewgoldstein/10036925.html)]

As I've said before, it may well be that the money trail is what will finally get most people to realize who was truly behind 9/11.

here is an explanation. If the terrorists get to know when a drill is going to take place, they just plan their act on the same day. Now feeding them with info is possible but pretty much impossible to prove.so you are suggesting that the drills helped the terrorists in some way because the terrorists chose the date of the attacks to coincide with the date of the drills?
How could the drills have helped the terrorists?

so you are suggesting that the drills helped the terrorists in some way because the terrorists chose the date of the attacks to coincide with the date of the drills?

I thought that was YOUR assumption, but I went with it, because I don't believe in coincidences either. The question is if they planned it this way by themselves or it was suggested by someone from the US military.


How could the drills have helped the terrorists?

Come on, how hard it is to figure it out? Analogy: When there is a fire drill it takes extra time and a little confusion to realize that there is a real fire going on what is not part of the drill...Even it is is just 5 minutes to clarify, that is 5 minutes gained for the attackers.

How could the drills have helped the terrorists? Come on, how hard it is to figure it out? Analogy: When there is a fire drill it takes extra time and a little confusion to realize that there is a real fire going on what is not part of the drill...Even it is is just 5 minutes to clarify, that is 5 minutes gained for the attackers.

then you disagree with the commander of Norad General Ralph Eberhart on this because he testified that the drills helped the response to the attacks.

http://fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/071204_final_fraud.shtml

so you are suggesting that the drills helped the terrorists in some way because the terrorists chose the date of the attacks to coincide with the date of the drills?

I thought that was YOUR assumption, but I went with it, because I don't believe in coincidences either. The question is if they planned it this way by themselves or it was suggested by someone from the US military.

I believe that Headspin does indeed believe it helped the terrorists. If it wasn't simply a fortunate coincidence for the terrorists, the question, as you have correctly surmised, is how they knew.




How could the drills have helped the terrorists?

Come on, how hard it is to figure it out? Analogy: When there is a fire drill it takes extra time and a little confusion to realize that there is a real fire going on what is not part of the drill...Even it is is just 5 minutes to clarify, that is 5 minutes gained for the attackers.

In this case, the drills lasted for much longer then 5 minutes. Well, I'm glad we're all on the same page in realizing that these drills, which I'm not sure if I've ever seen mentioned in the mainstream media, are quite important.

How could the drills have helped the terrorists?

Come on, how hard it is to figure it out? Analogy: When there is a fire drill it takes extra time and a little confusion to realize that there is a real fire going on what is not part of the drill...Even it is is just 5 minutes to clarify, that is 5 minutes gained for the attackers.

then you disagree with the commander of Norad General Ralph Eberhart on this because he testified that the drills helped the response to the attacks.

http://fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/071204_final_fraud.shtml

Wow. Been at all this a while, but I'm constantly surprised at how much I still -don't- know.

I thought that was YOUR assumption, but I went with it, because I don't believe in coincidences either. The question is if they planned it this way by themselves or it was suggested by someone from the US military.

Come on, how hard it is to figure it out? Analogy: When there is a fire drill it takes extra time and a little confusion to realize that there is a real fire going on what is not part of the drill...Even it is is just 5 minutes to clarify, that is 5 minutes gained for the attackers.

Imagine if directly after the Hindenburg disaster there were pretend engineers and pretend news reporters with no education or even emotional problems (bloggers\ $20 per mo. web site owners asking for 50k in donations as we have seen with the links posted by people here) hampering progress and investigations?

Is this the future.:confused:

Imagine if directly after the Hindenburg disaster there where pretend engineers and pretend news reporters with no education or even emotional problems (bloggers\ $20 per mo. web site owners asking for 50k in donations as we have seen with the links posted by people here) hampering progress and investigations?

Is this the future.:confused:

There are many real engineers who disagree with the official story. I don't know of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Hindenburg disaster, assuming there are some, but I seriously doubt that the Hindenburg disaster attracted anywhere near as many credentialed experts who believe that the official story is full of holes.

Tony Szamboti, who has posted in this forum as well as in the now closed threads involving the WTC collapses over in pseudoscience, is one of the more eloquent engineers to question the official story regarding the WTC collapses.

You say that over and over.

The Earths population is close to 7 billion, the number of engineers is a few hundred thousand so of course you can find some to agree with you.

Tony, Tony, Tony....

I realize it is best to ignore you and the other anarchists (you do support sex with children as seen in the pedo thread) but we are not going to agree on much.

Is this the future.:confused:
I hope so, its called "freedom".

interestingly it was a prerequisite for the renaissance which most people think was a good thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance

Imagine if directly after some suspicious disaster there were appointed wealthy experts (NIST) and appointed wealthy news reporters with no education (Davin Coburn popular mechanics) or even emotional problems (bill O reilly fox news)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tJjNVVwRCY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3U9ENaTPLY

imagine a future where the internet was limited to only wealthy corporate media web sites earning millions of dollars through compulsory tax payers bailout donations which condemed any questioning of bailouts, corruption, conspiracy investigation cover ups (internet 2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet2

freedom or fascism?

You say that over and over.

The Earths population is close to 7 billion, the number of engineers is a few hundred thousand so of course you can find some to agree with you.

Perhaps you should listen more attentively to what they have to say...



Tony, Tony, Tony....

Yes, Tony Szamboti is definitely a very eloquent speaker when it comes tot he WTC collapses.



I realize it is best to ignore you and the other anarchists (you do support sex with children as seen in the pedo thread) but we are not going to agree on much.

We may indeed not agree on much. Your blanket statement that I 'support sex with children' is mistaken. I'd get into details, only I think you know full well that most of those threads discussing youth sexuality have been closed. Perhaps you're attempting to close this one?

interestingly it was a prerequisite for the renaissance which most people think was a good thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance

Imagine if directly after some suspicious disaster there were appointed wealthy experts (NIST) and appointed wealthy news reporters with no education (Davin Coburn popular mechanics) or even emotional problems (bill O reilly fox news)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tJjNVVwRCY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3U9ENaTPLY

imagine a future where the internet was limited to only wealthy corporate media web sites earning millions of dollars through compulsory tax payers bailout donations which condemed any questioning of corruption of bailouts and corruption investigations (internet 2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet2

Well said Headspin.

Freedom? I never called for hidden investigations. Is your goal to keep repeating the same things over and over until people start to believe them? The Nazi's did the same thing.

Freedom? I never called for hidden investigations.

So you believe that the official 9/11 investigations were completely transparent?

We may indeed not agree on much. Your blanket statement that I 'support sex with children' is mistaken. I'd get into details, only I think you know full well that most of those threads discussing youth sexuality have been closed. Perhaps you're attempting to close this one?

How is that a blanket statement?

I notice that you seem to think that everyone who disagrees with you is trying to close a thread.

So far you have been the one trying to stifle people.

So you believe that the official 9/11 investigations were completely transparent?

As transparent as can be expected. I told you before, get an education, become a forensic specialist\investigator and then make an assessment.

then you disagree with the commander of Norad General Ralph Eberhart on this because he testified that the drills helped the response to the attacks.

1. I disagree with lots of everybody... :)

2. The commander is obviously covering his ass. After all no fighter captured the planes, so what was that incredible help what he is talking about???

In this case, the drills lasted for much longer then 5 minutes.

Holy fuck people. I didn't say the drill lasted 5 minutes, I said if the confusion took an extra 5 minutes to clear up because of the ongoing drill, that was an extra 5 minutes advantage for the attackers. A fighter plane can cover lots of miles in 5 minutes...

Speaking of figther planes, I am actually surprized that nobody has brought up the plane in Pennsylvania yet. What's the story on that one? Did the passengers wrestle the robotpilot (maybe imaginary hijackers too) or was it shot down by the Air Force?

The commander is obviously covering his ass. After all no fighter captured the planes, so what was that incredible help what he is talking about???
this is not logical, how is Eberhart covering his ass if he is innocent and knew nothing of the attacks? these are obvious lines of enquiry which were avoided by the commission. if you read the article i gave you you'll see Eberhart was being spoon fed answers.

Covering HIS ass would be to say "the drills hampered NORADs response", that would have given him the excuse he needed to explain why there were no intercepts for the TWO HOURS these hijacked jets were flying across the country....but alas he says the opposite by saying the drills helped the response :bugeye:

The only thing that makes sense is that he is diverting attention away from the drills in order to cover the ass of his boss Cheney, who was in charge of overall coordination of the drills.

2. The commander is obviously covering his ass. After all no fighter captured the planes, so what was that incredible help what he is talking about???

this is not logical, how is Eberhart covering his ass if he is innocent and knew nothing of the attacks? these are obvious lines of enquiry which were avoided by the commission. if you read the article i gave you you'll see Eberhart was being spoon fed answers.

Covering HIS ass would be to say "the drills hampered NORADs response", that would have given him the excuse he needed to explain why there were no intercepts for the TWO HOURS these hijacked jets were flying across the country....but alas he says the opposite by saying the drills helped the response :bugeye:

The only thing that makes sense is that he is diverting attention away from the drills in order to cover the ass of his boss Cheney, who was in charge of overall coordination of the drills.

I agree. 9/11 Research has quite a good article on the subject:
NORAD Stand-Down: The Prevention of Interceptions of the Commandeered Planes (http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/)

this is not logical, how is Eberhart covering his ass if he is innocent and knew nothing of the attacks?

I am getting a headache. Citizens might ask where those billions of dollars go for the Air Force if they can't even shot down 4 passenger planes. (Hell, even 1 would have been nice.)One doesn't have to be guilty to try to cover INCOMPETENCE.

But I already mentioned this. Again, just what exactly the Air Force or deffense did on 9/11???? They certainly didn't stop any of the planes...

So what "response" is the commander refering to???

I am getting a headache. Citizens might ask where those billions of dollars go for the Air Force if they can't even shot down 4 passenger planes. (Hell, even 1 would have been nice.)One doesn't have to be guilty to try to cover INCOMPETENCE.

But I already mentioned this. Again, just what exactly the Air Force or deffense did on 9/11???? They certainly didn't stop any of the planes...

So what "response" is the commander refering to???

for the sake of discussion, let's assume some things to be true :

1. General Eberhart was incompetent.
2. General Eberhart lied to cover his incompetence.
3. The hijacking drills hindered the air force response to the attacks.

why would Eberhart lie, when the truth (3) would have covered his ass?

what is your explanation?

http://fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/071204_final_fraud.shtml

Hey, we can go in circles:

What response the Air Force did on 9/11? As far as I know they were nonexistent...

Hey, we can go in circles:

What response the Air Force did on 9/11? As far as I know they were nonexistent...OK,

(General Eberhart said that the hijack drills helped the response to the attacks)

for the sake of discussion, let's assume some things to be true :

1. General Eberhart was incompetent.
2. General Eberhart lied to cover his incompetence.
3. The hijacking drills hindered the air force response to the attacks.
4. The air force response was non-existent.

why would Eberhart lie, when the truth (3) would have covered his ass?

what is your explanation?

http://fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/071204_final_fraud.shtml

3. The hijacking drills hindered the air force response to the attacks.

why would Eberhart lie, when the truth (3) would have covered his ass?


Acknowledging a fuck up doesn't cover nobody's ass, and rises more questions, like the coincidence of the war games and attacks on the same day.

When The Shit Hit the Fan, nobody takes responsibility EVER. Do you think after Pearl Harbor any military person stood up and said: yes, we fucked it up here, here and here?? Hell no!! There were scapegoats for sure, later excused, but NOBODY wanted to take the blame.

The same shit with 9/11. The truth is that the war games hindered the possibility of the passenger planes' interception, so of course they gonna LIE about it. Not personally covering his own ass, but for the whole organizations (Air Force, NORAD, air deffense,etc)

You guys don't even read your own websites??

http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html

The truth is:

1. On 9/11 most of the interceptors were in Canada as part of the exercise.

2. The hijacking exercise caused confusion on the radar screen.

3. Some fighters were sent out East to the ocean against incoming Russian attacks.

So all this together ads up to a GIANT fuck up effect as interception goes. No official person will acknowledge this, so of course the commander lies about it and states the exact opposite.

Of course the US air deffense had an epic fail on 9/11 because it was unable to capture any of the planes, so saying that the war games helped the response is just plain stupid and obviously not true.

So for the last time, ANY official would lie about any big fuck up because nobody wants to take personal responsibility nor have his organization to be seen in a bad light. But that doesn't mean Americans actively helped things. The attackers could have advanced knowledge of the timing of the war games. How, that is hard to know or prove...Even just 1 person could have given out dates, that does't mean that the US government planed the attacks.

Here is a possible scenario: You are in charge of planning the timing of the attack. You can pick any date. What date are you going to pick? When the possible deffense response is the less. When is it? When there is a drill going on interceptors being away and the drill causing confusion. Now you just have to find out somehow (not that hard, but spying is not out of the question) when the next war games are planned and there you go, you have an attack date...

I can't really explain it any simpler so I am done with this part of the topic....

P.S.: When I said response was non-existent I was being sarcastic...

Holy fuck people. I didn't say the drill lasted 5 minutes, I said if the confusion took an extra 5 minutes to clear up because of the ongoing drill, that was an extra 5 minutes advantage for the attackers. A fighter plane can cover lots of miles in 5 minutes...

Speaking of figther planes, I am actually surprized that nobody has brought up the plane in Pennsylvania yet. What's the story on that one? Did the passengers wrestle the robotpilot (maybe imaginary hijackers too) or was it shot down by the Air Force?


I am surprized that Syzgys does not know the story on that one. The claim has been made that cell phone activity would have been impossible at the purported altitude and location of the plane at the reported time of the noble phone call(s). If cell phone dead zone was true, then the heroic scenario of the courageous passengers storming the cockpit and flying the plane into the ground to save the White House, or whatever, could not have been true. Cell phone reports had to have been concocted if dead zone was true.

So, what did it?

Malfunction of robopilot which cannot remember difference between straight ahead and straight down.

Malfunction of terrorist pilot who cannot remember difference between straight ahead and straight down.

Figther pilot who is out of the loop and who therefore faithfully executes his mission to shoot down maverick plane.

None of the above. Please submit your answer by your favorite method.

Time goes by so fastly. And time can do so much.

I'm just now getting a round tuit. I have connived a little bit of time to calculate the weight of a column/spandrel module. This was the very easy half. Then I have settled upon a mathematical analysis to explore whether an incoming plane could reasonably have knocked out so many teeth ( column/spandrel modules ) in the side of a WTC building. Obviously, the teeth were knocked out, but, the question is, should they have been knocked out?

It has been most vexing to try to obtain reliable structural information. At first it seemed easy. But, as each information search has gone by, so many different versions of Structural Blueprints, and, commentaries about such, have come into view, that it has gotten more murky all the time. I have yet to find a set of as-built-drawings. As built drawings are the normal conclusion of any sizeable construction project. There must have been as-built structural blueprints of WTC showing all the change orders to the "final" construction drawings. I haven't been smart enough or lucky enough to find them.

So, I have made reasonable guesses about the as-built structure of WTC and am in the midst of calculating whether the weight and speed of the incoming planes should have been able to knock out so many columns.

Key to my quest is the question of whether the column to column connection bolts were reasonably able to support being sheared by the incoming plane weight and speed. Or, whether the bolts had to have been removed, or, replaced by inferior strength bolts in order for the historical damage to have happened.

Of course, the ultimate demise of the WTC towers did not depend upon such a thing, since the towers stood strong for some good time after the initial impacts. This is a fact obvious to those aware of structural engineering basic principles.

Most of the population are not aware of structural engineering basic principles.

But, if a criminal conspirator wanted to be sure of making it look like a plane knocked out so many columns that the building looked so weak that it just had to fall down, then such a criminal would want to tamper with column connection bolts.

Lack of experience? Change of target plans?

As about pilots not giving up their planes, several of them were immediatelly killed, some of them thought it was just a simple hostage situation...

You guys forget to remember the 4th plane that went down in Pennsylvania. We have multiple phonecalls from it stating that hijackers did take over the plane, the pilots were immediatelly killed and they actually put up a fight and the passengers first thought there is a bomb.

Get your facts freaking straight...

Also don't forget what surprize can do...


And we have experts saying that cell phone communication was impossible at the altitude and location of the plane at the claimed time of the heroic cell phone messages.

Because of inexperience? Actually coming down lower in a circle makes more sense to me (and even a beginner pilot could do it) then pushing the nose down and hit it like a missile...





So, a brainwashed terrorist pilot is remembering that his mission is to blow up the pentagon. The terrorist pilot is a terrible pilot, but does remember that stick down=plane go down. The terrible pilot sees the Pentagon and correctly coordinates the thrust, aileron bank, and rudder and elevator controls so as to beautifully spiral down into a perfect approach to a collision like walking up the walk to the front door?

B C D E F.....

No A!

Brainwashed terrible terrorist pilot sees Pentagon, can't remember how to coordinate ailerons and rudder, can't remember how to coordinate thrust lever and elevator, but, can remember how to push stick down and make plane go down. Splat straight down somewhere in roof of Pentagon.

Crash did not happen that way?

Then maybe a terrorist terrible pilot did not crash a plane into the Pentagon.

Maybe something else happened at Pentagon.

And we have experts saying that cell phone communication was impossible at the altitude and location of the plane at the claimed time of the heroic cell phone messages.Which experts and how high were these people at the time of calling?

Luckily I have Uno on Ignore but as I see he has some problems with phonecalls. Actually, almost all info can be found in the Wikipedia, so if one is not a complete idiot, than one could realize that MOST of the phonecalls were made by using the air phones of the planes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#Phone_calls

"Phone calls

Air phone calls and cell phone calls were placed from the hijacked planes. Conspiracy theorists say cell phone calls should either be impossible or rarely possible from commercial planes, and therefore the hijackings were staged and the phone calls were faked.

After 9/11, cellular experts said that they were surprised calls were able to be placed from the hijacked planes, and 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. Alexa Graf, an AT&T spokesperson said it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations.[118] Other industry experts said that it is possible to use cell phones with varying degrees of success during a flight. [119] 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."

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). The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force testified that all but two calls from Flight 93 were made on air phones.[120] There were reportedly three phone calls from Flight 11, five from Flight 175, and three calls from Flight 77 which American Airlines later confirmed did not have airphones fitted[citation needed]; two calls from these flights were recorded, placed by flight attendants Madeleine Sweeney and Betty Ong on Flight 11. A conspiracy theory web site claims anomalies relating to the nature of the phone call transcripts.[121]"

So, a brainwashed terrorist pilot is remembering that his mission is to blow up the pentagon. The terrorist pilot is a terrible pilot, but does remember that stick down=plane go down. The terrible pilot sees the Pentagon and correctly coordinates the thrust, aileron bank, and rudder and elevator controls so as to beautifully spiral down into a perfect approach to a collision like walking up the walk to the front door?

B C D E F.....

No A!

Brainwashed terrible terrorist pilot sees Pentagon, can't remember how to coordinate ailerons and rudder, can't remember how to coordinate thrust lever and elevator, but, can remember how to push stick down and make plane go down. Splat straight down somewhere in roof of Pentagon.

Crash did not happen that way?

Then maybe a terrorist terrible pilot did not crash a plane into the Pentagon.

Maybe something else happened at Pentagon.

Well said Uno Hoo. I suggest you take a look at the Citizen Investigation Team's site, www.thepentacon.com to see what I believe to be a far more credible theory as to what truly happened.

I'm glad that we began discussion this subject, first in the debate and now here. I continue to believe that you are far more open to alternative ideas then most people here and you are willing to do a fair amount of research to find out what truly happened. I think the real danger is when people decide that it's not worth attempting to reach a consensus between people who believe the official story and people who don't by attempting to unearth as much evidence as possible as to what actually happened that day.

But, if a criminal conspirator wanted to be sure of making it look like a plane knocked out so many columns that the building looked so weak that it just had to fall down, then such a criminal would want to tamper with column connection bolts.

I'm not sure of this, but you may want to see how the creator of the site Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth came to believe that the WTC buildings were indeed brought down by controlled demolitions:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1146773943958672828

This picture was taken by a secret camera just seconds before the WTC came down. The original of the photo is at Langley:

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a78/familyghost2008/cat-detonator.jpg

This picture was taken by a secret camera just seconds before the WTC came down. The original of the photo is at Langley:

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a78/familyghost2008/cat-detonator.jpg

Very funny Syzy :-p

3. The hijacking drills hindered the air force response to the attacks.

why would Eberhart lie, when the truth (3) would have covered his ass?Acknowledging a fuck up doesn't cover nobody's ass

I am confused by your response.
How is an admission that the drills hindered the response "acknowledging a fuck up"?


and rises more questions, like the coincidence of the war games and attacks on the same day.why do you think that would be something Eberhart would want to hide?


When The Shit Hit the Fan, nobody takes responsibility EVER. Do you think after Pearl Harbor any military person stood up and said: yes, we fucked it up here, here and here?? Hell no!! There were scapegoats for sure, later excused, but NOBODY wanted to take the blame.but your logic is in reverse - he had the PERFECT excuse - that there were wargames going on that had diverted resources, and there were drills going on that mimicked the attacks all delaying the response time. but he did not use the perfect excuse. Instead, he lied opening up himself and NORAD to take the blame because the response failed. so who does his lie protect, the lower downs? or the higher ups? who has the power to put Eberhart's head on the block to take the rap for 911? the lower downs? or the higher ups?


The same shit with 9/11. The truth is that the war games hindered the possibility of the passenger planes' interception, so of course they gonna LIE about it.why lie about the war games and the hijacking drills?
the truth is that the war games and the hijacking drills hindered the possibilty of the passenger planes' interception, so of course they would NOT lie about it, because he has the perfect deniability - coincidence!
so why lie??

NORAD had the perfect excuse with the drills, why not use that and nobody gets to be a scapegoat.


Not personally covering his own ass, but for the whole organizations (Air Force, NORAD, air deffense,etc)but his lie does not protect NORAD, his lie put's NORAD in the firing line to take the rap.
his lie protects those co-ordinating the hijacking drills and wargames.
who co-ordinated the hijacking drills and the wargames?


You guys don't even read your own websites??
http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html
that website doesn't belong to anyone here.
Stop with the "you guys" groupthink division, "we" are just ordinary citizens just like yourself, and we and you are all on the same team because we are every bit as affected by 911 and its aftermath as "you guys".


So for the last time, ANY official would lie about any big fuck up because nobody wants to take personal responsibility, nor have his organization to be seen in a bad light.
he is only going to lie if the truth puts him in the firing line.
the truth (that the hijacking drills and wargames hindered the response) does NOT put him or NORAD in the firing line, if he tells the truth he has the perfect excuse to protect himself and NORAD - he is not going to be fired for reasons outside of his control. he does not lie to protect himself, he lies to protect the "coincidence".


Here is a possible scenario: You are in charge of planning the timing of the attack. You can pick any date. What date are you going to pick? When the possible deffense response is the less. When is it? When there is a drill going on interceptors being away and the drill causing confusion. Now you just have to find out somehow (not that hard, but spying is not out of the question) when the next war games are planned and there you go, you have an attack date...you are just constructing a scenario to protect your beliefs, there is no evidence or logic to support your scenario. Besides, occams razor puts the co-ordinator of the hijack drills and wargames at the top of the suspect list, not foreign jihadis.


I can't really explain it any simpler so I am done with this part of the topic....I hope you take the time to respond.


P.S.: When I said response was non-existent I was being sarcastic...please do not be sarcastic, in this communication medium there is no way for anyone to understand what is sarcasm and what is not since sarcasm is normally expressed with body language and facial expression, it will only lead to confusion. you repeated your response twice, so i do not see how I could have understood it to be sarcasm.

to recap:

true: General Eberhart said that the hijack drills helped the response to the attacks.

you are saying these things are true :

1. General Eberhart was incompetent.
2. General Eberhart lied to cover his incompetence.
3. The hijacking drills hindered the air force response to the attacks.

why would Eberhart lie, when the truth (3) would have gotten himself and NORAD off the hook?

Seriously, I don't think we will move forward in the discussion even if I repeat what I have already said. The problem is that you don't understand human behavour...


How is an admission that the drills hindered the response "acknowledging a fuck up"?

1. That particular sentence you are refering to was a general explanation that nobody wants to own a failure.

2. It would mean that even when the US military is in READY state because of a drill they are unable to stop attackers. Also, because some planes were away, the question of coincidence and scapegoating would come up.


but your logic is in reverse - he had the PERFECT excuse - that there were wargames going on that had diverted resources, and there were drills going on that mimicked the attacks all delaying the response time.

At the first look you are right, that would have been an easy way out, but again it would have rised lots of questions:

- Who knew about the upcoming wargames?
- Was it just a coincidence or were the terrorists fed insider info, if so by whom?
- If they weren't fed info but figured it out on their own (spying), is the security about wargames planning too lax?
- If a drill is going on shouldn't there be a FASTER response than in normal times? If so, who are responsible?
-etc.etc.

By stating that the drill actually helped the response all the uncomfortable questions go away, they did their best, still couldn't do what they should have, but nobody is at fault. No scapegoats. End of story. No loose ends...


Instead, he lied opening up himself and NORAD to take the blame because the response failed.

1. Apparently nobody accused them for their failure, so it wasn't a problem.

2. Between you and me, drill or no drill, they probably couldn't have protected the cities anyway, the time was simply too short not to mention for the first 3 planes there were no "shot down" order in place. The 4th plane was delayed, thus had it made to DC they could have shot it down. The US got lucky with that plane twice, because of the delay and the action of the passengers no American fighter had to kill Americans.


that website doesn't belong to anyone here.

Sure it does, it explains how the drill delayed the response. The drill caused confusion and lack of resources.


you are just constructing a scenario to protect your beliefs,

Gee, I thought that's what conspiracy theorists do! You asked a question, I gave you a possible AND pausible explanation.


occams razor puts the co-ordinator of the hijack drills and wargames at the top of the suspect list, not foreign jihadis.

Why? Wargames happen quite often. If you do attack planning, it is not that hard to come up with the idea of timing it at the same time. Also what is more difficult to believe:

a/ High ranked official adjusts the timing of a wargames according to terrorist' wish, although really, they can strike on any date.

or

b/ Terrorists plan their attack according to when the wargames take place.

Obviously B is more plausible.

Now there could be more ways how terrorists could figure out the time of the next wargames:

1. Somebody from the military reports it to them. Direct spying.
2. Somebody related to a military person who is involved in the wargames draws conclusion and reports it. Let's say a wife or other relative.Indirect spying.
3. It can be figured out indirectly by knowing certain plane movements, pilot movements, logistics, etc.
4. Other spy organization feeding them with the info. Use your imagination.
etc.etc.

Now how exactly it happened, that is hard to know and even harder to prove. Of course there is still the possibility of coincidence, but I don't believe in coincidences.

Syzygys, in your last post, you told Headspin:

Seriously, I don't think we will move forward in the discussion even if I repeat what I have already said. The problem is that you don't understand human behavour...

I wanted to state that I don't understand why you've come to that conclusion.

Because it is plain old human behavour that nobody wants to get blamed for crap. Simple psychology. House burnt down? Well, it is gone now, so what good does it do to say that I fell asleep and my cigarette started it?

Every company and organization have problems if you put them under scrutiny. But if you already found perpetrators, the terrorists who commited the crime, what good does it do for your organization to find additional screw ups and people to blame? It doesn't so you protect your own ass and your organization too, because that is what pays your bills...

Instead, he lied opening up himself and NORAD to take the blame because the response failed.

1. Apparently nobody accused them for their failure, so it wasn't a problem.

So as long as no high level official accuses them of a failure, all is well? Interesting way of seeing things. I'll give you a run down of the failures that happened that day, straight from 9/11 Research's NORAD Stand-Down (http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/index.html) page:


The air defense network had, on September 11th, predictable and effective procedures for dealing with just such an attack. Yet it failed to respond in a timely manner until after the attack was over, more than an hour and a half after it had started. The official timeline describes a series of events and mode of response in which the delays are spread out into a number of areas. There are failures upon failures, in what might be described as a strategy of layered failures, or failure in depth. The failures can be divided into four types.

* Failures to report (http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/index.html#report): Based on the official timeline, the FAA response times for reporting the deviating aircraft were many times longer than the prescribed times.
* Failures to scramble (http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/index.html#scramble): NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases.
* Failures to intercept (http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/index.html#intercept): Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds.
* Failures to redeploy (http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/index.html#redeploy): Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them.

Had not there been multiple failures of each type, one or more parts of the attack could have been thwarted. NORAD had time to protect the World Trade Center even given the unbelievably late time, 8:40, when it claims to have first been notified. It had time to protect the South Tower and Washington even given its bizarre choice of bases to scramble. And it still had ample opportunity to protect both New York City and Washington even if it insisted that all interceptors fly subsonic, simply by redeploying airborne fighters.


2. Between you and me, drill or no drill, they probably couldn't have protected the cities anyway, the time was simply too short not to mention for the first 3 planes there were no "shot down" order in place.

You're right, there was no shoot down order in place. Not only that, but there was only one man who could give that order, if I recall correctly; perhaps Donald Rumsfeld. It wasn't like that just a few months before 9/11. But then things were changed. I imagine they were changed back again soon after 9/11 as well.



The 4th plane was delayed, thus had it made to DC they could have shot it down. The US got lucky with that plane twice, because of the delay and the action of the passengers no American fighter had to kill Americans.

That's the official story. From everything I've seen, however, it seems far more plausible that the plane was shot down. As to the cell phone calls, here's a good post (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=14047&view=findpost&p=10748202) I got over from Pilots for 9/11 Truth:

technicallly, this is a "decided" issue, i think. unless a passenger had a window seat, unless the aircraft was below 5,000 ft and circling a cell tower, no cell phone connections could be made. and definitely no extended conversation could be implemented.

anyone who attempts to assert that any cell phone conversations occurred from the "involved" aircraft that day is either ignorant or a disinformation agent.

what has always fascinated me is how it has been that no one[s] seem to know about the cell phone system in the areas traversed by 77,93.

in that area of the usa, this area where cell phone calls purportedly were made, is the worst cell tower covered area in the usa. that was the case in 2001. and it is still the case. and that is for individuals on the ground and stationary.

i frequently put my sales engineers into this territory. when in that territory, as far as cellphone communications are concerned, they are out of it. only when they can get to a landline can they communicate with my offices.

Seriously, I don't think we will move forward in the discussion even if I repeat what I have already said. The problem is that you don't understand human behavour...
.
But human behavior is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to PHYSICS.

Ask any Vulcan. :D

That is what I am finding totally hilarious about the so called atheists now. Atheists would have EVERYONE BELIEVE that they are intelligent, rational and SCIENTIFIC. But most of them can't figure out the obvious questions to ask about a Newtonian Physics problem. ROFLMAO

Oh yeah! "woo woo" and "pseudoscience"

How do you build a skyscraper without figuring how much steel to put where? "woo woo" my ass!

psik

Syzygys, in your last post, you told Headspin:

Seriously, I don't think we will move forward in the discussion even if I repeat what I have already said. The problem is that you don't understand human behavour...

I wanted to state that I don't understand why you've come to that conclusion.

Because it is plain old human behavour that nobody wants to get blamed for crap. Simple psychology. House burnt down? Well, it is gone now, so what good does it do to say that I fell asleep and my cigarette started it?

Every company and organization have problems if you put them under scrutiny. But if you already found perpetrators, the terrorists who commited the crime, what good does it do for your organization to find additional screw ups and people to blame? It doesn't so you protect your own ass and your organization too, because that is what pays your bills...

What good does it do? I don't know, perhaps ensure that it doesn't happen again. But perhaps you think that the people in charge of North American security are more concerned with paying the bills?

Seriously, I don't think we will move forward in the discussion even if I repeat what I have already said. The problem is that you don't understand human behavour...

But human behavior is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to PHYSICS.

Ask any Vulcan. :D

That is what I am finding totally hilarious about the so called atheists now. Atheists would have EVERYONE BELIEVE that they are intelligent, rational and SCIENTIFIC. But most of them can't figure out the obvious questions to ask about a Newtonian Physics problem. ROFLMAO

Oh yeah! "woo woo" and "pseudoscience"

How do you build a skyscraper without figuring how much steel to put where? "woo woo" my ass!

psik

psik, I agree with you to some extent, but I keep on thinking that few people, on either side of the debate (correct me if I'm wrong Headspin/Tony), seem to think that how much steel was put where in the twin towers is so important. What's more, apparently it can be figured out if one knows enough about such things; I believe that Tony once said that he could help you figure it out.

So as long as no high level official accuses them of a failure, all is well?

YOU don't understand psychology either. :eek:

Why would a military commander care what people say on the internet as long as his bosses or the media don't say anything???

Hello????

Hey, check this contradiction in your logic:


NORAD had time to protect the World Trade Center even given the unbelievably late time, 8:40, when it claims to have first been notified. It had time to protect the South Tower and Washington

......

You're right, there was no shoot down order in place.

Without shot down order, how can they protect the cities??? Not to mention they didn't know what the terrorists' plan was, at least not until the first plane hit the WTC and still then it could have been an accident. It became obvious only after the 2nd hit.

The first figthers eventually getting in the air were still on the runway when the 2nd plane hit. Even if they are faster by 20 minutes to get them in the air, 20 minutes is not enough to locate, reach, getting authorization and shooting down a plane...

Remember it wasn't obvious the 2nd hit had to be where the 1st happened...

By the way, I am not disagreeing about the failures, that's what I have been saying all along. Now why would they acknowledge that they failed, when they can just say they tried their best???

We can debate the timeline but I don't think that even without the drill they had enough time to act. You have to know the location of the target to able to find and shot it down....

What good does it do? I don't know, perhaps ensure that it doesn't happen again.

They can do it in the background without airing the dirty laundry in public...

Anyhow, I think I answered all of your questions and you guys are unable to come up with a plausible scenario. Not to mention I have to keep explaining basic things. Bottomline is, as much as this was fun, I think I really have to say goodbye to this thread, because we gonna end up with 15K posts and you guys still don't get it...

Here is a picture of the robot pilot what they used instead of the real planes. They were highly trained kamikaze cats, now you know the truth:

http://rookery2.viary.com/storagev12/932000/932284_4bcc_625x1000.jpg

Without shot down order, how can they protect the cities??? you need to distinquish between "shoot down" and "intercept". An intecept is the default position which does not need any authority from the high up chain of command, intercept is automatic in the event of an air emergency, if can be instigated by an FAA flight controller.

It was known that flight 11 was hijacked at 8:13am, this is when the scramble order should have been issued.

the first jets to scramble scrambled at 8:46am

flight 11 hit the north tower at 8:46am

the same FAA flight controller was handling both flight 11 and flight 175, why? did al qaeda plan for this too with their mega spies inside the US infrastructure <sarcasm>?


Not to mention they didn't know what the terrorists' plan was, at least not until the first plane hit the WTC and still then it could have been an accident. It became obvious only after the 2nd hit.
not true. you are looking at things through your own view which was the view that was presented to you by CNN and BBC etc.
flight 11 was known to be a hijack at 8:13am, that is a full 50 minutes BEFORE the 2nd hit.
flight 175 was known to be a hijack at 8:42am, that is 21 minutes BEFORE the 2nd hit.


The first figthers eventually getting in the air were still on the runway when the 2nd plane hit. the first fighters were scrambled at 8:46am, 17 minutes before the 2nd plane hit.


Even if they are faster by 20 minutes to get them in the air, 20 minutes is not enough to locate, reach, getting authorization and shooting down a plane...the default position is "intercept", this has nothing to do with a shoot down. shoot down orders can come (or not come) later over the intercom.


Remember it wasn't obvious the 2nd hit had to be where the 1st happened...the planes would have been tracked on radar, their positions would have been known to the FAA controllers, NORAD, and others (the transponders which were turned off are not the radar). its not like you scramble the jets and pilots start looking out the window for american airline jets.


By the way, I am not disagreeing about the failures, that's what I have been saying all along. Now why would they acknowledge that they failed, when they can just say they tried their best??? we all know NORAD failed - the jets were not intercepted!
From the time the first hijack was known to the scrambling of the first jets was 33 minutes. the question still remains, why would Eberhart lie, when the truth would have gotten himself and NORAD off the hook? (the truth being that the hijacking drills, the wargames, and the evacuation drill of the NRO building simulating a plane crash into the NRO building that operated the spy satellites were all going on at the same time as the real hijacks and the real plane crashes).


We can debate the timeline but I don't think that even without the drill they had enough time to act. You have to know the location of the target to able to find and shot it down....
did al qaeda coat the planes with stealth radar technology paint too <sarcasm> ?

Instead, he lied opening up himself and NORAD to take the blame because the response failed.

1. Apparently nobody accused them for their failure, so it wasn't a problem.

So as long as no high level official accuses them of a failure, all is well?

YOU don't understand psychology either.

Why would a military commander care what people say on the internet as long as his bosses or the media don't say anything???

Hello????

Syzygys, are you implying that all the military commander cares about is what his bosses and the media say?

And what about you? Do -you- care?

psik, I agree with you to some extent, but I keep on thinking that few people, on either side of the debate (correct me if I'm wrong Headspin/Tony), seem to think that how much steel was put where in the twin towers is so important. What's more, apparently it can be figured out if one knows enough about such things; I believe that Tony once said that he could help you figure it out.
.
People seem to be tolerating the fact that the NIST doesn't bother telling us the number and weights of the perimeter wall panels. Gregory Urich makes excuses for the NIST saying they had such a small budget. 3 years and 20 million dollars and they can't specify the weights of the wall panels but they produce a report about the effect of the impact on suspended ceilings. :eek: :confused:

In all of the videos I have seen of WTC survivors only one mentioned anything falling from the ceiling and that was in a basement which was a long way from where the planes struck. The only reason I found that report is because it is the only one where they use the term center of mass which I was searching on because of the tilt of the top of the south tower. There is nothing anywhere about the center of mass of the south tower.

So yeah I am off in the ozone because I can't see the relevance of cell phone calls from airplanes compared to getting people to understand why grade school physics should explain why the top of the north tower should not have crushed the rest in less than 18 seconds. Or at all for that matter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYG9cdgwyqI

I am having a problem with keeping the sound synchronized with the video when I splice a lot of these drops together. I want the sound well synched because my mass falls so fast that it blurs in the video. But the stationary mass changes the collapse speed on impact at every level so the same thing should have happened in skyscrapers that get stronger and heavier all of the way down.

psik

Because it is plain old human behavour that nobody wants to get blamed for crap. Simple psychology. House burnt down? Well, it is gone now, so what good does it do to say that I fell asleep and my cigarette started it?

Every company and organization have problems if you put them under scrutiny. But if you already found perpetrators, the terrorists who commited the crime, what good does it do for your organization to find additional screw ups and people to blame? It doesn't so you protect your own ass and your organization too, because that is what pays your bills...

What good does it do? I don't know, perhaps ensure that it doesn't happen again. But perhaps you think that the people in charge of North American security are more concerned with paying the bills?

They can do it in the background without airing the dirty laundry in public...

They could. Then again, they could not as well. Who knows, perhaps things went more or less according to plan that day. If that were the case, then the people in charge would know that nothing really went wrong that day and no need to punish anyone. High fives all around, eh?



Anyhow, I think I answered all of your questions and you guys are unable to come up with a plausible scenario.

I disagree, but I understand that you're not me. In other words, I can accept that you believe the scenarios we've presented aren't plausible.



Not to mention I have to keep explaining basic things.

I believe the 'basic things' you're explaining are certain assumptions you believe in. You are free to believe in whatever you like, ofcourse.



Bottomline is, as much as this was fun, I think I really have to say goodbye to this thread, because we gonna end up with 15K posts and you guys still don't get it...

Or you don't. But I understand that you may find large posts taxing and I can certainly agree that there are many other things to do in life. I'm glad that you believe that Pearl Harbor, atleast, may well have been a 'let it happen' type of event. Perhaps we should agree to disagree on this issue.



Here is a picture of the robot pilot what they used instead of the real planes. They were highly trained kamikaze cats, now you know the truth:

http://rookery2.viary.com/storagev12/932000/932284_4bcc_625x1000.jpg

Laugh :-). Well it's good that we can have a little humour in all of this anyway.

Hey, check this contradiction in your logic:


NORAD had time to protect the World Trade Center even given the unbelievably late time, 8:40, when it claims to have first been notified. It had time to protect the South Tower and Washington

......

You're right, there was no shoot down order in place.

Without a shoot down order, how can they protect the cities???

The order to shoot them down could have been given. This is especially true in the case of the pentagon, which needed no jets to come rescue it. I found a very good article on the subject here (http://poetrypoliticscollapse.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2009-03-05T03%3A41%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=10). Here's a very interesting excerpt:

Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testified before the 9/11 Commission (a group saturated with conflicts of interest) that -- in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center that morning in the period immediately preceding the attacks -- he heard Dick Cheney repeatedly informed in no uncertain terms that Flight 77 was closer and closer (Sir, it's ten miles out... Sir, it's five miles out...) to the Pentagon impact, and when asked "does the order still stand?" Cheney angrily responded "Have you heard otherwise!?" The ultra-relevant "order" would have been to refrain from shooting the plane down with interceptors (or the aforementioned defensive missile batteries) and prevent the attack. That is why the man asking Cheney the question was so surprised that the order was still unchanged despite the closer and closer approach of the hijacked 757. There are other possibilities -- Minetta claims to have inferred that Cheney was referring to an order to go ahead and shoot down the plane but (as Richard Clark reported with horror and amazement) nobody did that -- despite the capacity to do so -- so that cannot be the order in question.

There is, ofcourse, another possibility- that he gave the order but for some reason it wasn't carried out. Ofcourse, that wouldn't have looked good either, but it would have certainly exonerated Cheney of any wrong doing. The fact that there is so little mention of this little incident, however, points towards what this blogger is suggesting.


Not to mention they didn't know what the terrorists' plan was,

Whether high level officials didn't know what the terrorists' plan was is in doubt. The war games seemed to be mighty similar and in a very real way they could have been made in such a way so as to confuse interception efforts.



at least not until the first plane hit the WTC and still then it could have been an accident. It became obvious only after the 2nd hit.

I believe you're thinking of what Bush said when he reminisced concerning his fluctuating memories of the first crash into the twin towers: "That must have been one bad pilot" or something to that effect. I believe that all the planes turned off their transponders before getting anywhere near their targets, however. As a general rule, I think that this should be cause for significant alarm. I believe there were attempts made to contact the planes, but no go. I remember hearing when someone (NORAD perhaps) questioned if what was going on was "real world or exercise" (referring, ofcourse, to the war games on that day). A lot of questions to be answered, I believe. Which is why I think that an independent investigation on the events of 9/11 should be made.



The first fighters eventually getting in the air were still on the runway when the 2nd plane hit. Even if they are faster by 20 minutes to get them in the air, 20 minutes is not enough to locate, reach, getting authorization and shooting down a plane...

I think you've got to read a little more concerning this. Again, from 9/11 Research's NORAD Stand-Down (http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/index.html#scramble) article:
Failures to Scramble

No plausible explanation has been provided for failing to scramble interceptors in a timely fashion from bases within easy range to protect the September 11th targets. Fighters that were dispatched were scrambled from distant bases. Early in the attack, when Flight 11 had turned directly south toward New York City, it was obvious that New York City and the World Trade Center, and Washington D.C. would be likely targets. Yet fighters were not scrambled from the bases near the targets. They were only scrambled from distant bases. Moreover there were no redundant or backup scrambles.




By the way, I am not disagreeing about the failures, that's what I have been saying all along. Now why would they acknowledge that they failed, when they can just say they tried their best???

They can say whatever they like. The question is, what's the truth?



We can debate the timeline but I don't think that even without the drill they had enough time to act. You have to know the location of the target to able to find and shoot it down....

I think that 9/11 Research makes it clear that there was more then enough time to have intercepted the planes; once intercepted, it would have taken mere moments to shoot them down if necessary.

I dont know if government just shoot down hijacked airplanes lik that. Now that you knpw the outcome you can say anything.

If you are in an airplane and it gets hijacked do you want the government to shoot them dow at any time they see fit?

.
People seem to be tolerating the fact that the NIST doesn't bother telling us the number and weights of the perimeter wall panels.

Yeah...


Gregory Ulrich makes excuses for the NIST saying they had such a small budget. 3 years and 20 million dollars and they can't specify the weights of the wall panels but they produce a report about the effect of the impact on suspended ceilings. :eek: :confused:

In all of the videos I have seen of WTC survivors only one mentioned anything falling from the ceiling and that was in a basement which was a long way from where the planes struck. The only reason I found that report is because it is the only one where they use the term center of mass which I was searching on because of the tilt of the top of the south tower. There is nothing anywhere about the center of mass of the south tower.

So yeah I am off in the ozone because I can't see the relevance of cell phone calls from airplanes compared to getting people to understand why grade school physics should explain why the top of the north tower should not have crushed the rest in less than 18 seconds. Or at all for that matter.

I took (and passed) a high school physics course, but I couldn't figure out something like that psikey, sorry. I'm firmly convinced that you're right ofcourse, but I prefer points made on the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth page (http://www.ae911truth.org/).



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYG9cdgwyqI

I am having a problem with keeping the sound synchronized with the video when I splice a lot of these drops together. I want the sound well synched because my mass falls so fast that it blurs in the video. But the stationary mass changes the collapse speed on impact at every level so the same thing should have happened in skyscrapers that get stronger and heavier all of the way down.

psik

Makes sense. Your video is no longer up though.

I dont know if government just shoot down hijacked airplanes lik that. Now that you know the outcome you can say anything.

If you are in an airplane and it gets hijacked do you want the government to shoot them dow at any time they see fit?

Ofcourse not. If they see that the plane is likely going to kill even -more- people if allowed to continue, though, I think there would get a point where it would indeed be best to shoot it down.

do you have any examples of govenments shooting hijacked planes down? and oh if they did that the stink you would make.

do you have any examples of govenments shooting hijacked planes down?

No, but I have an example of them shooting down a commercial one. It's relatively well known and has its own wiki article, Iran Air Flight 655 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655). Here's the opener:

Iran Air Flight 655, also known as IR655, was a civilian airliner shot down by US missiles on Sunday 3 July 1988, over the Strait of Hormuz, toward the end of the Iran-Iraq War.

The aircraft, an Airbus A300B2 operated by Iran Air as IR655, was flying from Bandar Abbas, Iran, to Dubai, UAE, when it was destroyed by the U.S. Navy's guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes, killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard, including 66 children,[1] ranking it seventh among the deadliest airliner fatalities.[2]


But that shoot down is old news. 9/11 is a little more recent. Here's a good excerpt from a WorldNetDaily's article titled Rumsfeld says 9-11 plane 'shot down' in Pennsylvania (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42112):


December 27, 2004

WASHINGTON – Ever since Sept. 11, 2001, there have been questions about Flight 93, the ill-fated plane that crashed in the rural fields of Pennsylvania.

The official story has been that passengers on the United Airlines flight rushed the hijackers in an effort to prevent them from crashing the plane into a strategic target – possibly the U.S. Capitol.

During his surprise Christmas Eve trip to Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld referred to the flight being shot down – long a suspicion because of the danger the flight posed to Washington landmarks and population centers.

Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more than three years after the tragedy of the terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000?

Here's what Rumsfeld said Friday: "I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."

Reminds me of George W. Bush's reference to explosives used in the WTC buildings to trap people above the plane impacts from escaping:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USnxe7hxP4I

Perhaps the text said 'explosions' and he simply made a gaffe. Still, it makes one wonder; did he make the gaffe because he knew a little more then he generally says? Why is it that he had to testify to congress while not under oath, in a closed door session, with Dick Cheney at his elbow? According to him, he needed Dick Cheney so that he could 'answer their questions'; is he implying that he couldn't do so without him? Or perhaps he needed Cheny to keep him on script, always there to whisper a word or 3 into his ear to keep him rolling on the official story line.

The first example was from the 80s during the iran-iraq war. it was a war zone and bad mistake. recently an american airliner may have been mistakenly shot down by navy ship. the tracking is the problem.

It has never happened then.

do you have any examples of govenments shooting hijacked planes down? and oh if they did that the stink you would make.you need to distinguish between "shoot downs" and "intercepts"
scrambles and intercepts are routine (and were before 911) but did not function correctly on 911.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2193357&postcount=233

Makes sense. Your video is no longer up though.
.
I just clicked on it and watched it from the link you copied. There were 76 views.

Is anybody else having trouble viewing this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYG9cdgwyqI

psik

.
I just clicked on it and watched it from the link you copied. There were 76 views.

Is anybody else having trouble viewing this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYG9cdgwyqI

psik

Did you make that video Psi? I see what point you are trying to make. You might want to put an introduction explaining what you are trying to show...i.e. the washers represent the mass of each floor...and how many are being dropped.

Unfortunately the demonstration is flawed. It's not the mass of the washers slowing down falling load, but the friction created from being oriented at an angle on the pole. Try the same experiment with the washers level, where their mass is the only thing in play, and the load will go all the way to the bottom.

Makes sense. Your video is no longer up though.

I just clicked on it and watched it from the link you copied. There were 76 views.

Is anybody else having trouble viewing this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYG9cdgwyqI

psik

Maybe I copied and pasted it wrong or something. I clicked on it this time and it worked fine.

Did you make that video Psi? I see what point you are trying to make. You might want to put an introduction explaining what you are trying to show...i.e. the washers represent the mass of each floor...and how many are being dropped.

Unfortunately the demonstration is flawed. It's not the mass of the washers slowing down falling load, but the friction created from being oriented at an angle on the pole. Try the same experiment with the washers level, where their mass is the only thing in play, and the load will go all the way to the bottom.
.
Uh yeah, who else do you think might have made it? The tower on the right is the one I used for the impact video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

The washers do not stay at an angle when the falling mass hits them. The falling mass hits the top part first causing it to flip up to a level position but by the time it becomes level some of the mass is moving upward and the falling mass would have to make it reverse direction so it loses some momentum because of that.

Sounds to me like you are making up excuses.

I have videos of drops with toothpicks only and no washers for comparison in the full video. The falling washers must break the toothpick which requires energy slowing the mass. Placing washers on the toothpicks adds the factor of conserving momentum.

The demonstration is far from perfect but there are other factors involved in the building collapse. For instance my toothpicks are pretty much that same all of the way down whereas the towers would get STRONGER and HEAVIER all of the way down. I should have used thin copper wire instead of toothpicks but by the time that occurred to me I had shot the video and am not about to go back and do it over. Cutting little pieces of toothpick and sticking them in holes just to break them off and do it again is SO BORING!!! ROFL

My falling mass would not compress even if I could stand on it. But the top of the north tower was constructed much like everything below so it would begin crushing its own lower portions at the point of contact with the intact structure below. The energy consumed doing that would slow it down also.

I have a dialog recorded and as soon as I can put it all together while keeping the sound of the drops properly synchronized with the videos of the drops I will upload the entire 8 minutes.

psik

Did you make that video Psi? I see what point you are trying to make. You might want to put an introduction explaining what you are trying to show...i.e. the washers represent the mass of each floor...and how many are being dropped.

Unfortunately the demonstration is flawed. It's not the mass of the washers slowing down falling load, but the friction created from being oriented at an angle on the pole. Try the same experiment with the washers level, where their mass is the only thing in play, and the load will go all the way to the bottom.

It also tends to miss that there would be Soliton reverberation throughout a structure. It's not easily replicated using a low scale (or washers for floors)

I mean how are the washers representing floors held up? Obviously they are "Independent" of one another, which was not the case with the real building. If a floor collapses in a building, it's likely due to the walls no longer being in an alignment to support them.

These are obviously points that can be said again and again, which still tend to get ignored by significance junkies.

It also tends to miss that there would be Soliton reverberation throughout a structure. It's not easily replicated using a low scale (or washers for floors)
.
The washers are not about representing floor. It is unfortunate that they are topologically similar to the square donut floors of the WTC but the demonstration is about a falling mass having to break supports and accelerate the mass held by the supports. The falling mass of the WTC would have to bring down the CORE also.

Obviously the weight I am using could not break that wooden dowel. It is merely the structure I am using to keep my masses supported and aligned.

Soliton excuses. Make a big deal of that and never demand accurate information about the distribution of mass in the towers. ROFL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton

Since column sections were 36 feet long explain to us how soliton waves can cross the joints between column sections. The words soliton and solitons do not appear in the entire NCSTAR1 report. Would you care to provide a link to where someone shows how this matters to the WTC incident? LOL

psik