Re. "Refrain from speculating". Exactly that... it should be plain enough. If you read back the 9/11 threads in which I have contributed, I have asked a lot of questions, and linked to a bunch of information (mostly) quoted from mainstream sources and/or government agencies. The implications inferred by these points cannot be equated to (my) speculating as to what might have happened.
Why did you conjure up the word "novices" when I specifically quoted "experts". Is this your method, to misrepresent an opposing argument in order to put your points over?
I imagine you are referring to the disinformation that has been embedded within the truth movement by hostile parties in order to discredit such (S.O.P). Legitimate parties in the truth movement ask questions rather than speculate or draw conclusions with insufficient information. Yes, there are a mountain of unanswered questions re. 9/11; some concern the demise of the Twin Towers, but there are many more regarding other aspects of the attacks. Why is the truth movement called such? Because there are a lot of people who are skeptical of wild fairytales loaded to the gills with impossibilites, beyond-bizarre coincidences and extreme unlikelihoods. These people are only trying to find out what actually happened that morning: it is as simple as that.
Tell me, all you people who are so convinced that we have a lily-white, honest administration of extraordinary integrity complete with haloes around their crowns, what is so wrong about asking them a question or two about the most drastic event in our lifetimes, most aspects of which have been neither adequately explained (nor even addressed at all!). And when they and their close associates (in political, religious and business circles) are the ones who have made out like bandits as a result of *that event*, I think they owe us all a far more cohesive, consistent story than what they have dished up so far, much of which is quite frankly, gibberish. Give us at least something that would stand up in a US court of law! Their chief witnesses have lied, on multiple occasions... the glove does not fit. And there are a lot of people who don't appreciate being lied to, especially when their hard-earned tax dollars are squandered on massive corporate welfare, waging insane and illegal wars, instigating a surveillance type society, all on account of those lies.
See 12th entry in this thread. They do not concern the physics of the destruction of the Twin Towers.
LOL Ok, Your turn!
Missed your word "experts" so I'll offer a mea culpa on that one. But more to the point, unfortunately the SME's that anyone would select from would be from a group that is overwhelmingly male, of varying ages, but predominately older due to their vast experience in the specific engineering fields, highly educated (PhD P.E.'s), and the majority of these would undoubtedly be caucasians. The group of diversified technical experts that you suggest would be difficult to form, many of them would have to be selected from small pools of available talent, which would be divisive, in that those experts left out, would form a larger group of technical expertise.
What is typically done in serious engineering reviews, is a minimum of three study groups are formed, each working independently of the others. Unfortunately, previous works are now out there (e. g. NIST with respect to the WTC's), so to expect new study groups to ignore previous works is not possible, so that if you exclude those with prior knowledge, your are left with a very small (nee nonexistent) pool to select from.
Now what would be interesting would be to select one of these groups from the "truth experts" who's sole purpose would be to look at alternatives to the "official explanation" to develop a compelling alternative explanation that fits the available specific intelligence data (in the months just prior to 9-11) and the physical events that occured ON 9-11.
Another group to reexamine the "official explanation" using all available documented information (e. g. whatever available written/electronic records that have been withheld by the Executive Branch). We are now six years beyond the events of 9-11, so that now I would not place much weight on individuals trying to recall a precise coherent timeline of those past events.
The third group would be an independent "supergroup" of technical experts that would independently reexamine the "official explanation" and develop the best plausible "alternative explanations" and flush those out as best as could be done in a probabilistic fashion.
Maybe (a big maybe) under another administration something like this would happen, but I don't think you'll see it under the next administration, regardless of who is elected POTUS.
This would cost a LOT of money to fund, and due to "national security" issues would probably not happen in the near future, we would have to wait a few decades for most of that information to be accessible in the public domain.
As to your questions, I think I've provided a compelling answer to the pulverized "reinforced" concrete issue.
As to your "jet hitting the Pentagon wasn't where it had to have been based on the altimeter data" you do need to understand physical measurement systems, which requires SME's to place statistical error bars on the data set, this includes the instruments biases (white noise) and offsets (voltages when reading "zero" assuming the instrumentation wasn't reset, which they were, as is SOP for all commercial aircraft (exceeding ~18,000 feet if I recall correctly). Then we get into issues of A/D conversion and binary bits, 16-bit 14-bit, 12-bit DAQ. Also the details of the magnetic compass and if true north (TN) was set for the expected destination versus it's actual end point, regardless these need to be adjusted to TN of the final destination including any bias and initial offset(s) estimates of the magnetic compass (SOP error bars). Also remember that the elevation is based on the barometric equation (pressure, humidity, and temperature dependent) which itself is an idealization (or best fit). Also the instruments would need to be checked periodically against a reference standard, if not then you have to deal with possible instrument drift (internal clock, etceteras) or loss of sensitivity. Then we have the impact itself and that raises some questions on data loss and spurious EE noise introducing additional offsets or jumps in the raw data (voltages).
Lots of details, that the end used doesn't see, but what you have is the DOT's best effort to do the requisite data analysis as is, they present it as is, for the DOT to then adjust the data record to agree with the actual known elevation and direction itself would be falsification of the engineering data record as is. If they had done that you guys would go simply bonkers!
As to building temperatures prior to collapse and after collapse, we don't have an exact record of the chemical composition of the in situ materials, in the WTC or on the jets, the thermodynamics and exothermic chemical reactions are sketchy at best, and the debris pile WAS an excellent insulator by any metric (110 floors of 4 inch thick concrete is ~ 150 feet thick less the ejected dust), So before people go running off to the "thermite explanation" perhaps they should examine what was known (or can be reasonably assumed) to have been in situ materials beforehand. That would keep the thermodynamicists and chemical engineers very busy for a very long time! \
Clarke (nee Tattoo) would run up the main bell tower to ring the bell and shout "The plane! The plane!" to announce the arrival of the terrorists (nee a new set of guests) at the beginning of the Bush administration (nee each episode).
.
.
.
My dear terrorists (nee guests), I am President George W. Bush (nee Mr. Roarke), your stooge (nee host). Welcome to America (nee Fantasy Island).
Blaming either Bush or Clinton is stupid. Neither administration connected the dots or did enough to prevent terrorism prior to 9/11. The problem was that while we knew hijackings were likely coming and we knew Al-Qaeda might want to fly planes into buildings, no one at any sufficient level of authority put it together that they were going to take a civilian airliner and use it as a missile.
The government was totally negligent in protecting us from terrorism pre-9/11, Enough said.
Agreed. There was one man though that knew. He may have had the knowledge and tenacity to prevent it. We'll never know. He was forced out of the FBI for being too...tenacious. He later died on 9-11.
Quote:
The 9/11 Commission's investigation revealed that America's $30 billion intelligence community, spread over more than a dozen agencies, was disorganized, fractured and impaired by organizational and legal restrictions on the sharing of information.
These disclosures directly relate to John O'Neill's story. He came tantalizingly close to possibly uncovering the 9/11 plot. But his investigations into the USS Cole terrorist attack and into Al Qaeda's presence in the United States were both undermined by the CIA and FBI's failure to share information with each other.
In terms of 911, it always makes me laugh when people - many of whom are unable or unwilling to actually enter debate based on rational analysis - try to dismiss any questioning as 'conspiracy theories' and label the 'conspiracy theorists' as crazy when you can get news items like this:
At least the 'tin foil hatters' have a handle on the dates.....
When one side perpetually labels the other as "tinfoil hatters", and refuses to debate "because we don't have engage in dialog with "crazy people", how can rational debate happen? When (a) 30% of the population are either so moronic that they don't know when 9/11 happened (assuming that the poll was conducted in a scientific fashion) and (b) such a large proportion of the remainder are in such denial that anything that impinges on their comfort zone is arbitrarily dismissed without a cursory glance, what hope is there for greater awareness of the subject?
It's hardly a wonder that such events can be pulled off without danger of getting busted. Mistakes can be made in the operation, blatant lies can be told in multiple during the aftermath, and storylines can be shifted around and altered according to convenience.... and the majority would prefer not to know. No wonder edumacation is assuming a lower and lower priority as each month passes....
Thought experiment: It would be interesting to have a TV debate, where a panel of the most vocal supporters of the official story were up against a panel of the most knowledgeable 9/11 skeptics, in front of a live audience. The debate would be broadcast in real time (ie no video/audio delay inserted in the broadcast signal path), the questions would all be unscreened, no questions would be out-of-bounds (provided they were on topic of course), and the questions would be selected in random order by a device (similar to the one that selects winning numbers in a lottery, for example?). Admittedly, finding an impartial moderator would be a toughie... Such a show could be a ratings winner... but would any mainstream media outlet dare do it?
I know you believe that Popular Mechanics is possessed by the evil ghost of William Randolf Hearst, yet you have to admit they handed those two "loosers" their asses on a plate.
When one side perpetually labels the other as "tinfoil hatters", and refuses to debate "because we don't have engage in dialog with "crazy people", how can rational debate happen? When (a) 30% of the population are either so moronic that they don't know when 9/11 happened (assuming that the poll was conducted in a scientific fashion) and (b) such a large proportion of the remainder are in such denial that anything that impinges on their comfort zone is arbitrarily dismissed without a cursory glance, what hope is there for greater awareness of the subject?
It's hardly a wonder that such events can be pulled off without danger of getting busted. Mistakes can be made in the operation, blatant lies can be told in multiple during the aftermath, and storylines can be shifted around and altered according to convenience.... and the majority would prefer not to know. No wonder edumacation is assuming a lower and lower priority as each month passes....
Thought experiment: It would be interesting to have a TV debate, where a panel of the most vocal supporters of the official story were up against a panel of the most knowledgeable 9/11 skeptics, in front of a live audience. The debate would be broadcast in real time (ie no video/audio delay inserted in the broadcast signal path), the questions would all be unscreened, no questions would be out-of-bounds (provided they were on topic of course), and the questions would be selected in random order by a device (similar to the one that selects winning numbers in a lottery, for example?). Admittedly, finding an impartial moderator would be a toughie... Such a show could be a ratings winner... but would any mainstream media outlet dare do it?
Actually the 30% that don't know when 9-11 happened are the same 30% wearing the tin foil hats!
Anyone listening to them talk about their "versions of events" (and there are many) wouldn't know what was what, listening to their contrived concoctions of pretzel logic!
As to a debate, sure the SME's (structural engineers, aeronautical engineers, material scientists, etceteras) on one side versus the blog-o-smear experts on the other side (You know people like AJ with his bullhorn, with every one else wearing quirky garb and foam hats). The debate from the AJ crowd would consist of five words shouted over and over;
"It was an inside job. It was an inside job. It was an ... "
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the connection here...
---
In hindsight, this is easy to say. Did anyone...ANYONE actually think that planes were going to be as missiles like that? I really have not heard of a single person.
Quote:
As you point out at the end of your post, the government completely missed this one.
---
True. But in fairness that attack was so daring and large that no believed it could happen.
Quote:
Which is why I really believe there is something fishy going on as in it was allowed to happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius
In terms of 911, it always makes me laugh when people - many of whom are unable or unwilling to actually enter debate based on rational analysis - try to dismiss any questioning as 'conspiracy theories' and label the 'conspiracy theorists' as crazy when you can get news items like this:
At least the 'tin foil hatters' have a handle on the dates.....
Blah. Another "The American People Are Stupid" link. The problem is that if you believe that, you're never allowed to use an opinion poll for support of anything, ever again.
As for conspiracy wackos, well I understand the frustration. Sometimes it's easier to dismiss your opponent as a crackpot than to argue on the merits. However, one can't use what his/her opponent is doing as free standing support for his argument. In other words, it doesn't make the conspiracy theory argument anymore valid just because someone on the other side refuses to debate.
All that said, there really are a lot of crackpots out there on this issue. There is no evidence that suggests the conspiracy theory folks (or "truth movement" or what not) have a point. We all saw what happened. We've seen it hundreds of times. We've seen the buildings fall. We saw them fail at the bottom of where the flames were. We saw the explosions. Hell, there's more evidence for the faked moon landing and little green men from mars than there is for 9/11 being an inside job or that the towers fell from explosive charges.
Given that there is little to no evidence on their side, and given that there is a large amount of evidence supporting the official position, and given that the "truthers" continue to stick to their ridiculous theories, yes...they can be considered nut jobs. They're sticking to their guns because of supreme distrust in the government and distrust of the Bush Administration, not for any reason supported by the evidence. It's like a hobby almost....like spotting UFOs for some people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo
When one side perpetually labels the other as "tinfoil hatters", and refuses to debate "because we don't have engage in dialog with "crazy people", how can rational debate happen? When (a) 30% of the population are either so moronic that they don't know when 9/11 happened (assuming that the poll was conducted in a scientific fashion) and (b) such a large proportion of the remainder are in such denial that anything that impinges on their comfort zone is arbitrarily dismissed without a cursory glance, what hope is there for greater awareness of the subject?
It's hardly a wonder that such events can be pulled off without danger of getting busted. Mistakes can be made in the operation, blatant lies can be told in multiple during the aftermath, and storylines can be shifted around and altered according to convenience.... and the majority would prefer not to know. No wonder edumacation is assuming a lower and lower priority as each month passes....
Thought experiment: It would be interesting to have a TV debate, where a panel of the most vocal supporters of the official story were up against a panel of the most knowledgeable 9/11 skeptics, in front of a live audience. The debate would be broadcast in real time (ie no video/audio delay inserted in the broadcast signal path), the questions would all be unscreened, no questions would be out-of-bounds (provided they were on topic of course), and the questions would be selected in random order by a device (similar to the one that selects winning numbers in a lottery, for example?). Admittedly, finding an impartial moderator would be a toughie... Such a show could be a ratings winner... but would any mainstream media outlet dare do it?
As I am a reasonably open-minded person, perhaps you can inform me of something in the oficial story that I am missing out on.
So, hit me with your best evidence that 9/11 was what you claim it was, namely a plot by 19 al Qaeda agents working for Osama bin Laden.
Maybe, just maybe, if the evidence is good enough, I will be able join your side and my doubts and skepticism can be dissolved. It would be far more comfortable, I am sure. So, I invite you to do me the favor.
As I am a reasonably open-minded person, perhaps you can inform me of something in the oficial story that I am missing out on.
So, hit me with your best evidence that 9/11 was what you claim it was, namely a plot by 19 al Qaeda agents working for Osama bin Laden.
Maybe, just maybe, if the evidence is good enough, I will be able join your side and my doubts and skepticism can be dissolved. It would be far more comfortable, I am sure. So, I invite you to do me the favor.
Try reading the engineering studies, look at the known timeline of events by the 19 (or 20) hijackers leading up to and during that fateful day, and try to keep an open mind on the highly plausible, not the highly implausible.
And no, I won't play your subterfuge of "us versus them" your last several posts have been mostly filled with rhetoric, for example your opening statement above is a classic straw man.
And I have responded, as best as I can (and at length) to several of your technical questions, and yet, not a single word in reply from you on those technical issues I addressed? \
I have even offered up a future plan of study (three independent studies) to fully address the primary issues you have raised, now that's what I call being opened minded! \
I would even look forward to a complete public disclosure of all of the government's intelligence, classified materials, and other materials withheld by the government, IF it would in any way reassure you as to the actual events that transpired (up to and) on that fateful day. Now is that being opened minded?
I'll withhold further comments on this issue as I would want to keep an open mind on your reply, except to comment; How would this (my last previous statement) actually address key outstanding questions (from those people proposing alternatives to the prevailing wisdom), and would this additional information be viewed objectively or subjectively?
BTW, I don't like your apparently closed mind when you lump me (nee the professional engineering community) in with you know who (nee the neocon artists)! \ I don't "carry their water for them" (the neocon artists), and I never have, however, I do look at the data objectively (keeping in mind that I view all things in a probabilistic AND deterministic fashion).
As I am a reasonably open-minded person, perhaps you can inform me of something in the oficial story that I am missing out on.
So, hit me with your best evidence that 9/11 was what you claim it was, namely a plot by 19 al Qaeda agents working for Osama bin Laden.
Maybe, just maybe, if the evidence is good enough, I will be able join your side and my doubts and skepticism can be dissolved. It would be far more comfortable, I am sure. So, I invite you to do me the favor.
sammi, the burden of proof is on you here. Please post your evidence that the "official version" as you call it is not really what happened. I don't want questions either, I want FACTS. I don't want "why is that this would happen, or this, or that?" because that's just speculation and conjecture. Facts, please.
"Even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? It doesn't have any significance. It's a little bit like the huge energy that's put out on trying to figure out who killed John F. Kennedy. Who knows? And who cares? Plenty of people get killed all the time, why does it matter that one of them happened to be John F. Kennedy? If there was some reason to believe that there was a high level conspiracy, it might be interesting. But the evidence against that is just overwhelming. And after that, if it happened to be a jealous husband, or the mafia, or someone else, what difference does it make? It's just taking energy away from serious issues onto ones that don't matter. And I think the same is true here; it's my personal opinion."
Try reading the engineering studies, look at the known timeline of events by the 19 (or 20) hijackers leading up to and during that fateful day, and try to keep an open mind on the highly plausible, not the highly implausible.
And no, I won't play your subterfuge of "us versus them" your last several posts have been mostly filled with rhetoric, for example your opening statement above is a classic straw man.
And I have responded, as best as I can (and at length) to several of your technical questions, and yet, not a single word in reply from you on those technical issues I addressed? \
I have even offered up a future plan of study (three independent studies) to fully address the primary issues you have raised, now that's what I call being opened minded! \
I would even look forward to a complete public disclosure of all of the government's intelligence, classified materials, and other materials withheld by the government, IF it would in any way reassure you as to the actual events that transpired (up to and) on that fateful day. Now is that being opened minded?
I'll withhold further comments on this issue as I would want to keep an open mind on your reply, except to comment; How would this (my last previous statement) actually address key outstanding questions (from those people proposing alternatives to the prevailing wisdom), and would this additional information be viewed objectively or subjectively?
BTW, I don't like your apparently closed mind when you lump me (nee the professional engineering community) in with you know who (nee the neocon artists)! \ I don't "carry their water for them" (the neocon artists), and I never have, however, I do look at the data objectively (keeping in mind that I view all things in a probabilistic AND deterministic fashion).
The official storyline is somewhere near this:
That 19 Islamic fundamentalists took over 4 commercial airplanes and flew them into targets in DC and NYC (and a field in PA), because they "hate our freedoms"; and the Administration at the time knew nothing beforehand (ie the attacks were a complete surprise) and the anticipation/prevention of such attacks was the result of "a lack of imagination".
Before I reply to the points you made, do you agree with this position? Or a modified version of such? Knowing where you stand on this might save me a lot of typing. (This is for both Frank and SDW).
That 19 Islamic fundamentalists took over 4 commercial airplanes and flew them into targets in DC and NYC (and a field in PA), because they "hate our freedoms"; and the Administration at the time knew nothing beforehand (ie the attacks were a complete surprise) and the anticipation/prevention of such attacks was the result of "a lack of imagination".
Before I reply to the points you made, do you agree with this position? Or a modified version of such? Knowing where you stand on this might save me a lot of typing. (This is for both Frank and SDW).
This is getting ridiculous. You've included some subjective elements to the story, such as the government "knew nothing" and getting into the reasons the attack happened. Both of those points can be at least debated, and I suspect this is why you're trying to make the discussion about them.
But no, we're talking about what actually happened. 19 Islamic Fundamentalists hijacked four commercial airplanes. One crashed in a field in PA, (possibly due to passengers fighting back). Two others hit the trade towers, which then collapsed after the explosions and ensuing fires. Another struck the Pentagon, causing significant damage and loss of life.
That's what happened. Most of the "9/11 Truthers" dispute elements of that, pointing out possibilities like:
1) The government planned the attacks
2) The government knew about them and did nothing.
3) The towers didn't fall from the planes and fires. They were brought down with explosives.
4) A missile hit the Pentagon, not an airliner.
5) There were no muslim hijackers, only government agents or others. The 19 faces we saw wee fabrications.
So let's talk about those. Because I guarantee you believe at least a few of those points.
Can we hear again the reasoning behind POTUS remaining in a static and vulnerable position for 8 minutes when his chief of staff has just informed him the US was under attack?
No immediate danger to the POTUS? Bull. There was an unknown attack commencing, requiring full protection just in case. At the very least, he needed to start leading the country in a time of crisis.
From Wiki:
The president stated later that he decided to continue the lesson rather than alarm the students.
As a teacher, I can say that he instilled more alarm in more students (and indeed many people in the country and around the world) by not acting promptly.
Has anyone analyzed his speech at the school that day that seemed rather well-written for something that would have had only five minutes or less to throw together?
What about the two crashes that left almost no debris?
The PA crash site has less debris than the Challenger crash, yet more than the Pentagon crash. In the latter, though no engines supposedly survived the crash, suggesting a very destructive crash, there was a pristine piece of identifiable plane body lying conveniently off to the side for a reporter to find. oops, what about the hole in the building? Where did those engines go? David Copperfield is under investigation at the moment; was he going to divulge the secret?
Where are the video tapes? Where are the tapes? Again, where are the tapes? Two or three choice frames that show nothing do little to appease a thirst to know what really happened.
There are so many questions and so much doubt because of the behavior of the government. If they were a little more open and forth-coming, things might be different. They haven't been, and so people naturally doubt.
That 19 Islamic fundamentalists took over 4 commercial airplanes and flew them into targets in DC and NYC (and a field in PA), because they "hate our freedoms"; and the Administration at the time knew nothing beforehand (ie the attacks were a complete surprise) and the anticipation/prevention of such attacks was the result of "a lack of imagination".
Before I reply to the points you made, do you agree with this position? Or a modified version of such? Knowing where you stand on this might save me a lot of typing. (This is for both Frank and SDW).
No, because you've "colored" your verbiage and overstated the government's lack of knowledge in regard to knowledge obtained by lower level subordinates prior to 9-11. It should read something like this;
That 19 hijackers of apparent Middle East descent took over 4 commercial airplanes and flew them into targets in DC and NYC (and failed to hit their intended target on one of these flights due to a group of passengers who thwarted the hijackers intended efforts), who were suicidal and wanted to inflict maximum damage on highly visible targets in America; and that the Bush Administration, at the time of the attacks, had no definitive information at the highest government levels as to the the specific nature with respect to the actual targets, the date of the actual hijackings, and the specific airline flights involved, and the prevention of such attacks was not possible due to lack of certifiable actionable intelligence at the highest levels of the Bush administration.
"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.
.
.
.
The company said Ryan "was not involved in that work and was not associated in any way with UL's Fire Protection Division, which conducted testing at NIST's request."
The company said it "fully supports NIST's ongoing efforts to investigate the WTC tragedy. We regret any confusion that Mr. Ryan's letter has caused 9/11 survivors, victims' families and their friends."
"We prefer to base our conclusions, and NIST would say the same, on science rather than speculation," Baker said. "We anxiously await the outcome of the NIST investigation."
What about the two crashes that left almost no debris?
The PA crash site has less debris than the Challenger crash, yet more than the Pentagon crash. In the latter, though no engines supposedly survived the crash, suggesting a very destructive crash, there was a pristine piece of identifiable plane body lying conveniently off to the side for a reporter to find. oops, what about the hole in the building? Where did those engines go? David Copperfield is under investigation at the moment; was he going to divulge the secret?
Where are the video tapes? Where are the tapes? Again, where are the tapes? Two or three choice frames that show nothing do little to appease a thirst to know what really happened.
There are so many questions and so much doubt because of the behavior of the government. If they were a little more open and forth-coming, things might be different. They haven't been, and so people naturally doubt.
I was setting up a reply to this because there are mounds of evidence and photographs all over the internet for both crashes.
But my browser froze. So fuck it, get on Google and search yourself, it's out there. If you can't find it you are a....sorry I've just have had enough of answering these claims...it's all there, you just have to look.
What about the two crashes that left almost no debris?
The PA crash site has less debris than the Challenger crash, yet more than the Pentagon crash. In the latter, though no engines supposedly survived the crash, suggesting a very destructive crash, there was a pristine piece of identifiable plane body lying conveniently off to the side for a reporter to find. oops, what about the hole in the building? Where did those engines go? David Copperfield is under investigation at the moment; was he going to divulge the secret?
Where are the video tapes? Where are the tapes? Again, where are the tapes? Two or three choice frames that show nothing do little to appease a thirst to know what really happened.
There are so many questions and so much doubt because of the behavior of the government. If they were a little more open and forth-coming, things might be different. They haven't been, and so people naturally doubt.
The aircraft impacted at approximately 563 mph (906 km/h or 826 fps), at a 40 degree angle.
The PA impact was at a steep, ~40 degrees (or thereabouts), Tan(40) = 0.84 = slope of impact (e. g. TAN(45) = 1, as in 1V:1H slope)! It hit bare ground, and with an LOA = 155.25 ft, took all of 0.19 seconds to penetrate the ground! \ 7000 series aluminum and titanium are just a little wee bit stronger strength wise and modulus wise is many orders of magnitude higher than top soil or silts or clays that exists at the crash site!
As to the Pentagon impact, the security cameras are for security clearance purposes only and the frame rate, as saved, is only 1 FPS! You do have to stop and show some form of government identification, why save several hundred frames of everyone going through the security gates? Oh, and one engine was found and photographed.
I could go on and on about the Pentagon impact (and provide numerous links), since I know the lead investigator, but why bother, no manner of factual evidence is ever going to convince you people otherwise. \
I have looked, but I don't completely buy it. I am not sure that the planes didn't strike as suggested; I do have my doubts, but that's that and I will keep looking. I also have major problems with the emergency response to the crisis as it unfolded. If we accept everything or even most of what is claimed to have happened on that day, then the attackers knew exactly where and how to hit us and get away with it... almost too well.. and the system failed, utterly, something the attackers might have anticipated.
My main question was the one in the previous post, the one that was not answered and is the more important question: what about the sitting Bush?
And that Osama had been fingered before the end of the day? This alone suggests they knew more than they are saying.
Comments
Re. "Refrain from speculating". Exactly that... it should be plain enough. If you read back the 9/11 threads in which I have contributed, I have asked a lot of questions, and linked to a bunch of information (mostly) quoted from mainstream sources and/or government agencies. The implications inferred by these points cannot be equated to (my) speculating as to what might have happened.
Why did you conjure up the word "novices" when I specifically quoted "experts". Is this your method, to misrepresent an opposing argument in order to put your points over?
I imagine you are referring to the disinformation that has been embedded within the truth movement by hostile parties in order to discredit such (S.O.P). Legitimate parties in the truth movement ask questions rather than speculate or draw conclusions with insufficient information. Yes, there are a mountain of unanswered questions re. 9/11; some concern the demise of the Twin Towers, but there are many more regarding other aspects of the attacks. Why is the truth movement called such? Because there are a lot of people who are skeptical of wild fairytales loaded to the gills with impossibilites, beyond-bizarre coincidences and extreme unlikelihoods. These people are only trying to find out what actually happened that morning: it is as simple as that.
Tell me, all you people who are so convinced that we have a lily-white, honest administration of extraordinary integrity complete with haloes around their crowns, what is so wrong about asking them a question or two about the most drastic event in our lifetimes, most aspects of which have been neither adequately explained (nor even addressed at all!). And when they and their close associates (in political, religious and business circles) are the ones who have made out like bandits as a result of *that event*, I think they owe us all a far more cohesive, consistent story than what they have dished up so far, much of which is quite frankly, gibberish. Give us at least something that would stand up in a US court of law! Their chief witnesses have lied, on multiple occasions... the glove does not fit. And there are a lot of people who don't appreciate being lied to, especially when their hard-earned tax dollars are squandered on massive corporate welfare, waging insane and illegal wars, instigating a surveillance type society, all on account of those lies.
See 12th entry in this thread. They do not concern the physics of the destruction of the Twin Towers.
LOL Ok, Your turn!
Missed your word "experts" so I'll offer a mea culpa on that one. But more to the point, unfortunately the SME's that anyone would select from would be from a group that is overwhelmingly male, of varying ages, but predominately older due to their vast experience in the specific engineering fields, highly educated (PhD P.E.'s), and the majority of these would undoubtedly be caucasians. The group of diversified technical experts that you suggest would be difficult to form, many of them would have to be selected from small pools of available talent, which would be divisive, in that those experts left out, would form a larger group of technical expertise.
What is typically done in serious engineering reviews, is a minimum of three study groups are formed, each working independently of the others. Unfortunately, previous works are now out there (e. g. NIST with respect to the WTC's), so to expect new study groups to ignore previous works is not possible, so that if you exclude those with prior knowledge, your are left with a very small (nee nonexistent) pool to select from.
Now what would be interesting would be to select one of these groups from the "truth experts" who's sole purpose would be to look at alternatives to the "official explanation" to develop a compelling alternative explanation that fits the available specific intelligence data (in the months just prior to 9-11) and the physical events that occured ON 9-11.
Another group to reexamine the "official explanation" using all available documented information (e. g. whatever available written/electronic records that have been withheld by the Executive Branch). We are now six years beyond the events of 9-11, so that now I would not place much weight on individuals trying to recall a precise coherent timeline of those past events.
The third group would be an independent "supergroup" of technical experts that would independently reexamine the "official explanation" and develop the best plausible "alternative explanations" and flush those out as best as could be done in a probabilistic fashion.
Maybe (a big maybe) under another administration something like this would happen, but I don't think you'll see it under the next administration, regardless of who is elected POTUS.
This would cost a LOT of money to fund, and due to "national security" issues would probably not happen in the near future, we would have to wait a few decades for most of that information to be accessible in the public domain.
As to your questions, I think I've provided a compelling answer to the pulverized "reinforced" concrete issue.
As to your "jet hitting the Pentagon wasn't where it had to have been based on the altimeter data" you do need to understand physical measurement systems, which requires SME's to place statistical error bars on the data set, this includes the instruments biases (white noise) and offsets (voltages when reading "zero" assuming the instrumentation wasn't reset, which they were, as is SOP for all commercial aircraft (exceeding ~18,000 feet if I recall correctly). Then we get into issues of A/D conversion and binary bits, 16-bit 14-bit, 12-bit DAQ. Also the details of the magnetic compass and if true north (TN) was set for the expected destination versus it's actual end point, regardless these need to be adjusted to TN of the final destination including any bias and initial offset(s) estimates of the magnetic compass (SOP error bars). Also remember that the elevation is based on the barometric equation (pressure, humidity, and temperature dependent) which itself is an idealization (or best fit). Also the instruments would need to be checked periodically against a reference standard, if not then you have to deal with possible instrument drift (internal clock, etceteras) or loss of sensitivity. Then we have the impact itself and that raises some questions on data loss and spurious EE noise introducing additional offsets or jumps in the raw data (voltages).
Lots of details, that the end used doesn't see, but what you have is the DOT's best effort to do the requisite data analysis as is, they present it as is, for the DOT to then adjust the data record to agree with the actual known elevation and direction itself would be falsification of the engineering data record as is. If they had done that you guys would go simply bonkers!
As to building temperatures prior to collapse and after collapse, we don't have an exact record of the chemical composition of the in situ materials, in the WTC or on the jets, the thermodynamics and exothermic chemical reactions are sketchy at best, and the debris pile WAS an excellent insulator by any metric (110 floors of 4 inch thick concrete is ~ 150 feet thick less the ejected dust), So before people go running off to the "thermite explanation" perhaps they should examine what was known (or can be reasonably assumed) to have been in situ materials beforehand. That would keep the thermodynamicists and chemical engineers very busy for a very long time!
We should look into that.
Well, of course I do not believe 'everyone can see' - clearly there are many, many people who cannot see.
But I kind of meant 'everyone who hasn't bought into the BS'.
... Al Gore was POTUS at the time?
He definitely would have listened to Clarke.
Bush, et. al. have been asshats from the word GO!
[CENTER]
Clarke and Bush[/CENTER]
Clarke (nee Tattoo) would run up the main bell tower to ring the bell and shout "The plane! The plane!" to announce the arrival of the terrorists (nee a new set of guests) at the beginning of the Bush administration (nee each episode).
.
.
.
My dear terrorists (nee guests), I am President George W. Bush (nee Mr. Roarke), your stooge (nee host). Welcome to America (nee Fantasy Island).
Blaming either Bush or Clinton is stupid. Neither administration connected the dots or did enough to prevent terrorism prior to 9/11. The problem was that while we knew hijackings were likely coming and we knew Al-Qaeda might want to fly planes into buildings, no one at any sufficient level of authority put it together that they were going to take a civilian airliner and use it as a missile.
The government was totally negligent in protecting us from terrorism pre-9/11, Enough said.
Agreed. There was one man though that knew. He may have had the knowledge and tenacity to prevent it. We'll never know. He was forced out of the FBI for being too...tenacious. He later died on 9-11.
The 9/11 Commission's investigation revealed that America's $30 billion intelligence community, spread over more than a dozen agencies, was disorganized, fractured and impaired by organizational and legal restrictions on the sharing of information.
These disclosures directly relate to John O'Neill's story. He came tantalizingly close to possibly uncovering the 9/11 plot. But his investigations into the USS Cole terrorist attack and into Al Qaeda's presence in the United States were both undermined by the CIA and FBI's failure to share information with each other.
In terms of 911, it always makes me laugh when people - many of whom are unable or unwilling to actually enter debate based on rational analysis - try to dismiss any questioning as 'conspiracy theories' and label the 'conspiracy theorists' as crazy when you can get news items like this:
30% of Americans Dont Know When 9/11 Attacks Occurred!!
At least the 'tin foil hatters' have a handle on the dates.....
When one side perpetually labels the other as "tinfoil hatters", and refuses to debate "because we don't have engage in dialog with "crazy people", how can rational debate happen? When (a) 30% of the population are either so moronic that they don't know when 9/11 happened (assuming that the poll was conducted in a scientific fashion) and (b) such a large proportion of the remainder are in such denial that anything that impinges on their comfort zone is arbitrarily dismissed without a cursory glance, what hope is there for greater awareness of the subject?
It's hardly a wonder that such events can be pulled off without danger of getting busted. Mistakes can be made in the operation, blatant lies can be told in multiple during the aftermath, and storylines can be shifted around and altered according to convenience.... and the majority would prefer not to know. No wonder edumacation is assuming a lower and lower priority as each month passes....
Thought experiment: It would be interesting to have a TV debate, where a panel of the most vocal supporters of the official story were up against a panel of the most knowledgeable 9/11 skeptics, in front of a live audience. The debate would be broadcast in real time (ie no video/audio delay inserted in the broadcast signal path), the questions would all be unscreened, no questions would be out-of-bounds (provided they were on topic of course), and the questions would be selected in random order by a device (similar to the one that selects winning numbers in a lottery, for example?). Admittedly, finding an impartial moderator would be a toughie... Such a show could be a ratings winner... but would any mainstream media outlet dare do it?
Recall the Loose Change/Popular Mechanics debate?
I know you believe that Popular Mechanics is possessed by the evil ghost of William Randolf Hearst, yet you have to admit they handed those two "loosers" their asses on a plate.
When one side perpetually labels the other as "tinfoil hatters", and refuses to debate "because we don't have engage in dialog with "crazy people", how can rational debate happen? When (a) 30% of the population are either so moronic that they don't know when 9/11 happened (assuming that the poll was conducted in a scientific fashion) and (b) such a large proportion of the remainder are in such denial that anything that impinges on their comfort zone is arbitrarily dismissed without a cursory glance, what hope is there for greater awareness of the subject?
It's hardly a wonder that such events can be pulled off without danger of getting busted. Mistakes can be made in the operation, blatant lies can be told in multiple during the aftermath, and storylines can be shifted around and altered according to convenience.... and the majority would prefer not to know. No wonder edumacation is assuming a lower and lower priority as each month passes....
Thought experiment: It would be interesting to have a TV debate, where a panel of the most vocal supporters of the official story were up against a panel of the most knowledgeable 9/11 skeptics, in front of a live audience. The debate would be broadcast in real time (ie no video/audio delay inserted in the broadcast signal path), the questions would all be unscreened, no questions would be out-of-bounds (provided they were on topic of course), and the questions would be selected in random order by a device (similar to the one that selects winning numbers in a lottery, for example?). Admittedly, finding an impartial moderator would be a toughie... Such a show could be a ratings winner... but would any mainstream media outlet dare do it?
Actually the 30% that don't know when 9-11 happened are the same 30% wearing the tin foil hats!
Anyone listening to them talk about their "versions of events" (and there are many) wouldn't know what was what, listening to their contrived concoctions of pretzel logic!
As to a debate, sure the SME's (structural engineers, aeronautical engineers, material scientists, etceteras) on one side versus the blog-o-smear experts on the other side (You know people like AJ with his bullhorn, with every one else wearing quirky garb and foam hats). The debate from the AJ crowd would consist of five words shouted over and over;
"It was an inside job. It was an inside job. It was an ... "
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the connection here...
---
In hindsight, this is easy to say. Did anyone...ANYONE actually think that planes were going to be as missiles like that? I really have not heard of a single person.
As you point out at the end of your post, the government completely missed this one.
---
True. But in fairness that attack was so daring and large that no believed it could happen.
Which is why I really believe there is something fishy going on as in it was allowed to happen.
In terms of 911, it always makes me laugh when people - many of whom are unable or unwilling to actually enter debate based on rational analysis - try to dismiss any questioning as 'conspiracy theories' and label the 'conspiracy theorists' as crazy when you can get news items like this:
30% of Americans Dont Know When 9/11 Attacks Occurred!!
At least the 'tin foil hatters' have a handle on the dates.....
Blah. Another "The American People Are Stupid" link. The problem is that if you believe that, you're never allowed to use an opinion poll for support of anything, ever again.
As for conspiracy wackos, well I understand the frustration. Sometimes it's easier to dismiss your opponent as a crackpot than to argue on the merits. However, one can't use what his/her opponent is doing as free standing support for his argument. In other words, it doesn't make the conspiracy theory argument anymore valid just because someone on the other side refuses to debate.
All that said, there really are a lot of crackpots out there on this issue. There is no evidence that suggests the conspiracy theory folks (or "truth movement" or what not) have a point. We all saw what happened. We've seen it hundreds of times. We've seen the buildings fall. We saw them fail at the bottom of where the flames were. We saw the explosions. Hell, there's more evidence for the faked moon landing and little green men from mars than there is for 9/11 being an inside job or that the towers fell from explosive charges.
Given that there is little to no evidence on their side, and given that there is a large amount of evidence supporting the official position, and given that the "truthers" continue to stick to their ridiculous theories, yes...they can be considered nut jobs. They're sticking to their guns because of supreme distrust in the government and distrust of the Bush Administration, not for any reason supported by the evidence. It's like a hobby almost....like spotting UFOs for some people.
When one side perpetually labels the other as "tinfoil hatters", and refuses to debate "because we don't have engage in dialog with "crazy people", how can rational debate happen? When (a) 30% of the population are either so moronic that they don't know when 9/11 happened (assuming that the poll was conducted in a scientific fashion) and (b) such a large proportion of the remainder are in such denial that anything that impinges on their comfort zone is arbitrarily dismissed without a cursory glance, what hope is there for greater awareness of the subject?
It's hardly a wonder that such events can be pulled off without danger of getting busted. Mistakes can be made in the operation, blatant lies can be told in multiple during the aftermath, and storylines can be shifted around and altered according to convenience.... and the majority would prefer not to know. No wonder edumacation is assuming a lower and lower priority as each month passes....
Thought experiment: It would be interesting to have a TV debate, where a panel of the most vocal supporters of the official story were up against a panel of the most knowledgeable 9/11 skeptics, in front of a live audience. The debate would be broadcast in real time (ie no video/audio delay inserted in the broadcast signal path), the questions would all be unscreened, no questions would be out-of-bounds (provided they were on topic of course), and the questions would be selected in random order by a device (similar to the one that selects winning numbers in a lottery, for example?). Admittedly, finding an impartial moderator would be a toughie... Such a show could be a ratings winner... but would any mainstream media outlet dare do it?
As I am a reasonably open-minded person, perhaps you can inform me of something in the oficial story that I am missing out on.
So, hit me with your best evidence that 9/11 was what you claim it was, namely a plot by 19 al Qaeda agents working for Osama bin Laden.
Maybe, just maybe, if the evidence is good enough, I will be able join your side and my doubts and skepticism can be dissolved. It would be far more comfortable, I am sure. So, I invite you to do me the favor.
OK, Frank and SDW....
As I am a reasonably open-minded person, perhaps you can inform me of something in the oficial story that I am missing out on.
So, hit me with your best evidence that 9/11 was what you claim it was, namely a plot by 19 al Qaeda agents working for Osama bin Laden.
Maybe, just maybe, if the evidence is good enough, I will be able join your side and my doubts and skepticism can be dissolved. It would be far more comfortable, I am sure. So, I invite you to do me the favor.
Try reading the engineering studies, look at the known timeline of events by the 19 (or 20) hijackers leading up to and during that fateful day, and try to keep an open mind on the highly plausible, not the highly implausible.
And no, I won't play your subterfuge of "us versus them" your last several posts have been mostly filled with rhetoric, for example your opening statement above is a classic straw man.
And I have responded, as best as I can (and at length) to several of your technical questions, and yet, not a single word in reply from you on those technical issues I addressed?
I have even offered up a future plan of study (three independent studies) to fully address the primary issues you have raised, now that's what I call being opened minded!
I would even look forward to a complete public disclosure of all of the government's intelligence, classified materials, and other materials withheld by the government, IF it would in any way reassure you as to the actual events that transpired (up to and) on that fateful day. Now is that being opened minded?
I'll withhold further comments on this issue as I would want to keep an open mind on your reply, except to comment; How would this (my last previous statement) actually address key outstanding questions (from those people proposing alternatives to the prevailing wisdom), and would this additional information be viewed objectively or subjectively?
BTW, I don't like your apparently closed mind when you lump me (nee the professional engineering community) in with you know who (nee the neocon artists)!
OK, Frank and SDW....
As I am a reasonably open-minded person, perhaps you can inform me of something in the oficial story that I am missing out on.
So, hit me with your best evidence that 9/11 was what you claim it was, namely a plot by 19 al Qaeda agents working for Osama bin Laden.
Maybe, just maybe, if the evidence is good enough, I will be able join your side and my doubts and skepticism can be dissolved. It would be far more comfortable, I am sure. So, I invite you to do me the favor.
sammi, the burden of proof is on you here. Please post your evidence that the "official version" as you call it is not really what happened. I don't want questions either, I want FACTS. I don't want "why is that this would happen, or this, or that?" because that's just speculation and conjecture. Facts, please.
"Even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? It doesn't have any significance. It's a little bit like the huge energy that's put out on trying to figure out who killed John F. Kennedy. Who knows? And who cares? Plenty of people get killed all the time, why does it matter that one of them happened to be John F. Kennedy? If there was some reason to believe that there was a high level conspiracy, it might be interesting. But the evidence against that is just overwhelming. And after that, if it happened to be a jealous husband, or the mafia, or someone else, what difference does it make? It's just taking energy away from serious issues onto ones that don't matter. And I think the same is true here; it's my personal opinion."
Transcript.
Try reading the engineering studies, look at the known timeline of events by the 19 (or 20) hijackers leading up to and during that fateful day, and try to keep an open mind on the highly plausible, not the highly implausible.
And no, I won't play your subterfuge of "us versus them" your last several posts have been mostly filled with rhetoric, for example your opening statement above is a classic straw man.
And I have responded, as best as I can (and at length) to several of your technical questions, and yet, not a single word in reply from you on those technical issues I addressed?
I have even offered up a future plan of study (three independent studies) to fully address the primary issues you have raised, now that's what I call being opened minded!
I would even look forward to a complete public disclosure of all of the government's intelligence, classified materials, and other materials withheld by the government, IF it would in any way reassure you as to the actual events that transpired (up to and) on that fateful day. Now is that being opened minded?
I'll withhold further comments on this issue as I would want to keep an open mind on your reply, except to comment; How would this (my last previous statement) actually address key outstanding questions (from those people proposing alternatives to the prevailing wisdom), and would this additional information be viewed objectively or subjectively?
BTW, I don't like your apparently closed mind when you lump me (nee the professional engineering community) in with you know who (nee the neocon artists)!
The official storyline is somewhere near this:
That 19 Islamic fundamentalists took over 4 commercial airplanes and flew them into targets in DC and NYC (and a field in PA), because they "hate our freedoms"; and the Administration at the time knew nothing beforehand (ie the attacks were a complete surprise) and the anticipation/prevention of such attacks was the result of "a lack of imagination".
Before I reply to the points you made, do you agree with this position? Or a modified version of such? Knowing where you stand on this might save me a lot of typing. (This is for both Frank and SDW).
The official storyline is somewhere near this:
That 19 Islamic fundamentalists took over 4 commercial airplanes and flew them into targets in DC and NYC (and a field in PA), because they "hate our freedoms"; and the Administration at the time knew nothing beforehand (ie the attacks were a complete surprise) and the anticipation/prevention of such attacks was the result of "a lack of imagination".
Before I reply to the points you made, do you agree with this position? Or a modified version of such? Knowing where you stand on this might save me a lot of typing. (This is for both Frank and SDW).
This is getting ridiculous. You've included some subjective elements to the story, such as the government "knew nothing" and getting into the reasons the attack happened. Both of those points can be at least debated, and I suspect this is why you're trying to make the discussion about them.
But no, we're talking about what actually happened. 19 Islamic Fundamentalists hijacked four commercial airplanes. One crashed in a field in PA, (possibly due to passengers fighting back). Two others hit the trade towers, which then collapsed after the explosions and ensuing fires. Another struck the Pentagon, causing significant damage and loss of life.
That's what happened. Most of the "9/11 Truthers" dispute elements of that, pointing out possibilities like:
1) The government planned the attacks
2) The government knew about them and did nothing.
3) The towers didn't fall from the planes and fires. They were brought down with explosives.
4) A missile hit the Pentagon, not an airliner.
5) There were no muslim hijackers, only government agents or others. The 19 faces we saw wee fabrications.
So let's talk about those. Because I guarantee you believe at least a few of those points.
No immediate danger to the POTUS? Bull. There was an unknown attack commencing, requiring full protection just in case. At the very least, he needed to start leading the country in a time of crisis.
From Wiki:
The president stated later that he decided to continue the lesson rather than alarm the students.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septemb...of_the_attacks
As a teacher, I can say that he instilled more alarm in more students (and indeed many people in the country and around the world) by not acting promptly.
Has anyone analyzed his speech at the school that day that seemed rather well-written for something that would have had only five minutes or less to throw together?
The PA crash site has less debris than the Challenger crash, yet more than the Pentagon crash. In the latter, though no engines supposedly survived the crash, suggesting a very destructive crash, there was a pristine piece of identifiable plane body lying conveniently off to the side for a reporter to find. oops, what about the hole in the building? Where did those engines go? David Copperfield is under investigation at the moment; was he going to divulge the secret?
Where are the video tapes? Where are the tapes? Again, where are the tapes? Two or three choice frames that show nothing do little to appease a thirst to know what really happened.
There are so many questions and so much doubt because of the behavior of the government. If they were a little more open and forth-coming, things might be different. They haven't been, and so people naturally doubt.
The official storyline is somewhere near this:
That 19 Islamic fundamentalists took over 4 commercial airplanes and flew them into targets in DC and NYC (and a field in PA), because they "hate our freedoms"; and the Administration at the time knew nothing beforehand (ie the attacks were a complete surprise) and the anticipation/prevention of such attacks was the result of "a lack of imagination".
Before I reply to the points you made, do you agree with this position? Or a modified version of such? Knowing where you stand on this might save me a lot of typing. (This is for both Frank and SDW).
No, because you've "colored" your verbiage and overstated the government's lack of knowledge in regard to knowledge obtained by lower level subordinates prior to 9-11. It should read something like this;
That 19 hijackers of apparent Middle East descent took over 4 commercial airplanes and flew them into targets in DC and NYC (and failed to hit their intended target on one of these flights due to a group of passengers who thwarted the hijackers intended efforts), who were suicidal and wanted to inflict maximum damage on highly visible targets in America; and that the Bush Administration, at the time of the attacks, had no definitive information at the highest government levels as to the the specific nature with respect to the actual targets, the date of the actual hijackings, and the specific airline flights involved, and the prevention of such attacks was not possible due to lack of certifiable actionable intelligence at the highest levels of the Bush administration.
This timeline seems to be fairly fact based;
An overview of how Al Qaeda's rise and international reach gradually came into focus for U.S. intelligence.
A couple of other relevant links;
Kevin R. Ryan Terminated at Underwriters Laboratories
.
.
.
"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.
.
.
.
The company said Ryan "was not involved in that work and was not associated in any way with UL's Fire Protection Division, which conducted testing at NIST's request."
The company said it "fully supports NIST's ongoing efforts to investigate the WTC tragedy. We regret any confusion that Mr. Ryan's letter has caused 9/11 survivors, victims' families and their friends."
"We prefer to base our conclusions, and NIST would say the same, on science rather than speculation," Baker said. "We anxiously await the outcome of the NIST investigation."
.
.
.
Kevin Ryan's Open Letter to Purdue President France Córdova on 9/11 Research (dated 6 July 2007)
I can't quote it since the whole thing is an over-the-top rant/screed/manifesto. Not professional discourse by any means.
What about the two crashes that left almost no debris?
The PA crash site has less debris than the Challenger crash, yet more than the Pentagon crash. In the latter, though no engines supposedly survived the crash, suggesting a very destructive crash, there was a pristine piece of identifiable plane body lying conveniently off to the side for a reporter to find. oops, what about the hole in the building? Where did those engines go? David Copperfield is under investigation at the moment; was he going to divulge the secret?
Where are the video tapes? Where are the tapes? Again, where are the tapes? Two or three choice frames that show nothing do little to appease a thirst to know what really happened.
There are so many questions and so much doubt because of the behavior of the government. If they were a little more open and forth-coming, things might be different. They haven't been, and so people naturally doubt.
I was setting up a reply to this because there are mounds of evidence and photographs all over the internet for both crashes.
But my browser froze. So fuck it, get on Google and search yourself, it's out there. If you can't find it you are a....sorry I've just have had enough of answering these claims...it's all there, you just have to look.
What about the two crashes that left almost no debris?
The PA crash site has less debris than the Challenger crash, yet more than the Pentagon crash. In the latter, though no engines supposedly survived the crash, suggesting a very destructive crash, there was a pristine piece of identifiable plane body lying conveniently off to the side for a reporter to find. oops, what about the hole in the building? Where did those engines go? David Copperfield is under investigation at the moment; was he going to divulge the secret?
Where are the video tapes? Where are the tapes? Again, where are the tapes? Two or three choice frames that show nothing do little to appease a thirst to know what really happened.
There are so many questions and so much doubt because of the behavior of the government. If they were a little more open and forth-coming, things might be different. They haven't been, and so people naturally doubt.
United_Airlines_Flight_93 Crash
The aircraft impacted at approximately 563 mph (906 km/h or 826 fps), at a 40 degree angle.
The PA impact was at a steep, ~40 degrees (or thereabouts), Tan(40) = 0.84 = slope of impact (e. g. TAN(45) = 1, as in 1V:1H slope)! It hit bare ground, and with an LOA = 155.25 ft, took all of 0.19 seconds to penetrate the ground!
As to the Pentagon impact, the security cameras are for security clearance purposes only and the frame rate, as saved, is only 1 FPS! You do have to stop and show some form of government identification, why save several hundred frames of everyone going through the security gates? Oh, and one engine was found and photographed.
I could go on and on about the Pentagon impact (and provide numerous links), since I know the lead investigator, but why bother, no manner of factual evidence is ever going to convince you people otherwise.
Oh, I also know the current ASCE president.
My main question was the one in the previous post, the one that was not answered and is the more important question: what about the sitting Bush?
And that Osama had been fingered before the end of the day? This alone suggests they knew more than they are saying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septemb...of_the_attacks
11:30: Before sleeping, Bush enters into his diary: "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today...We think it's Osama bin Laden."
Pearl Harbor was used as a catalyst to get the US into WWII, for better or for worse. 9/11 was also used to start a war, for better or for worse.