PDA

View Full Version : 911 conspiracy



Pages : [1] 2

thomasjfletcher
September 10th, 2004, 10:34 AM
interesting conspiracy website-

http://www.unansweredquestions.org/images/mrSmith.gif
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/

I personally don't buy into it. But it makes interesting reading!

some WTC images, etc.
http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/GON001.htm

lest we forget

thomasjfletcher
September 10th, 2004, 11:01 AM
There are a bunch of interesting theories saying that it was impossible for a Boeing to have hit the Pentagon. This is outlined well on the website
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/images/second-anneau.jpg

Here are some good refutations by Paul Boutin----

"Hunt the Boeing" Answers
Thursday, March 14, 2002

by Paul Boutin and Patrick Di Justo

[UPDATE: Agence France-Presse story is here. Patrick and I were also on Toronto's International Connection radio show earlier.]

Paul Boutin is a freelance technology writer and former engineer in San Francisco. Patrick Di Justo is an astrophysics educator at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City who writes for Wired magazine and Wired News.



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

To be clear: We believe that American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 because we know far too many friends and colleagues in Washington who saw the plane come in over the freeway - some right over their heads - and felt the earth shake as it disappeared into the Pentagon. And we think people who believe they can uncover the truth about anything by surfing the Web are deceiving themselves in a dangerous way.

But we couldn't help taking up the challenge anyway.

As lifelong propellerheads who firmly believe in asking questions, we found Hunt the Boeing an engaging puzzle, despite its tragic subject matter, but one full of obvious errors and misleading questions. Since many of our friends continue to ask us if we've seen the site, we decided to document our answers to it, which we wrote separately. As might be expected, Patrick focused on the math and science (you may remember his widely circulated napkin math on the WTC attack), while Paul picked apart the wording of the questions.

See the original site for photos that accompany the questions.


Question No 1
The first satellite image shows the section of the building that was hit by the Boeing. In the image below, the second ring of the building is also visible. It is clear that the aircraft only hit the first ring. The four interior rings remain intact. They were only fire-damaged after the initial explosion. Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour* only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?

Paul: The question and photos are misleading: Parts of the plane penetrated the ground floors of the second and third rings of the building. These photos show only their intact roofs. Eyewitnesses and news reporters have talked about the twelve-foot hole punched through the inside wall of the second ring by one of the plane’s engines.

More importantly, the question focuses on the plane’s size and weight, making it sound extraordinarily heavy, but leaves out the size and weight of the Pentagon – America’s largest office building with three times the floor space of the Empire State Building - as well as the difference in relative stiffness and energy absorption between a building and an airplane. Each side of the Pentagon contains over 100,000 tons of Potomac sand mixed into the steel-reinforced concrete under its limestome facade. There are nearly 10,000 concrete piles anchoring each side of the building. And in the wake of bombings in Oklahoma City and Saudi Arabia, that portion of the Pentagon had just been reinforced with a computationally modeled lattice of steel tubes designed to prevent it from collapsing after an explosion.

By contrast, the plane is only 100 tons of custom alloys stretched thin enough to fly. It’s not like a giant bullet; more like a giant racing bike. Even so, the plane knocked down 10,000 tons of building material - 100 times its own weight - in the crash and subsequent collapse. Another 57,000 tons of the Pentagon were damaged badly enough to be torn down. The Brobdingnagian scale of the Pentagon makes the total area of damage seem small, but it would hold several Silicon Valley office buildings, or an airport terminal.

Patrick: Watch the videotapes of the planes hitting the World Trade Center. They were traveling at approximately 400 mph, and they hit an aluminum and glass building. An entire plane went in, and hardly anything came out the other side, 208 feet away.

Here we have a plane traveling at nearly 250 mph (just over 1/2 the velocity of the WTC planes, meaning just over 1/4 of their kinetic energy), hitting the ground (which would absorb much of that energy), and only then sliding at a much slower speed into a steel-and-kevlar-reinforced concrete and brick building. Obviously, it's not going to go very far. Still, parts of the plane penetrated into the C ring.


Question No 2
The two photographs in question 2 show the building just after the attack. We may observe that the aircraft only hit the ground floor. The four upper floors collapsed towards 10.10 am. The building is 26 yards high. Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?

Paul: Again the question contains incorrect facts in its setup: As reported in the New York Times, the plane struck between the first and second floors of the building. The high-res version of the photo shows a two story high hole in side of the building. Don't look where the fire truck is directing its water, but towards the center of the photo – two floors out of four are knocked out of the outside wall.

Patrick: The plane hit the ground first, then slid into the building. If the landing wheels were not down and locked, the full height of the plane would extend upwards into the second floor of the building, which is what happened.


Question No 3
The photograph above shows the lawn in front of the damaged building. You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?

Paul: : Yet another leading question ("you'll remember..."), but one looking in the wrong place anyway. At 250 mph, the plane did not stop at the outside of the building. Security camera photos and eyewitness accounts from many credible people, including AP reporter Dave Winslow, agree that the plane completely disappeared into the building. If you’ve seen photos of airline crashes after the fire is out, they often look more like landfill sites than anything recognizable as having been an airplane.

But since the question more literally asks for a photo showing airliner debris on the lawn, here's one. Here's another.

Patrick: The Pentagon burned (or at least smoldered) for several days. Was this photograph taken on September 11? Or was it taken after the wreckage was moved away?


Question No 4
The photograph in question 4 shows a truck pouring sand over the lawn of the Pentagon. Behind it a bulldozer is seen spreading gravel over the turf. Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?

Patrick: My father was a construction engineer. He would only put a crane onto a grass lawn in an extreme emergency, and only after getting indemnified against damages. No, the first thing he would do is to lay down a pathway of steel plates, then cover them with gravel, to prevent his equipment from getting bogged down in the soft earth. When you see in that picture is a roadway being built to bring the heavy equipment across the lawn.

Paul: You don’t have to be a construction worker to recognize a road being built over the lawn, to support the vehicles dismantling the damaged building and hauling away debris. I can’t find any news reports (or people who remember any) about Donald Rumsfeld personally ordering this work done. I suspect the statement is false, and was added to make the activity seem more suspicious.


Question No 5
The photographs in Question 5 show representations of a Boeing 757-200 superimposed on the section of the building that was hit. Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?

Patrick: I'm not certain the models are to scale, and they're certainly not in the correct orientation. Since the plane hit the ground and skidded into the building, enough energy was lost by the initial impact and friction with the ground that the engines probably did not penetrate the building.

Paul: If you’re going to doctor evidence, do it right: Eyewitness accounts say the plane hit from 45 degrees to the side. Adjust the silhouettes properly, and fix the parallax effect in the second photo. The plane fits the impact area pretty well: Don't look at the collapsed upper floors, but at the wider swatch knocked out of the ground floor. I would expect the wings, being weaker than the building, to collapse on the way in. But with no previous crashes of the sort to guide us, we can't possibly predict what should have happened. If there's anything we learned that day, it's that we are poor judges of what is and isn't possible.


Question No 6
The quotations in Question 6 correspond to statements made by Arlington County Fire Chief, Ed Plaugher, at a press conference held by Assistant Defence Secretary, Victoria Clarke, on 12 September 2001, at the Pentagon.

When asked by a journalist: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?"

"First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing."

"You know, I'd rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know."

When asked by a journalist: "Where is the jet fuel?"

"We have what we believe is a puddle right there that the -- what we believe is to be the nose of the aircraft. So -"

Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was?

Paul: Quoting people verbatim to make them sound like they are dissembling is an old journalists’ trick, as any Doonesbury reader knows. I think Chief Plaugher answered the question pretty well: There’s a puddle (of melted metal, not jet fuel – he’s not directly answering the reporter’s idiotic question) that was the nose, and a few small pieces visible, but no large sections.

Patrick: Are any government officials telling any journalists anything these days?


Question No 7
The two photographs in question 7 were taken just after the attack. They show the precise spot on the outer ring where the Boeing struck. Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?

Paul: The answer is front and center in the photo, maybe to make us think it can’t be that obvious: The two-story high impact hole (also seen in the photo for Question No 2) is immediately to the right of the fireman, partly hidden by the spray of water from the fire truck. Look at the second high-res photo and you can't miss it. Are we supposed to think it’s a two-story archway of some sort? See pre-crash photos or the surviving sides for comparison.

Patrick: In enlargement #1, the impact hole fits in the rectangle formed from pixel(1232,1088) to pixel(1492, 1545).

After that, I didn’t bother to look at enlargement #2.

Patrick
September 10th, 2004, 12:50 PM
Moderators, we have an 'Anything goes' here!

Patrick

Jasonik
September 11th, 2004, 12:26 AM
Age of Damaged Info Provides Bush-Hating Complicity Theory

by Ron Rosenbaum

1) The Post-Millennial Grassy Knoll

The four things that have made me laugh the most this summer were parodies of conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists. Just a coincidence? I don’t think so. I think it indicates two things. First, conspiracy theory—apparently embedded in the collective unconscious of the culture like a smoldering information virus—has flared up again. The hot new development is 9/11 conspiracy theory, specifically Complicity Theory—the belief the Bush White House was in league with or behind the 9/11 attackers.

Complete article:
http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=9466

ZippyTheChimp
September 12th, 2004, 10:52 AM
Weak Mossad Theory... Strong Mossad Theory...Super-Strong Israeli Theory
:P

It's completely pointless to argue logically with a conspiracy-theorist.

Right after the David Koresh compound in Waco TX burned, a "survivalist malitia" leader from the upper midwest was a guest via satellite on one of the morning news programs. He had a photo that proved that the government deliberately burned down the building. The photo was of an army tank a few feet from the building with flames shooting out of the cannon muzzle. The photo was actually a vidcap, and another guest had the complete video clip, which showed the tank ramming the building. As the tank moved forward, sunlight glistened off the gun barrel. The video was frozen at the spot where the "photo" was taken. They were identical.

Unfazed, the malitiaman continued his accusations.

thomasjfletcher
November 2nd, 2004, 05:46 PM
INTERESTING READING...............

Posting to Headlines Wire of Scoop
Opinion: www.UnansweredQuestions.org
Date: Wednesday, 3 November 2004
Time: 10:55 am NZT



UQ Wire: 9/11 Truth and the 2004 Election

Distribution via the Unanswered Questions Wire
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/ .

9/11 Truth and the 2004 Election
An editorial by Michael Kane and Nicholas Levis
Sent out at Midnight, Election Day, Nov. 2, 2004.

(NOTE: This message is intended for a limited audience activists
for justice, seekers of truth, and 9/11 researchers. We are assuming
that our readers are well-versed in the skeptical view of 9/11.
If the thought never occurred to you that 9/11 was likely an
inside job, and that the dream of peace and freedom will die
if the 9/11 cover-up is allowed to stand, then the following
may not make much sense. Those looking for clarification on the
"unanswered questions of 9/11" are ill served here; go check
out sites like 911Truth.org, cooperativeresearch.org, Justicefor911.org,
ny911truth.org and wtc7.net.)

Dear Friends and Readers,

As writers and activists, we have been involved in 9/11 research
and the truth movement since day one. Today we are urging New
Yorkers to vote for Green Party presidential candidate David
Cobb - and we are asking our allies in the rest of the country
to suspend their gag reflex long enough to vote for John Kerry.


We know that this is going to require some explanation, so
here goes...

Should 9/11 truth activists be voting at all?

Surely no other group is more aware of what a farce elections
are. We probably don't need to review the following for you:


(1) The big decisions about the course of our nation, and
thus to a large degree the fate of the world itself, are made
by hidden hierarchies of wealth and ownership, who are immune
to elections.

(2) Covert operators and remote elites stage-manage events
like 9/11 to their own ends, making irrelevant the public decision-making
of voters, and even of the Congress. For example, we all know
the entire Bush agenda, including the invasions of Afghanistan
and Iraq, was planned long in advance of 2001. But the program
was not launched openly after the (s)election of George W. Bush
in Dec. 2000. It was rolled out after the shock of September
11, using 9/11 as the pretext.

(3) Elected representatives are dependent for their campaign
financing on support from corporations and the wealthy. This
conditions what even the most honest politician can do.

(4) The major news media, with all their reach to mass audiences
and access to sources, are under the tight control of a cartel
of corporations, with long-established practices that amount
to self-censorship. With very few exceptions, this restricts
the information they provide to the narrow bounds of allowable
debate: Democrat vs. Republican, "liberal" vs. "conservative,"
"qualified experts" vs. "conspiracy theorists." Knowledge that
would change how people vote is withheld from the public, or
drowned out in the circus of stories about Kobe and Laci and
The Dean Scream. (Only the Internet, where everyone has a chance
to project their own voice, has begun to alter this.)

(5) The last presidential election was decided by vote fraud
and brought to power the loser of the popular tally. Since the
people responsible for that crime were rewarded, there is no
reason to think they won't try it again, both by making use of
the ever-more widespread electronic voting machines, and by more
traditional means of manipulating the vote. (The difference this
time is that so many people are on the look-out for fraud and
manipulation; but the "reforms" implemented after the 2000 debacle
actually made things worse, as they favored more e-voting.)

(6) Even assuming a fair count, the only two "viable" candidates
were decided for us, as always, by the internal mechanics and
fundraisers of the major parties. Nearly everyone is forced to
make a choice they almost invariably view as the lesser of the
two evils, rather than getting to choose what they really want.

(7) Beyond that, the Electoral College and the winner-take-all
system of representation leaves about half of the voters disenfranchised
by the Constitution itself.

In a nutshell, democracy is impossible when elites can control
the reactions of the majority by keeping them in ignorance and
fear. The real problems we face cannot be addressed within our
present political system, which is little more than an increasingly
transparent and corrupt cover for the dictatorship of corporate
capital.

Our economic system lives from war, imperialism, plunder from
the Third World, and an insane drug war. It relies on destructive
forms of energy, unsustainable debt loads in a Monopoly currency
(for which the whole world still has to work to pay off the interest),
and a reckless devastation of the natural basis for human civilization.
Our society is in the stranglehold of corporate interests, covert
power and organized crime.

If and how you vote today cannot change any of that. What
we need is a peaceful revolution, one in which the vast majority
of hearts and minds awaken to reality, turn away from the abyss,
and use the democratic sparks of the present society to fire
up a different world.(1)

Our first answer for "what is to be done" will therefore always
be the same: Organize. Reach out to your friends, make allies
and work in every way available to change the circumstances under
which we labor - to expose hidden truths, to open the media,
to show political force in lobbying and on the streets, to win
over the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens.

More than this, find ways to free yourselves from the money
system, from the media system, from the energy system, from reliance
on the government and the big corporations. Put your money and
your time to work in your communities - to build a sustainable
opposition that can actually replace the remote-control cannibalism
we currently live in.

If all you are planning to do is to vote and then forget about
it, thinking you have done your civic duty - then yes, you may
as well stay home. It's pointless.

But if, in addition to organizing for a peaceful revolution,
you can also imagine taking the hour to cast a vote, then we
say: Good for you. It's easy. And how you vote today can improve
the conditions for a peaceful revolution. The outcome of this
election will affect the circumstances under which the dissident
forces in our society operate.

We have heard many people argue that if only enough people
refused to vote, the whole rotten process would lose its legitimation
and fall apart. But this is a false hope, passive and helpless.
Majorities have already stayed home. Two-thirds of the people
don't bother to vote in years without a presidential election
- and the media, the establishment, the parties and the voting
minority are still able to present election results as legitimate
outcomes.

You may say that once you vote, you surrender the power to
interpret the meaning of your vote to the media and politicians,
who will spin the results however they like. You're right.

Unfortunately, that is just as true if you do not vote. There
is no means by which you can effectively protest by not voting.
No matter how you intend your act of not voting, it will simply
(if wrongly) be interpreted by the powers-that-be as apathy,
or stupidity, or tacit acceptance of how things are.

So much as we abhor the present system, we cannot pretend
that we do not engage in it, whether we vote or not. We see no
conflict in believing that elections are a scam, and yet still
saying it is best to make use of your right to vote, if you are
also working to change the system by other, more significant
means.

In the case of New York, the "safest" state in the Union,
where no level of believable vote fraud will elect George W.
Bush, our choice as 9/11 truth activists is an easy one. Quite
apart from the Green Party's progressive positions on many issues,
David Cobb was the first candidate of any party on the ballot
to endorse the cause of 9/11 truth and call for a new investigation
of September 11. (See http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040909122555691).


Cobb's lead has since been followed by Ralph Nader and the
Libertarian Party's Michael Badnarik, both of whom joined him
in signing the recent 9/11 Truth Statement (see http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633).
Nevertheless, Cobb's position on 9/11 truth is the earliest,
strongest and most reliable, and to us he also seems to be the
most serious of these three candidates on the other issues.

Furthermore, the Green Party and its activists have been the
fastest and most daring among all parties in comprehending the
significance of 9/11 truth, and in forging an alliance with the
emergent truth movement. This will be of significance after the
election, regardless of who wins.

So if you live in New York State, vote for David Cobb for
President!

And what if you live in one of the 49 less-than "safe" states?

We harbor no illusions about John Kerry.

Kerry voted for the Iraq War Resolution and has a pretty lousy
excuse for claiming he didn't know the basis for the illegal
invasion was actually a lie. If WE were aware of what the actual
U.N. weapons inspectors had determined about Iraqi weapons of
mass destruction already back in 1998, then certainly HE was.
If we knew the "Saddam connection to 9/11" was the most outrageous
"conspiracy theory" of all, then of course Kerry did.

Kerry also voted for the Afghanistan war resolution, the USA
PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act, all of which are outright
demolitions of constitutional government in our country. He has
claimed that he will fight a better "War on Terrorism," which
is a pretty frightening thought given what that war has really
been about: the pretext for seizing territory around the world
and for intervening in the affairs of every country on earth.


In the dark days of autumn 2001, when the anthrax mailings
were sent out to intimidate the loyal opposition, when the Shadow
Government was activated, Kerry watched and did nothing, along
with almost everyone else in Congress. He also did nothing as
the 9/11 cover-up proceeded, as the investigations were stonewalled,
and as the bogus results of the delayed investigations were finally
released.

There is little reason to believe Kerry will want to reverse
any of the Bush crimes. There is no reason, in fact, to think
he will try to do anything other than continue, perhaps more
slowly, along the same general course as Bush - unless all of
the Movement people are ready to keep up and to triple the fight
they have already begun against the Bush agenda.

Fifty million people across this country have taken to the
streets and mobilized in other ways to oppose the Bush agenda
of preventive and eternal war and domestic repression, and its
steady barrage of accompanying lies. If Bush loses and this movement
fails to stay the course and keep growing, then we have no right
to expect that a Kerry Administration will change anything much
for the better.

But if you are ready to keep fighting, then we believe that
the fight will be easier under a first term for Kerry, than under
a second term for Bush. There are several reasons for this, but
the most important ones should be obvious:

Once ousted from power, the Bush regime's officials will lose
the immunity from investigation and prosecution they now enjoy.
Until they are removed, there is no chance of a real 9/11 investigation
with the necessary subpeona power. There is thus no chance for
the wake-up call that a real investigation will produce.

Yes, Kerry's behavior under the Bush regime amounts to complicity
after the fact in that regime's crimes. He may attempt to equal
those crimes, when his turn comes at the helm. But the great
crimes of the last years are still those of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld,
Wolfowitz and their whole sick crew.

And it is they in their blind hubris who have left so many
loose ends for us to pull at.

Remove their immunity, and if we stay strong and keep growing,
we still might see them carried off in shackles and orange jumpsuits.
Whereas a victory would reward them, and encourage them: they
will understand it as a reward for their crimes, as an incentive
for more of the same.

More important, of course, is that exposing the Bush regime's
role in 9/11 can serve as a positive shock experience for our
fellow Americans. It can open up the possibility of exposing,
and changing, the entire system that spawned the Bush regime
as its logical culmination.

It won't be easy, it may be a long shot, but we believe this
is our best chance. 9/11 was exploited as the pretext for atrocity;
9/11 truth can still become the way in which we put an end to
the policies of atrocity.

Do we have anything good to say about Kerry? Yes. There is
little doubt he is different on several very important material
issues: judicial appointments; the rights of women; protection
for minorities and gays from at least some of the excesses of
racism and homophobia.

Kerry is a smart guy who can speak English, and who hasn't
always played for the machine. He committed at least one indisputable
act of courage during the U.S. invasion of Vietnam - which was
to fight against it when he returned home.

In the 1980s, he was among the politicians who held hearings
on the Bush-related mafia who took over the government at the
time. He ran investigations into CIA-drugs, the Iran-Contra dealings,
and the October Surprise of 1980. These released important information,
even though the introductions and statements he slapped on the
findings tended to limit the damage for those incriminated in
the actual reports.

Of course, Kerry has yet to use his vast knowledge of the
Bush mob in the present campaign; he has apparently kept it in
store as his own personal insurance policy, and otherwise acted
like a good Bonesman who always keeps the Secrets of the Tomb.


Do we expect a President Kerry to suddenly drop the wishy-washy
facade, and expose the Bush mob's crimes once he is safely in
the White House? Do we expect him to prove that crime does not
pay, to expose the hidden hierarchies, to reverse the system
of covert power that actually governs?

Never. Not unless we force all that by showing numbers and
an organization that no government can ignore.

But we have few illusions that our chances of doing so, however
slim, are better than if the Bush mob gets back in with carte
blanche to do whatever they feel like, no longer fearing the
possibility of an election loss.

Beyond the major exceptions cited above, the material differences
between Kerry and Bush may be slight indeed. But the symbolic
differences are great, and we should recall that symbolism is
real when people believe in it.

Kerry and Bush are both corporate tools. But in the minds
of Americans, they stand for different things. They are also
forced to pay attention to different clienteles. A Bush victory
will signal approval of the Bush agenda. The regime will turn
into the modern equivalent of an absolute monarchy, with no further
need of catering to anything other than its own fascist fantasies.


Kerry may try to pursue the same agenda as Bush, but his regime
will be conditional. In the minds of Americans, his victory will
stand as a rejection of the Bush program. Kerry will have to
pay some kind of lip service to the people who elect him.(2)


Whereas a Bush victory will be a signal to this country's
minority of true fascists and ultra-Apocalyptists that their
time has come. It will mobilize all the true believers, the obedient
foot-soldiers whose first question on November 3 will doubtless
be, "When do we clean up with the liberals?"

And their definition of "liberal" will extend far beyond the
likes of us; it will be flexible enough to include Alex Jones.

To the rest of the world, a Bush victory signifies the American
peoples' approval of what Bush stands for. The doors will shut
on any chance of peaceful and cooperative solutions. We're not
saying Kerry is a peacemaker, but he will actually have a chance
to be one, should he take the opportunity.

All that being said, do we really believe that there is any
chance the Bush mob won't try to steal today's election, just
as they did in 2000?

Not really, even if many among the global elites seem to have
chosen Kerry as a necessary tranquilizer for all of the rage
that Bush has inspired around the world.

The Bush mobsters are well aware of their exposure to criminal
prosecution for what they have done. Though there little doubt
remains that they will lose a fair election,* they won't want
to make it easy. This is why they have issued so many telling
warnings about the likelihood of an Election Day attack; we pray
they won't dare, we pray they have already over-exposed themselves
too far to try it; but come Wednesday, you had all best be ready
to fight for your freedom and what's left of the democratic dream.(4)

*************

Michael Kane is chairperson of NY 9/11 Truth and fronts the
band Clarity. See his blog at http://gnn.tv/users/user.php?id=46.
Nicholas Levis is a staff member of 911Truth.org and a co-founder
of American Voices Abroad. See his site at http://summeroftruth.org.
Both are speaking for themselves. Levis wrote the above, with
Kane's approval.

*************

Notes

(1) As for the pipe-dream of revolution by means of a vanguard
seizing power: Good luck! The reason this has never worked to
change things, even when it was possible, is simple. When force
determines the outcome, the winner will always be the side that
achieves military superiority. The outcome will have nothing
to do with peace or justice. To win by violence, the opposition
will have to adopt the same means and mentality as the present
rulers.

(2) Of course, we cannot rule out the chances that Kerry will
be given "the freedom" to pursue an even more fascist course,
in the same fashion that Bush received it: in the form of a "New
9/11." We have no idea if he will react any differently, but
we can't cover all the possibilities in advance. Kerry would,
unfortunately, be just the right candidate for extending the
"War on Terrorism" to cover Saudi Arabia. This will be something
to guard against, and prepare for mentally as best we can. Yes,
it is sickening that the choice we face may be between the war
on Iran and Syria already intended by the Bush regime, as opposed
to the possible war on Saudi Arabia that a Kerry presidency would
enable. It doesn't change our main point that, all other things
being equal, a second Bush term presents the worse alternative
for pursuing and succeeding with opposition politics in the United
States itself, and therefore changing American policy worldwide.


(3) Go back and study the polls in advance of every election
since 1988; you will find that the Republican vote has always
been exaggerated through the technique of presenting results
among "likely voters." Dukakis was said to be down by 15 points,
he lost by six; in the next three elections, Clinton and Gore
also beat their opinion-poll numbers. Bush was called a lock
in the 2000 election; he lost. When you are told that Kerry and
Bush are in a dead heat, recall that this does not include the
huge number of new-voter registrations, which has mainly been
mobilized against Bush. Especially under-counted are the Black
and youth votes, which will be decisive.

(4) And come "Thursday," if the Bush regime has met with its
demise, it will be time to start the fight in earnest for the
abolition of the Electoral College, public campaign finance,
free media time for all candidates, and the establishment of
proportional forms of representation in this country, so that
no party can ever again wield a monopoly of power; just as the
wisest among the Founders intended.

**************

STANDARD DISCLAIMER FROM UQ.ORG: UnansweredQuestions.org does
not necessarily endorse the views expressed in the above article.
We present this in the interests of research -for the relevant
information we believe it contains. We hope that the reader finds
in it inspiration to work with us further, in helping to build
bridges between our various investigative communities, towards
a greater, common understanding of the unanswered questions which
now lie before us.



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

The Scoop website is at http://www.scoop.co.nz/
This Story is at http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00044.htm





For more information: http://www.unansweredquestions.net/
Post message: UQ-Wire@yahoogroups.com

fioco
November 3rd, 2004, 04:08 PM
Keeping to the topic of 911 conspiracy: Osama bin Laden's video message to America the weekend before the election must have disheartened many a conspiracy theorist when Osama not only took full credit for the strategy of 911but also mentioned some of the hijackers by name. Unfortunately, I sense that this will be merely a "bump in the road" as the theorists continue to obsess with their self-addicting notions.

Jasonik
November 3rd, 2004, 05:39 PM
No, you see Osama didn't mention a thing about the Pentagon. Don't you think he would be really proud of hitting the central defense headquarters of the most mighty nation? Isn't that something to brag about?!

This is how the thinking goes now. :? :wink: :roll:

TLOZ Link5
November 3rd, 2004, 06:33 PM
Richard Clark, a former Secretary of Defense, has said that he finds the Bin Laden tape "dubious." Bascially, that its authenticity should be doubted.

BrooklynRider
November 3rd, 2004, 07:30 PM
I was impressed with Osama's latest tape. He read the script prepared for him by the Bush's & Saudi's very effectively.

Now, he goes back to pretending he's hiding from us and we go back to pretend we're searching for him.

They need to revise the terror code from colors to words: Yawn, Boring, Oh Look-Nevermind, Gotcha! , and..... Wow-weee!

BronxBoy
November 3rd, 2004, 09:29 PM
I could be mistaken, but I remember seeing a video of the plane crashing into the Pentagon on September 11th. I only saw it once though. Maybe it wasn't supposed to be released, but I don't know. I didn't crash directly into the building. It was flying towards the Pentagon at a low angle, crashed into the ground, and the momentum kept it going into the Pentagon. So it technically wasn't a direct hit. [/quote]

fioco
November 4th, 2004, 12:18 AM
LOL, BrooklynRider. Maybe Osama was hoping to be a write-in challenger?! Hard to do with a metal lever though. Ohhhhh, I shouldn't even jest about such crazy notions. The present-day reality is nearly more than I can cope with already; I don't need to imagine the unthinkable. . . Why it's happening right before my eyes! Well, I'm off to some diversionary reading and sleep. Good night (emphasis on the GOOD).

pianoman11686
August 25th, 2005, 12:08 AM
No one has posted here for a while. Is the conspiracy theory still going? Now, I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I personally have perused some websites that talk about the collapse of 7 WTC - specifically, how characteristic it was of a "controlled demolition." Then I saw links to other pages that argued the same thing happened to WTC 1 & 2. Has anyone else seen any of these pages? (They all basically argue the same thing, almost word for word.) Does anyone buy this?

ZippyTheChimp
August 25th, 2005, 07:29 AM
The conspiracy theories will go on for decades.

Standard procedure is to take an easily identifiable fact and draw the most basic conclusion, while omitting other explanations that are not apparent.

Explosions within the towers pushed debris outward: Most of the building volume is air. The collapse took 10 seconds, so the roof was falling at over 120 mph. All that air is compressed and heated and has to go somewhere.

The same thing happens to a submarine that ruptures at great depth. The water pressure causes the air inside the submarine to become superheated and explode.

ManhattanKnight
August 25th, 2005, 09:28 AM
Does anyone buy this?

During the past few months, I've had an extensive exchange of correspondence with a young, well-educated Polish man who's making his first visit to NYC (and the US) later this year. I was startled when he asked me what role I thought the "Bush Family" had played in causing 9/11. Not just the invasion of Iraq, but 9/11 itself. It turns out that he had accepted as facts any number of things, including the "explosions" visible as One and Two collapsed and the "controlled demolition" of Seven. Even how Silverstein had spent weeks wiring Seven with explosive charges.

Ninjahedge
August 25th, 2005, 09:38 AM
What a load of bull.

I am so tired of everyone thinking that explosions had something to do with the collapse. Well, explosions of planted charges at least.

So many people want to have someone living to take more direct blame and responsibility for the act. I do not think that anyone in the admin or US government had any direct hand in this (I may be wrong). I see ti as a case of change of regime and the Bush team just plain ignoring almost everything that the Clinton team left until it was pretty much too late to do anything about it.

I also see Clinton trying to do something, but getting such negative feedback at his responses to an enemy that, at the time, we just did not see as solidly as we did after 9-11. (He received flak over the missile attack, etc). SO Clinton, in his party's own interest and in the interest of all PR, backed off.


So whatever. Nothing direct on this, all circumstantial negligence and inattentiveness.

BrooklynRider
August 25th, 2005, 09:55 AM
Bush knew - or at least his Neo Con administration did. It fulfilled the PNAC vision for the world.

The Pentagon gets hit by something - an airplane? a missile? We can all speculate. However, it was the Pentagon. That building has security cameras at every turn. The roads in DC have cameras everywhere as do other buildings. Yet, we never saw a single video from any of those cameras.

Oh right, they were ALL out of service that day due to a network problem.

The attacks occurred. Bush was flown in the opposite direction as far from DC as possible to give him plausible deniability. It has been documented by the 9/11 Commission that George Bush Sr and Dick Cheney were at the White House when the attack occured.

MiamiGUY
August 25th, 2005, 10:27 AM
whoa thats interesting never heard of that conspiracy of the wtc being wired.


but i am one of those who believes that the pentagon wasn't hit by an airplane,do you know how hard it would be to fly a plane into or close to the pentagon and then only damage such a small area.a bomb maybe ,airplane no

ZippyTheChimp
August 25th, 2005, 10:48 AM
What always happens in these monumental events is that there are government cover-ups of mistakes, ignoring of warnings, etc. Was there prior knowledge that Atta was in the country, and that an attack was imminent?

Politicians never want to say they screwed up, so these attempts at cover-up fuel speculation of conspiracy. But it is a huge leap of logic to accept these errors as true, and conclude that the government planned the entire scenario.

Considering the steady stream of leaks we get from unnamed government sources, and how well inside information is kept, does anyone think that a plot to fire a missile at the Pentagon and explain it as a hijacked commercial liner would not be exposed by now.


Bush was flown in the opposite direction as far from DC as possible Where would you have expected him to be taken - on a aerial tour of DC?

Miami guy: Why do you think an airplane would have damaged more of the building? Dp you know how big the Pentagon is?

Here's an experiment for you: Get an overhead graphic of the Pentagon, and then get one of an airplane at the same scale. Put the plane next to the building and see how "big" the plane looks.

JMGarcia
August 25th, 2005, 04:11 PM
I am hardly a Bush supporter, far from it. Especially being from MA. ;)

But it is simply amazing what people will believe simply because they hate Bush so much.

In a way, its a parrallel of the hundreds of crazy things the muslim world is firmly believes because of the hate they hold towards israel or the west.

mayo
April 22nd, 2007, 05:43 PM
How on earth can any of you believe that either the Bush administration, or high ranking individuals were not directly involved or at least knew about what was going on. I could punch holes in these crazy arguments all day.

I have a real problem with the Paul and Patrick show. On question #1 Paul claims that one of the engines indeed did make it through the second ring of the Pentagon.:confused:

Question No 1
The first satellite image shows the section of the building that was hit by the Boeing. In the image below, the second ring of the building is also visible. It is clear that the aircraft only hit the first ring. The four interior rings remain intact. They were only fire-damaged after the initial explosion. Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour* only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?

Paul: The question and photos are misleading: Parts of the plane penetrated the ground floors of the second and third rings of the building. These photos show only their intact roofs. :eek: ((((((Eyewitnesses and news reporters have talked about the twelve-foot hole punched through the inside wall of the second ring by one of the plane’s engines.))))))):eek:

Then Patrick contradicts Paul in question #5.

Question No 5
The photographs in Question 5 show representations of a Boeing 757-200 superimposed on the section of the building that was hit. Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?

Patrick: I'm not certain the models are to scale, and they're certainly not in the correct orientation. Since the plane hit the ground and skidded into the building, :eek: (((enough energy was lost by the initial impact and friction with the ground that the engines probably did not penetrate the building.))):eek:

Now is it the conspiracy theorists who are dellusional or would it be perhaps that some people just can't believe something like this could be inflicted by your government.

If you guys are gonna argue, can you at least decide on the same argument first?

I've only just begun!


Anyone ever heard of gravity? The WTC's fell way to fast for it not to be a planned demolition. And don't tell me there is no way that explosives could have been placed in the weekes before 9/11. Anything is possible, especially when good old George W has family in charge of building security. hmmm And also, PHYSICS DON"T LIE. UNLIKE BUSH AND HIS OIL THIRSTY THUGS!:mad:

WTC 7-I'll just say: HAHAHAHAHAA!! It must of got scared of being alone without 1&2 and decided to fall upon the sword. (EXTREME SARCASM INTENDED):D

?????????????
-Bin Laden's are the only approved flight out of dodge on 9/11
-Where is the full surveillance video of the Pentagon? Not just 3 frames of blur.
-Why are the light poles on the Pentagon lawn laying in the opposite direction of travel?
-United 93, WHERE THE HELL DID IT GO? Never seen a plane crash and leave no debris behind
-Department Of Defence protocol? Why were these planes not intercepted.
-Hussein?IRAQ? What the hell did they have to do with 9/11, yet they are attacked first. Oh yeah, WEEEEEEEE, OIL!

I could go on and on, and I will down the road. For now I leave you with this. If this attack was truly led by only Hussein,haha - Bin Laden - Muslim extremeist, and no one from the great USofA; then why the hell did it take so long to retaliate to the attacks. I highly doubt that Bush has that much patience. Why have we never caught Bin Laden? There have been many accounts told by soldiers of having him surrounded, bbuuuutttt he always seemed to have been left an exit from one of his dirtholes.

There were indeed some crazy ass Muslims involved in all of this, but it is all a big setup.

#1-Bush's fund Bin Bin the bank buddy to fight the Russians - train them well, supply them with weapons and technology.

#2-In turn Mr BIN BIN manipulates thousands of young muslim men into believing that the west are a bunch of white devil evil dogs and only by appeasing ALLAH will they be granted eternal banging of 72 virgins in his garden of LOVE.

#3-The brainwashed boys of VIRGIN LAND carry out some horrific crimes for theire great leader BIN BIN, who is actually in business with the "white devil".

#4-All the dirty deeds get done and the rich fat cats of the oil governed world have the cleanest little hands.

These poor saps are messed with from day one. Most muslims are great and normal people just trying to live theire lives in peace, if this is word of ALLAH, then why don't they all believe the same thing? I fit does say it in the Qur'an, then why do they do it?

Wake up people, stop being so closed minded and weak. Stand up for something and let it be known.

Thank you

Ninjahedge
April 22nd, 2007, 08:01 PM
How on earth can any of you believe that either the Bush administration, or high ranking individuals were not directly involved or at least knew about what was going on. I could punch holes in these crazy arguments all day.

I have a real problem with the Paul and Patrick show. On question #1 Paul claims that one of the engines indeed did make it through the second ring of the Pentagon.:confused:

Question No 1
The first satellite image shows the section of the building that was hit by the Boeing. In the image below, the second ring of the building is also visible. It is clear that the aircraft only hit the first ring. The four interior rings remain intact. They were only fire-damaged after the initial explosion. Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour* only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?

For one, the plane went further than what is easily seen in the picture that most conspiracy theorists would like you to see.

It did indeed breech several rings, but you also seem to neglect the fact that that ring of the pentagon had recently completed its scheduled reinforcement without which more damage would have certainly occured.


Question No 5
The photographs in Question 5 show representations of a Boeing 757-200 superimposed on the section of the building that was hit. Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?

The construction of the wings themselves is lightweight aluminum, not quite as strong as reinforced concrete. If you cram an aluminum vehicle through a wall, things have a tendency to snap off. Also, you neglect to acnowledge the furrow that extended several hundred feet outside of the pentagon. I assume that was just from the ground being scared and running away.





Anyone ever heard of gravity? The WTC's fell way to fast for it not to be a planned demolition. And don't tell me there is no way that explosives could have been placed in the weekes before 9/11. Anything is possible, especially when good old George W has family in charge of building security. hmmm And also, PHYSICS DON"T LIE. UNLIKE BUSH AND HIS OIL THIRSTY THUGS!:mad:

Here we go.

For one, who timed this? Also was this person aware of the actual time that it took for the debris from the top of the ubilding to hit the ground? If so, I would LOVE a pair of his X-ray glasses that allowed him to time it.

Now assuming that the estimates are somewhere near correct, did he also take into account the vaccume drag effect of than many flat plates of concrete all falling in the same path? I am sure that MAY have crossed his mind, after all he is a physicist.. :rolleyes:

As for planting explosives, here we go again. Have you ever heard what happens when a garage door spring snaps? How about a shock absorber? Now what happens when a column supporting severl HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS of pressure is released of this load in a fraction of a second due to buckling? You think it just casually extends to its less-stressed length?

Nope, it "sproings" with all the stored energy. So seeing poofs at the base is not that hard to believe. Also, if the building was collapsing from the bottom, why were the planes of the exterior construction shedding from the top down?

If you look at any building demolition that happens with the bottom being hit, the top remains intact and crumples on the bottom. It does not shed its facade.



WTC 7-I'll just say: HAHAHAHAHAA!! It must of got scared of being alone without 1&2 and decided to fall upon the sword. (EXTREME SARCASM INTENDED):D

?????????????

It was damaged by the falling debris and also happened to have a lot of fuel stored in its lower level which burned for hours.

Nobody was allowed anywhere near that building for safety sake. As the temperature rose, the modulus of elasticity of the supporing steel reduced, resulting in a reduction in the buckling strength and flexural stiffness of the building.

The building sagged slowly until some columns could not take the P-Delta 9a common graduate school topic for structural engineering study) was too much for the weakened columns and it joined the masses.


-Bin Laden's are the only approved flight out of dodge on 9/11

Because the family had nothing to do with it, and being friends of the Bushes, they knew also that they ran the risk of being hung in effegy for something they did not do.

I think they should not have goten that kind of preferential treatment, but you are combining apples and rutabegas.


-Where is the full surveillance video of the Pentagon? Not just 3 frames of blur.

the time it takes for a plane to travel that distance is fractions of a second. Are you saying we should have more cameras out? You read 1984 and feel we should follow in step?


-Why are the light poles on the Pentagon lawn laying in the opposite direction of travel?

Did the plane hit those poles? Did the plane pas close by? Did the exhaust from the engines hit them?


-United 93, WHERE THE HELL DID IT GO? Never seen a plane crash and leave no debris behind

that is one questionable thing. It did leave a mark BTW. And I believe it did leave debris. But the question of it crashing because of cockpit conflict or an airstrike is still a big ?


-Department Of Defence protocol? Why were these planes not intercepted.

because in the time it took to get to them, the decision was not made. this is not as easy as a military strike. there were civilians on board.


-Hussein?IRAQ? What the hell did they have to do with 9/11, yet they are attacked first. Oh yeah, WEEEEEEEE, OIL!

they had nothing, but you ar emixing subjects just like they are. they planned on attacking Iraq before the election, and this was just used to stir xenophobic paranoia and support for the attack.



I could go on and on, and I will down the road. For now I leave you with this. If this attack was truly led by only Hussein,haha - Bin Laden - Muslim extremeist, and no one from the great USofA; then why the hell did it take so long to retaliate to the attacks. I highly doubt that Bush has that much patience. Why have we never caught Bin Laden? There have been many accounts told by soldiers of having him surrounded, bbuuuutttt he always seemed to have been left an exit from one of his dirtholes.

You are throwing so many things out here.

Who were they supposed to attack in response? Where is Bin Laden? Was Afghanistan a place that the admin knew they would be able to get anything out of? They knew they stood very little chances of getting him and that they had no resources to gain after attacking, so they skeedaddled.

I do not agree with what they did, but tying that back into a conspiracy insted of just gross incompetance is not right.


There were indeed some crazy ass Muslims involved in all of this, but it is all a big setup.

I will stop there. You are looking at red clay and calling it blood.

You need to read both sides of the argument before you start with this. Check your sources and see where they are countered, otherwise you are just repeating more pablum and being led by the conspiracy fools as much as the US people were led by Bush and Co. in "War Iraq".

kliq6
May 3rd, 2007, 03:30 PM
There are a bunch of interesting theories saying that it was impossible for a Boeing to have hit the Pentagon. This is outlined well on the website
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/images/second-anneau.jpg

Here are some good refutations by Paul Boutin----

"Hunt the Boeing" Answers
Thursday, March 14, 2002

by Paul Boutin and Patrick Di Justo

[UPDATE: Agence France-Presse story is here. Patrick and I were also on Toronto's International Connection radio show earlier.]

Paul Boutin is a freelance technology writer and former engineer in San Francisco. Patrick Di Justo is an astrophysics educator at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City who writes for Wired magazine and Wired News.



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

To be clear: We believe that American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 because we know far too many friends and colleagues in Washington who saw the plane come in over the freeway - some right over their heads - and felt the earth shake as it disappeared into the Pentagon. And we think people who believe they can uncover the truth about anything by surfing the Web are deceiving themselves in a dangerous way.

But we couldn't help taking up the challenge anyway.

As lifelong propellerheads who firmly believe in asking questions, we found Hunt the Boeing an engaging puzzle, despite its tragic subject matter, but one full of obvious errors and misleading questions. Since many of our friends continue to ask us if we've seen the site, we decided to document our answers to it, which we wrote separately. As might be expected, Patrick focused on the math and science (you may remember his widely circulated napkin math on the WTC attack), while Paul picked apart the wording of the questions.

See the original site for photos that accompany the questions.


Question No 1
The first satellite image shows the section of the building that was hit by the Boeing. In the image below, the second ring of the building is also visible. It is clear that the aircraft only hit the first ring. The four interior rings remain intact. They were only fire-damaged after the initial explosion. Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour* only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?

Paul: The question and photos are misleading: Parts of the plane penetrated the ground floors of the second and third rings of the building. These photos show only their intact roofs. Eyewitnesses and news reporters have talked about the twelve-foot hole punched through the inside wall of the second ring by one of the plane’s engines.

More importantly, the question focuses on the plane’s size and weight, making it sound extraordinarily heavy, but leaves out the size and weight of the Pentagon – America’s largest office building with three times the floor space of the Empire State Building - as well as the difference in relative stiffness and energy absorption between a building and an airplane. Each side of the Pentagon contains over 100,000 tons of Potomac sand mixed into the steel-reinforced concrete under its limestome facade. There are nearly 10,000 concrete piles anchoring each side of the building. And in the wake of bombings in Oklahoma City and Saudi Arabia, that portion of the Pentagon had just been reinforced with a computationally modeled lattice of steel tubes designed to prevent it from collapsing after an explosion.

By contrast, the plane is only 100 tons of custom alloys stretched thin enough to fly. It’s not like a giant bullet; more like a giant racing bike. Even so, the plane knocked down 10,000 tons of building material - 100 times its own weight - in the crash and subsequent collapse. Another 57,000 tons of the Pentagon were damaged badly enough to be torn down. The Brobdingnagian scale of the Pentagon makes the total area of damage seem small, but it would hold several Silicon Valley office buildings, or an airport terminal.

Patrick: Watch the videotapes of the planes hitting the World Trade Center. They were traveling at approximately 400 mph, and they hit an aluminum and glass building. An entire plane went in, and hardly anything came out the other side, 208 feet away.

Here we have a plane traveling at nearly 250 mph (just over 1/2 the velocity of the WTC planes, meaning just over 1/4 of their kinetic energy), hitting the ground (which would absorb much of that energy), and only then sliding at a much slower speed into a steel-and-kevlar-reinforced concrete and brick building. Obviously, it's not going to go very far. Still, parts of the plane penetrated into the C ring.


Question No 2
The two photographs in question 2 show the building just after the attack. We may observe that the aircraft only hit the ground floor. The four upper floors collapsed towards 10.10 am. The building is 26 yards high. Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?

Paul: Again the question contains incorrect facts in its setup: As reported in the New York Times, the plane struck between the first and second floors of the building. The high-res version of the photo shows a two story high hole in side of the building. Don't look where the fire truck is directing its water, but towards the center of the photo – two floors out of four are knocked out of the outside wall.

Patrick: The plane hit the ground first, then slid into the building. If the landing wheels were not down and locked, the full height of the plane would extend upwards into the second floor of the building, which is what happened.


Question No 3
The photograph above shows the lawn in front of the damaged building. You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?

Paul: : Yet another leading question ("you'll remember..."), but one looking in the wrong place anyway. At 250 mph, the plane did not stop at the outside of the building. Security camera photos and eyewitness accounts from many credible people, including AP reporter Dave Winslow, agree that the plane completely disappeared into the building. If you’ve seen photos of airline crashes after the fire is out, they often look more like landfill sites than anything recognizable as having been an airplane.

But since the question more literally asks for a photo showing airliner debris on the lawn, here's one. Here's another.

Patrick: The Pentagon burned (or at least smoldered) for several days. Was this photograph taken on September 11? Or was it taken after the wreckage was moved away?


Question No 4
The photograph in question 4 shows a truck pouring sand over the lawn of the Pentagon. Behind it a bulldozer is seen spreading gravel over the turf. Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?

Patrick: My father was a construction engineer. He would only put a crane onto a grass lawn in an extreme emergency, and only after getting indemnified against damages. No, the first thing he would do is to lay down a pathway of steel plates, then cover them with gravel, to prevent his equipment from getting bogged down in the soft earth. When you see in that picture is a roadway being built to bring the heavy equipment across the lawn.

Paul: You don’t have to be a construction worker to recognize a road being built over the lawn, to support the vehicles dismantling the damaged building and hauling away debris. I can’t find any news reports (or people who remember any) about Donald Rumsfeld personally ordering this work done. I suspect the statement is false, and was added to make the activity seem more suspicious.


Question No 5
The photographs in Question 5 show representations of a Boeing 757-200 superimposed on the section of the building that was hit. Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?

Patrick: I'm not certain the models are to scale, and they're certainly not in the correct orientation. Since the plane hit the ground and skidded into the building, enough energy was lost by the initial impact and friction with the ground that the engines probably did not penetrate the building.

Paul: If you’re going to doctor evidence, do it right: Eyewitness accounts say the plane hit from 45 degrees to the side. Adjust the silhouettes properly, and fix the parallax effect in the second photo. The plane fits the impact area pretty well: Don't look at the collapsed upper floors, but at the wider swatch knocked out of the ground floor. I would expect the wings, being weaker than the building, to collapse on the way in. But with no previous crashes of the sort to guide us, we can't possibly predict what should have happened. If there's anything we learned that day, it's that we are poor judges of what is and isn't possible.


Question No 6
The quotations in Question 6 correspond to statements made by Arlington County Fire Chief, Ed Plaugher, at a press conference held by Assistant Defence Secretary, Victoria Clarke, on 12 September 2001, at the Pentagon.

When asked by a journalist: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?"

"First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing."

"You know, I'd rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know."

When asked by a journalist: "Where is the jet fuel?"

"We have what we believe is a puddle right there that the -- what we believe is to be the nose of the aircraft. So -"

Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was?

Paul: Quoting people verbatim to make them sound like they are dissembling is an old journalists’ trick, as any Doonesbury reader knows. I think Chief Plaugher answered the question pretty well: There’s a puddle (of melted metal, not jet fuel – he’s not directly answering the reporter’s idiotic question) that was the nose, and a few small pieces visible, but no large sections.

Patrick: Are any government officials telling any journalists anything these days?


Question No 7
The two photographs in question 7 were taken just after the attack. They show the precise spot on the outer ring where the Boeing struck. Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?

Paul: The answer is front and center in the photo, maybe to make us think it can’t be that obvious: The two-story high impact hole (also seen in the photo for Question No 2) is immediately to the right of the fireman, partly hidden by the spray of water from the fire truck. Look at the second high-res photo and you can't miss it. Are we supposed to think it’s a two-story archway of some sort? See pre-crash photos or the surviving sides for comparison.

Patrick: In enlargement #1, the impact hole fits in the rectangle formed from pixel(1232,1088) to pixel(1492, 1545).

After that, I didn’t bother to look at enlargement #2.

May I just ask if the WTC was wired and no plane hit DC, where are the people who where on those planes that morning?

dovetalk
September 26th, 2007, 02:54 PM
May I just ask if the WTC was wired and no plane hit DC, where are the people who where on those planes that morning?

Why, Area 51, of course. Did you not pay attention in conspiracy 101?

It is really a pointless, futile exercise to argue with conspiracy theorists, as any rebuke to their arguments are usually turned around to "prove" the theory. "You say there is no proof to my theory? Ah, but that's because 'they' are hiding it!", c.f. the "argument" that the Pentagon plane is only on three frames of the surveillance tape.

<sigh>

Keith Richards
September 27th, 2007, 05:57 AM
What has always puzzled me is why there just happened to be a video camara focused on the twin towers at the time of the attack.

Keith :cool:

Fabrizio
September 27th, 2007, 08:01 AM
There is soooo much bullying of 911 conspiracy theorists.

Questioning the official story has become demonized.

Here's an example:

FoxNews/Bill O'Reilly

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,220500,00.html

"And I'm saying this is grossly irresponsible because it's based on nothing. If you had the evidence, sir, you would be on the front page of The New York Times in a heartbeat. There's nothing that the hate-Bush media would like more than to get a hold of anything you have. And you don't have anything.."

Those who question the official story are nuts, irresposible, how-dare-they-say-the-government-murdered-it's-own-people-etc...

They are called traitors.

AND YET the American media, including FoxNews has noooo problem questioning the official story about the death of Lady Diana! The British government, the Royal Family etc .... murdered the mother of England's future King?

MSNBC:

"A decade after the tragic car crash in a Paris tunnel that took the lives of Princess Diana and her boyfriend Dodi Fayed, there are still questions surrounding their deaths. Was it a simple car accident or were more sinister forces at work? MSNBC’s “Five Diana Conspiracy Theories,” premiering Saturday, September 1st at 12 p.m. ET..."

THAT'S ok.

And the death of President Kennedy?

Again, hundreds of books, network TV documentaries questioning the "official story".

THAT'S ok...

FoxNews even once ran a documentary called: "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?"

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm

THAT'S ok.

So WHAT is wrong with questioning the official story about 9/11?

Ninjahedge
September 27th, 2007, 09:37 AM
Fab, I do not call them traitors. I never have, and I do not like Fox and Company doing so.

I do not agree with the war and why we went in, I think we should have gone to Afghanistan and STAYED there, and a bunch of other things.

But just like the Neo-Con hate machine is looking for red meat, the conspiracy theorists are not looking to really get any answers. they are looking to blame someone.

I do not mind serious discussion, but when reasonable answers to their questions are provide and they brush them aside as if they were nothing they are lowering themselves to the same level as O'Reilley and company.

To get a reaction, you need to apply some force. They want a big reaction. All of them do.

Fabrizio
September 27th, 2007, 10:16 AM
So do the same people who theorize about Lady Di, Kennedy, the moon landing.

But the discussion is not AUTOMATICALLY off limits.

If MSNBC can do this headline:

"Was it a simple car accident or were more sinister forces at work?"

Do you think they could do this? :

"Was it simply terrorists with box-cutters or were more sinister forces at work?"

Joelio
October 21st, 2007, 01:53 AM
All I'm gonna say, without even reading the thread, is that I can't stand the 9/11 Conspiracy theories.

This may not be helpful to the topic, but I'd just like to share my opinion. :D

Continue...

Bob
October 22nd, 2007, 07:31 PM
Look. I work for the FAA. I was there, in the middle of it on 9/11. The guys who work for me got a call directly from the controllers at Washington National Tower. They saw the plane. They saw it hit the Pentagon. It was relayed to a specialist working for me, as it happened. The look on his face I will never forget. He stood stunned, arms to his side, and said, "what's going on?" My answer, "I don't know, I guess we're at war." You need to know this -- all this "conspiracy" stuff is a bunch of baloney. The simple truth about 9/11 is that this country was woefully unprepared. We got caught with our pants down. Had I told you on 9/10/01 what was to happen the next day, you would have thought I was completely nuts. People who didn't do their jobs properly allowed nearly 3000 people to be killed, caused billions of dollars of damages, and destroyed the lives of countless others. I am always reminded of this as I look out my office window and see our 9/11 memorial in Ronkonkoma...a piece of rusted steel from the WTC. Enough with the conspiracy crap, already.

Jasonik
December 4th, 2007, 11:55 AM
Fabrizio, please give us a translation!

http://www.corriere.it/politica/07_novembre_30/osama_berlusconi_cossiga_27f4ccee-9f55-11dc-8807-0003ba99c53b.shtml

Francesco Cossiga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Cossiga) "...the disastrous attack was planned and carried out by the American CIA and the Mossad..."

Fabrizio
December 4th, 2007, 01:14 PM
First of all, Cossiga has always believed the 911 attacks were set up... so that's nothing new.

But here he is saying that the last communcation from Bin Laden (where B. Laden admits he was resposible for 911) was fake and was actually produced by the Italian television network MediaSet (owned by Berlusconi).

Cossiga further claims that a major Italian daily would break this story... revealing the falsity of the Bin Laden tape and it's actual source... and that it would be published in a day or two.

Cossigas statements were on Nov 30th. Today is the 4th. So far nothing.

The article you linked is from Corriere della Sera. Let's call it "Italy's NYTimes".

Jasonik
December 4th, 2007, 01:31 PM
Is Cossiga treated like a nut in Italy or a credible political insider? Who would be an American analog -- Jimmy Carter -- a harmless old guy with some largely irrelevant opinions? Respected but politely ignored?

Fabrizio
December 4th, 2007, 03:45 PM
Italians are suspicious of ALL polititians so it's hard to define Cossiga... and he's been all over the map, playing all sides.

But I will tell you: no one here believes the official 9/11 story.

Why should we?

MidtownGuy
December 4th, 2007, 03:56 PM
I don't either, at least not all of it.

Fabrizio
December 4th, 2007, 04:10 PM
Note that in America the discussion has turned from investigating 9/11 to demonizing all who question it as "conspiracy theory nuts".

Me? Not for a minute do I believe that the planes were radio controlled, or that a missle hit the pentagon, or that the passengers were actually wisked away to some military out-post in the desert.

I don't believe those stories just as much as I don't believe that some guys with box cutters over-took those planes.

Questioning 9/11 is entirely off limits.

It's OK to question the murders of the Kennedys, of MLKing, the death of Lady Diana, the moon landing...

But questioning 9/11? You're a nut, you're unpatiotic.... how dare you....

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

ZippyTheChimp
December 4th, 2007, 04:52 PM
Note that in America the discussion has turned from investigating 9/11 to demonizing all who question it as "conspiracy theory nuts"Only when the thread premise is a conspiracy theory.

We have a thread investigating 09/11.
http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4713&page=6

Problem is, the conspiracy theories are folded into all investigations by those who want to discredit any inquiries.


I don't believe those stories just as much as I don't believe that some guys with box cutters over-took those planes.Radio controlled planes are no less plausible than an unarmed flight crew being overcome by assailants?

Jasonik
December 4th, 2007, 05:07 PM
The orthodox treatment of 9/11 questioners. (Warning - Foul Language) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmamtVY_M-E)

ablarc
December 4th, 2007, 06:47 PM
^ Not so much questioners, jasonik. Judging fom the banners near the end, these guys thought they knew the answers.

Showing their foulmouthed nemesis doesn't by itself validate their views.

MidtownGuy
December 4th, 2007, 08:36 PM
Listen to us, don't we all think that we know the answers?

I don't think the point was to say 'this foulmouthed reaction validates our views'. It was just showing the extreme hostility those views are met with and saying to the audience 'if you think this was an insider job, you're not alone despite the reactions you get at your opinion, go to our website"
Of course they should expect the reaction on the street that they get, and they do. They probably get similar reactions all day and fancy themselves heroes for voicing an unpopular position despite the fact that someone could decide to bash their faces in.
I'm not taking any position myself here, except that the attitude of the the jerk who was swearing at them is pretty common.

Jasonik
December 4th, 2007, 09:06 PM
^ Exactly. Just agreeing with Fabrizio about the forced moratorium on asking questions about 9/11. After all -- the 9/11 Commission answered all of them (http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html).

lofter1
December 5th, 2007, 01:37 AM
So after all the new / repeated questions what do you come up with about who really had the box cutters on the planes? Were the passengers / crew members on the phones lying about that?

ZippyTheChimp
December 5th, 2007, 08:03 AM
^
Some might think we should just ask them.

Fabrizio
December 5th, 2007, 09:43 AM
Lofter: Ok .. it was a bad example but you know what I mean.

Ninjahedge
December 5th, 2007, 09:52 AM
I think that people are trying to push the explanation in a way that would benefit their own political views or positions.

Or to try to validate their current proposed agendas. Just like saying, indirectly, that Iraq was involved with 9-11, people saying that Bush + Co. were responsible for ramming the planes into the buildings is just as facetious.

Are we being told everything? No. I believe there was cover-up involved to protect our, um, "assets" and to make it so that the US did not seem like it was ignoring external threats.

But most of the other suppositions, such as explosives and the like, are just that. Unsubstantiated postulations based on external observances that do not necessarily back up or are strengthened by any other save the ubiquitous selective finger pointing.

So as a great surprise to all involved, guess what. 9-11 was a horrible incident that had dozens of things mishandled. The only conspiracy seems to be in hiding who F'd up the most and could have prevented it.

Jasonik
December 5th, 2007, 10:11 AM
Asking questions about 9/11 is soon to become criminalized.

I think that people are trying to push the explanation in a way that would benefit their own political views or positions.
Interesting that you use this language Ninjahedge...

http://www.indypendent.org/2007/11/27/homegrown-terrorism-update/

Interestingly, during [the director of the Task Force Against Hate at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Mark] Weiztman’s PowerPoint presentation [on Nov. 6 to the U.S. House Subcommittee hearing: “Using the Web as a Weapon: the Internet as a Tool for Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism”] where he provided a list of suspect terrorism-affiliated websites, he also highlighted “conspiracy” websites who create a “parallel truth,” which included groups calling for a full investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks.

News quickly spread across the web about the allegations that 9/11 truth-related groups could be equated with “jihadist or violent” groups. For example, Steve Watson and Paul Watson posted on the blog infowar.net Nov. 13, “Under the heading ‘Internet: Incubator of 9/11 Conspiracies and Disinformation’ Weiztman threw in video of WTC building 7 collapsing on 9/11 as posted on various 9/11 truth affiliated websites, along with screen shots of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth site and other sites.”

The blog entry continued quoting Weitzman, “‘We need to be aware of the empowering effect of the internet upon extremists, we must have researchers and responders for both the technical and linguistic skills to keep us informed and to be able to respond to what is online. We must make users aware of the misinformation and of the techniques used by extremists.’ Weitzman continued.”

Richard Gage, AIA (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8182697765360042032), founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), defended his group Nov. 17 issuing a press release and speaking out on the INN World Weekend Report radio show Nov. 25.

“AE911Truth.org is extremely concerned about the recent portrayal of our peaceful organization and website by the Simon Wiesenthal Center alongside Taliban militant websites,” Gage wrote. “By implication we and other 9/11 Truth organizations are branded as terrorists. We are therefore actively pursuing non-legal and legal remedies.”

To listen to the interview (http://xml.wtprn.com/INNRadio/0711/20071125_Sun_INNRadio2.mp3):
INN Weekend Report on WTPRN.com 11/25/07 Hour 2 Interview with Jessica Lee and Richard Gage AIA (founder of AE911Truth)

I previously posted the complete video of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment hearing here (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=198252&postcount=9).

Ninjahedge
December 5th, 2007, 02:25 PM
How so Jason?

I am confused as to how to interpret what you are saying here.

I am only saying that people on both sides have tried to use 9-11 to their own means. For excused so invade and rob personal liberties, to blaming individuals whose only sin in the actual event may have been callous oversight and ignorance.

Most of the peopel you do not hear much about, like the engineers that did the actual case study on the collapse, are not listened to because their "story" is not interesting enough.

People do not want to know that John Doe actually did slip and fall down the stairs on his own. They would rather spend more time postulating on who pushed him.

Jasonik
December 5th, 2007, 04:21 PM
Language is similar, that's all I'm saying. If this kind of thought crime legislation becomes law, the sentence of yours I quoted is an accusation serious enough to trigger the José Padilla treatment (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1203/p02s01-usju.html).

From H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (in Senate committee as S.1959)

VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.

The rationale of these loosely defined criteria has already been used to associate (http://www.ae911truth.org/info/22) over 200 architectural and engineering professionals (http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php) with radical jihadis and violent terrorist groups -- just because they advocate "a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7."

Radiohead
December 6th, 2007, 12:22 AM
The truth is 19 Islamic extemists flew planes into the WTC and the Pentagon on 9/11/01. The Clinton and Bush administrations did a poor job of addressing the threat prior to the that dreadful Tuesday morning, but that is the extent of their involvement.

People who wish to blame anyone other than the true perpetrators piss me off. Every "9/11 Truther" that I've ever met are f*cked up mental cases. Just like most fanatics on the far left and far right.

Encideyamind
December 7th, 2007, 02:46 AM
Can't speak on the validity of anything that happened that day but if you believe the events were set in motion in order to alter our way of living that mission was accomplished.

ZippyTheChimp
December 7th, 2007, 01:34 PM
I could say that about anything.

Ninjahedge
December 7th, 2007, 01:47 PM
I say the Iceberg that sunk the Titanic was deliberately planted there and steered by electronically controlled dolphins in order to bolster the sales of water wings and to try to validate our desired plan to invade Iceland.

OmegaNYC
December 7th, 2007, 05:40 PM
^^ Hey who told you that!? :cool:

MidtownGuy
December 7th, 2007, 06:45 PM
I say the Iceberg that sunk the Titanic was deliberately planted there and steered by electronically controlled dolphins in order to bolster the sales of water wings and to try to validate our desired plan to invade Iceland.

You had your fun. Too bad you look gullible if you think elements of the official story are more believable than some of the most farfetched theories. Oh yeah, I'm sure the miraculous recovery of paper passports found (still readable) in the middle of the wreckage, leading to almost instant identification of hijackers, is totally credible.:rolleyes:

There was plenty of inside knowledge of what was going to happen, and key players decided to sit on their hands. Not unbelievable, not ridiculous, nothing to do with electronic sea mammals or remote controlled planes...just some incredibly evil and negligent people (on both sides) knowing they had much to benefit from a couple of buildings going down. Billions of dollars in profits and unlimited power...hmmm....more than a couple of thousand people have been killed for way smaller stakes in the past. It's hardly incredible.

How did you enjoy reading through all those blackened out sections in the report. Oh wait, you didn't read any of them...none of us have.
Another "hmmm".

I'm not claiming to know what happened leading up to that day. But if you are claiming you know the whole story, or have the knowledge or evidence to decide what is really true in this mess, you are full of crap. Anyone here. The impression you leave is that we shouldn't bother to analyze what parts of the story are crazy, we should just accept it like Santa Claus eating cookies is accepted by little children.

Tens of thousands of pages of documents are kept secret by this administation and you think you know the whole story? That there are no ugly secrets here? That the story we have been given is so complete, logical and simple that we can forever rest assured? HAH!
Please tell me why I should believe one stinking word put out by this regime, much less their account of the event that gave them so much unprecedented power.

I think I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

212
December 7th, 2007, 11:01 PM
Oh yeah, I'm sure the miraculous recovery of paper passports found (still readable) in the middle of the wreckage, leading to almost instant identification of hijackers, is totally credible.:rolleyes:


Passenger lists and rental car records (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9806E2DB1038F930A2575AC0A9679C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2) led to the hijackers.


There was plenty of inside knowledge of what was going to happen, and key players decided to sit on their hands.

Then surely just one of those many insiders will have a guilty conscience and will want to tell about it, right?
... still waiting ...

Encideyamind
December 7th, 2007, 11:29 PM
I could say that about anything.
I really wasn't in the state of mind to take this into detail at that point. Also being new here wanted to see the depth of the discussion.

Honestly I believe we're being screwed by a system more powerful than our government and wouldn't recognize even if it was directly in front of our noses. Which it is.

My mindset mirrors that of MTG.

Has anyone here seen Zeitgeistmovie.com?

Or heard of the military commisions act?

9/11 is small in comparison to the actual travesties(sp?) being commited to people here.

Encideyamind
December 7th, 2007, 11:30 PM
Then surely just one of those many insiders will have a guilty conscience and will want to tell about it, right?
... still waiting ...

Right, like with the JFK murder?:rolleyes:

ZippyTheChimp
December 8th, 2007, 12:46 AM
Honestly I believe we're being screwed by a system more powerful than our government and wouldn't recognize even if it was directly in front of our noses. Which it isYou're not really saying anything.


My mindsetMind-set indeed.

I didn't realize that it was either A or B...that we had to choose between accepting an official position in its entirety, or accept The Banner.

That by questioning aspects of the official story, we had to accept that it was duplicity because, well, the people involved "had much to benefit from a couple of buildings going down."

The people under The Banner have their minds set. They have made what should have been a conclusion their premise. Since the premise is fact, everything else just falls into place. They're not asking questions. Why should they, when they have all the answers.

I guess getting some moron that should be walking on his knuckles to provide fodder for a video clip is the day's hard-on. Look at us - we have lives.

MidtownGuy
December 8th, 2007, 02:04 PM
Then surely just one of those many insiders will have a guilty conscience and will want to tell about it, right?

:D Oh yeah RIGHT! Maybe they'll forfeit all the billions that have been made too! Mass murderers don't have a conscience.:rolleyes:


one of those many insiders

and who said it was many? You don't need 'many' to kill an investigation or throw a department off track. Just takes an organized few. And later, when charges of negligence are raised, they can always deny intent or claim ignorance or whatever. More likely, as has happened, no one takes a closer look, you certainly don't have the mainstream media provoking any real inspection, and why would the people at the top, all covering their own asses, want to stir trouble?

Some insiders, at least, have tried to blow the whistle on the bizarre or suspicious actions of certain people.
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/58/18512

The article also mentions Coleen Rowley , who you may or may not recall, was another agent that tried to alert superiors and was basically ignored.
Her 18 page (!!) letter about the whole amazing mess was originally available online from Newsweek but has long since been removed, with only a small relatively innocuous version available at this point, as far as I know from a very brief search. Maybe lofter knows where it could be found. I remember reading the whole letter at the time it was released and
thought my jaw would hit the floor:eek: at reading of the opposition she faced in trying to advance her investigation.

Of course, none of these things have ever been investigated, much less anyone prosecuted for willful negligence, perhaps partially because of the dismissive attitude we see right here on this forum that makes pressure to do so drownable.
Also partially because we(and our media) couldn't help but move on when the giant diversion (long desired by neocons) that is the Iraq War was perpetrated. That sure got us all distracted. It began before anything meaningful was finished in Afghanistan, which is still a mess.

I could probably find enough examples of questionable actions and events just before 9/11, on so many levels, to post 300 pages of it on this thread. Who would bother, it wouldn't get read, just dismissed. And who could blame anyone, at this point. So I won't post substantially anymore about my opinion on this. Instead, if people are genuinely curious, why don't they embark on their own extensive self-education about pre-9/11 events that I attempted. They might come out feeling as creepy as I did. BUT, most Americans would rather live in a comfy bubble that tells them only Islamic jihadists had any complicity or responsibility for all those unnecessary deaths in the gigantic disaster that was 9/11. Yup, it's ridiculous and impossible that anyone on this side could have anything to gain from an attack planned by terrorists winding up successful.

MidtownGuy
December 8th, 2007, 02:16 PM
212 said:
Passenger lists and rental car records led to the hijackers.

True. I should have said leading to the ID of some hijackers. Incredibly, the passport of Satam al-Sugami was found perfectly intact at the top of the World Trade Center rubble. Mohammed Atta's passport was miraculously discovered in good condition in the burning rubble of Flight 93. I'm not saying Atta wasn't a hijacker, just that the passport thing was one more example of how the whole story has been corrupted and mythified. Again, the official story we've been given to swallow is BS because it lacks too many facts and is full of anomalies. The only pseudo-reports we've been able to see are full of blacked out paragraphs.

MidtownGuy
December 8th, 2007, 02:23 PM
I didn't realize that it was either A or B...that we had to choose between accepting an official position in its entirety, or accept The Banner.

I agree, that's what I'm getting at. I don't believe either entirely. The truth must be somewhere in the middle. I'll probably never know it.

Ninjahedge
December 10th, 2007, 10:54 AM
It was the dolphins.

MidtownGuy
December 10th, 2007, 05:00 PM
In fact, they'd have good reason. The Navy is smashing the eardrums of cetaceans with it's sonar, causing all of the whale and dolphin strandings that the media acts mystified by.:p

Jasonik
December 12th, 2007, 03:52 PM
The dolphins hate us for our freedoms.

MidtownGuy
December 12th, 2007, 06:37 PM
:DYeah, what fanatics they are!:D

Radiohead
December 16th, 2007, 01:12 AM
MidtownGuy, I've enjoyed your posts over the past 2 years I've read and been a member of this forum. You've always come across as highly educated and and your posts have been entertaining and enlightening.

On this one though.....I totally disagree with you. Don't you think that the mainstream media (NYT, CNN, MSNBC etc) has looked into this already. If there was any truth to this, why aren't the Democratic candidates (especially Kucinich) not making ANY issue of this?

Conspiracy theories are part and parcel of American life. I've read such theories about Lincoln's murder at Ford's Theatre, the Lindburgh kidnapping, the JFK murder (which I was actually on the fence on at one point), the Challenger explosion, as well as a few friends who say that all sports are fixed. One thing I have found about people who believe such theories is that they generally believe anything that can be well articulated by a select few with an agenda, despite the absence of facts, and it is equally true on both the left and right.

Downplaying the 9/11 Truthers does not a Bush fanatic make. You can still distrust Bush all you want without resorting to fantastic tales of timed WTC explosions, staged Pentagon hits, or even pre-knowledge of the attacks. Such is for snake oil peddlers. Midtown, I know you're smarter than that (not to bust JUST your balls MT;), but I lost someone at the WTC and I'm pretty sensitive about blame going to places other than where it really belongs...the 19 hijackers and Al Queda/Bin Laden).

Jasonik
December 16th, 2007, 08:01 AM
I lost someone at the WTC and I'm pretty sensitive about blame going to places other than where it really belongs...the 19 hijackers and Al Queda/Bin Laden).
No blame to INS or NORAD? Dereliction of duty was rampant, and rank incompetence the norm on 9/11/2001. Oh, and don't forget the FBI...

Don't let your emotions stop you from asking questions. At the risk of appearing insensitive, I would think that the death of someone close would cause a greater outrage and a duty to the memory of the deceased to get to the bottom of events. Don't forget, if families of 9/11 victims hadn't pressured the government, the (inadequate whitewash) 9/11 Commission never would have convened. (Of course the budget was significantly less than the Lewinsky investigation and had no subpoena powers or put any witnesses under oath.)

Your appeal to intellect to close one's mind and accept a half baked coverup story would be laughable if it weren't so sad.

JerryL
December 16th, 2007, 01:11 PM
Greetings, among posters,

I came upon this thread while researching some of the anamolies associated with 130 Liberty, aka Bankers Trust; aaka Deutsche Bank building.

I am familiar with a branch of the 9/11 Truth Movement that asserts that Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) were used to destroy the WTC.

Let me repeat that: There are those who assert that a new class of high tech weaponry known as Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) were used to destroy the WTC complex on 11 September 2001. They claim that 110-storey skyscrapers do not pulverize into dust and small pieces nearly instantaneously due to jet fuel (which is nothing more and nothing less than kerosene), impact damage from whatever and/or gravity.

Posters who are familiar with ground zero (GZ) and who live nearby and who have been thinking deeply about 9/11 and the impact it had upon their lives -- and it seems there are several here who fit that category -- are asked to think objectively about the assertions concerning DEW that are made here.

The still-standing 130 Liberty St BT / DB building (henceforth I'll use "130Liberty" in honor of the thread title), and some of the information and photographs posted in this thread contain vital clues in further support of DEW theory.

The already posted photos in this thread show that the building was first repaired, only later to be declared "toxic;" however, the deconstgruction of the building is proceeding in a very obscure fashion where, among other oddities, the true identity of the demolition contractors is not even known.

We are told the building is toxic as if that is an obvious thing that could occur. What made 130 Liberty "toxic" and what kind of toxicity are we talking about. The vague word "mold" does not convey any information. Most people's homes, and especially those near water have mold. The normal response to it is not deconstruction that takes years to complete.

What aspect of 9/11 made the building "toxic" and why is its toxicity level different from that of other buildings in the area and/or why is the toxicity not as dangerous and anamolous elsewhere as it is at 130Liberty?

The August 2007 fatal fire is equally anamolous.

Have you noticed the pictures of the flames? Take a closer look. Don't the photos of the flames appear to be oddly configured?

We are also told the building contained asbestos. However, if the contaminant is asbestos, what could have accounted for the severity of the flames in August? Remember what asbestos is used for...???

Other photos show the use of a lot of dirt for dampening purposes. Use of dirt in large quantities is thought to be a requisite for cleanup after use of certain types of DEW; namely chemical DEW.

I suggest we are indebted to "asg" for posting a vital photographic clue of DEW contamination as seen below:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1225/1164155736_e0b7316104_b.jpg

Those of you who reside near GZ will recall that some 1400 vehicles were 'toasted' on 9/11 by odd looking flames and/or burn patterns where no debris could be said to be the causal factor.

DEW operate on the basis of molecular interactions that are not sell understood, outside of military industrial complex circles. That said, a lot is known about DEW and can be found by interested researchers.

Suffice to say, the effects seen at GZ on 9/11, as well as the odd flame seen above are thought to be consistent with DEW effects.

Thank you for your consideration of this post.

Radiohead
December 16th, 2007, 01:13 PM
Your appeal to intellect to close one's mind and accept a half baked coverup story would be laughable if it weren't so sad.


Show me some proof and I'll "open" my mind.

I'll be the first to admit that the US government was incompetent in PREVENTING the horror of 9/11. How 19 terrorists were allowed into this country and were able to hijack 4 airliners is something we should demand answers to. But that is not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to claims that the government (specifically the Bush administration) was complicit in the entire 9/11 episode. That there were planned demolitions at the WTC. That it was a US missle that pierced the Pentagon. The theories go on and on.

I suppose I could choose to believe any fantastic stories about any historical event, including 9/11. The fact that I may or may not do so is not closed minded emotion, as you say. It is also not "sad", as you say. It is my opinion given everything that I have read (and I've read all sides).

I'm not going to change your mind and you won't change mine (unless there is proof otherwise).

investordude
December 16th, 2007, 01:53 PM
God Bless America. We don't need this conspiracy theory crap on this board. Have respect for the lives that were lost that day.

Alonzo-ny
December 16th, 2007, 01:56 PM
We dont need this stirred up again, Its hard enough to live with as it is without conspiracies being dragged into it.

But for the sake of a good forum, there is a thread for conspiracies in Anything goes i think?

lofter1
December 16th, 2007, 02:09 PM
What made 130 Liberty "toxic" and what kind of toxicity are we talking about.

... What aspect of 9/11 made the building "toxic"

... what could have accounted for the severity of the flames in August?

Other photos show the use of a lot of dirt for dampening purposes. Use of dirt in large quantities is thought to be a requisite for cleanup after use of certain types of DEW; namely chemical DEW ...

DEW operate on the basis of molecular interactions ...

JerryL.:

At first I thought you meant THIS (http://www.acts.org/roland/mt.dew/) :o ...

But maybe you're on to something.

I think these guys (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/i_am_legend/gallery.php?page=17&size=hires&nopop=1) know what you're talking about (http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IE120071214234452&Page=1&Headline=Encountering+dark+seekers&Title=Bangalore&Topic=0&) and can answer lots of your questions ...

:cool:

JerryL
December 16th, 2007, 02:55 PM
JerryL.:

At first I thought you meant THIS (http://www.acts.org/roland/mt.dew/) :o ...

But maybe you're on to something.

I think these guys (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/i_am_legend/gallery.php?page=17&size=hires&nopop=1) know what you're talking about (http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IE120071214234452&Page=1&Headline=Encountering+dark+seekers&Title=Bangalore&Topic=0&) and can answer lots of your questions ...

:cool:

Thanks for the humor, I enjoyed that :)

However, this is more like what I was talking about:

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEWcon/DEWconpics/060322_spacecom_ABL_bcol.jpg

It is not my intention to offend anyone and I will not take offense at being labeled with the word 'conspiracy' however I suggest that a contraption like that seen above has the capacity to cause the following result and that kerosene does not:

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image151.jpg

Finally, the people who could shed light on the matter are more likely to be members of the Directed Energy Professional Society (http://deps.org) than they are to be movie personalities.

I should like to conclude by asserting an equal right to show compassion for the victims of what was done to us on 9/11 as anyone else.

Thanks again for the humor.

JerryL
December 16th, 2007, 03:11 PM
We dont need this stirred up again, Its hard enough to live with as it is without conspiracies being dragged into it.

But for the sake of a good forum, there is a thread for conspiracies in Anything goes i think?

The 'fire' seen in the photo of 130Liberty, posted above, has characteristics that might be visually consistent with that seen here:

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image168.jpg

I offer the photos for consideration.

One of the more glaring anamolies of the 9/11 event was the rampant burning of the engine compartments of vehicles, while having almost no effect on paper; as seen above.

I am not naive. I know full well that the implications of the assertion that DEW are a causal factor in what happened on 9/11 and what is continuing to happen to 130 Liberty are far reaching and are unpleasant to consider.

Speaking, however, of concern for victims, let me put this plainly:

If 130 Liberty remains 'toxic' and if that toxicity has to do with the little understood after effects of DEW, then there may be an ongoing danger to the public. Ignorance is not necessarily bliss, one might add.

I have seen a reference to an intention to start work on the foundation for the new skyscraper at GZ. That work is said to have a start date of next month. If 130 Liberty is still toxic and if GZ is still toxic -- from personal observation, they appear to be treating it as a hazardous site, judging by the workers in hazmat suits that can be seen at GZ in certain places, to this very day -- then, you know what, it mighn't be such a good idea to build the new world's tallest skyscraper on that location, absent a more inquisitive public inquiry.

I don't think those firefighters had to die in August, but, hey, that's just me.

Have you seen the published articles that show how sketchy the details are about the identity of the contracting companies assigned to 130 Liberty Street? Look, I am not making this up. The issue might be important to consider, separate and apart from whether DEW claims offend the sensibilities of some people.

Thanks for considering this information.

Alonzo-ny
December 16th, 2007, 03:24 PM
I respect your opinion. However, i see a weakened structure, softened by fire as a perfectly viable reason for collapse and you cant prove it isnt possible. That being said i can never know. Nor do i want to, the reality that it happened is bad enough, maybe a truth will emerge one day but i prefer to move on with respect.

ramvid01
December 16th, 2007, 04:00 PM
Theres paper on fire on the floor in that pictures. :confused: Besides whats on the floor seems to be mostly concrete/sheetrock/asbestos. Of course it isn't going to be on fire. :rolleyes:

JerryL
December 16th, 2007, 04:53 PM
I respect your opinion. However, i see a weakened structure, softened by fire as a perfectly viable reason for collapse and you cant prove it isnt possible. That being said i can never know. Nor do i want to, the reality that it happened is bad enough, maybe a truth will emerge one day but i prefer to move on with respect.

Hi, alonzo-ny,

I understand the desire to 'move-on' and I know the desire to leave well enough alone represents something like the collective judgment on 9/11 matters as well as the abiding stance of what might be called 'normalcy.'

Because 130 Liberty still presents 'toxicity' issues and because I, personally, have been made aware that toxic cleanup techniques are still being used at GZ to this day, I think it fair to raise the issue of whether posters here, yourself included, are willing to look at the issues presented by 130 Liberty Steet in detail, even if that means having to consider Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) theory despite the unpleasantries associated with doing so?

We really are indebted to lofter1 for posting information that confirms how shrouded in mystery the work done on 130 Liberty Street really is.

And, as I mentioned above, if GZ is toxic and if the toxicity has to do with a process that involves molecular dissociation of materials, is it alright to look the other way and allow the foundation for a 1700ft building to be built, all for the sake of moving on?

I, for one, don't think so.

Here's what lofter1 earlier posted for us:

August 23, 2007

The John Galt Corporation of the Bronx, hired last year for the dangerous and complex job of demolishing the former Deutsche Bank building at 130 Liberty Street, where two firefighters died last Saturday, has apparently never done any work like it. Indeed, Galt does not seem to have done much of anything since it was incorporated in 1983.

Public and private records give no indication of how many employees it has, what its volume of business is or who its clients are. There are almost no accounts of any projects it has undertaken on any scale, apart from 130 Liberty Street. Court records are largely silent. Some leading construction executives in the city say they have never even heard of it.

That may not be as surprising as it seems. John Galt, it appears, is not much more than a corporate entity meant to accommodate the people and companies actually doing the demolition job at the emotionally charged and environmentally hazardous site at the edge of ground zero.

The companies and project managers who have been providing the expertise, the workers and the financing for the job are Regional Scaffolding and Hoisting Company, which is not in business to demolish skyscrapers, and former executives from Safeway Environmental Corporation, a company that was already removed from one contract at 130 Liberty because of concerns about its integrity.

Using a separate corporation to insulate the assets of a parent company from the enormous potential liabilities of demolition work is not itself unusual. And challenging construction projects in the city often have several companies come together in a joint effort.

The arrangement involving Galt - achieved after multiple companies that had bid on the Deutsche Bank contract were eliminated for one reason or another - is nonetheless odd for such a momentous job, one that is expected ultimately to cost roughly $150 million.

The arrangement, never fully publicly disclosed, was proposed by the general contractor charged with overseeing the demolition, Bovis Lend Lease, and approved by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, which owns 130 Liberty Street.

Yesterday, Bovis announced that it had declared Galt in default on the bank building contract, saying the outfit Bovis had selected had failed "to live up to terms of its contract with respect to site supervision, maintenance and project safety." One person who has spoken to Bovis executives, but who was not authorized to speak for the company, said it was likely that Galt would be formally fired within the week.

When officials at the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation approved Galt's participation, they even allowed two former senior Safeway executives to join the operation at the Deutsche Bank building on several conditions, including that they cooperate with an investigation being conducted by the city's Department of Investigation.

In the 17 months since Galt took shape - and as problems mounted at the demolition site, including repeated safety violations - city and state officials have made announcements about the work and problems at 130 Liberty referring to John Galt as if it were a fully established corporation, and never mentioning by name the more controversial and less than perfectly qualified people and companies doing the work.

(John Galt, by the way, is a central character, an engineer, in Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged." The book begins with this line: "Who is John Galt?")

It might be a good idea to think carefully about DEW and its relationship both to 130 Liberty and to the building of the new foundation at GZ.

JerryL
December 16th, 2007, 05:00 PM
Theres paper on fire on the floor in that pictures. :confused: Besides whats on the floor seems to be mostly concrete/sheetrock/asbestos. Of course it isn't going to be on fire. :rolleyes:

ramvid,

As you've raised a counterpoint, so to speak, I will assume that it's fair to reply to you, even though as a newcomer, I know I need to be sensitive to group norms. I will acknowledge, right here, and right now, that I know there are some who do not wish to have 9/11 issues raised, especially those that they can label as involving conspiracy. That word, by the way, has more than 4 letters, but it can certainly be as demeaning a put down as any word there is for those who question 9/11.

That word really stings us because it just about assures that whatever we say will not be taken seriously.

If I say that iron and steel burned when paper didn't, people will look at me as though I had two freakin' heads.

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image175.jpg

arcman210
December 16th, 2007, 05:54 PM
Thanks for the humor, I enjoyed that :)

However, this is more like what I was talking about:

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEWcon/DEWconpics/060322_spacecom_ABL_bcol.jpg



No, thank you for the humor.


I think I went on that ride you have in the picture when I went to Disney World last year.


Back to 130 Liberty... wanted to ask if anyone has an idea of if the delay of this building (130 Liberty) coming down has an effect on the construction of the remainder of the site... I remember reading somewhere that it wont, but since the whole project is tied together with the bus entrance etc I would think that there would be some sort of delays

JerryL
December 16th, 2007, 06:52 PM
So after all the new / repeated questions what do you come up with about who really had the box cutters on the planes? Were the passengers / crew members on the phones lying about that?

lofter,

I'm very impressed with your postings over on the 130 Liberty thread for the reason that you've uncovered interesting information about many of the anamolies at that location, including the unusual dismantlng procedures, the vagueness about who the real contracting parties are and the unusual fires occurring there, among other items of interest.

I assert that directed energy weapons (DEW) were used to destroy the WTC. In 130 Liberty, it would appear that that building was contaminated by DEW, which, by the way, is a far better explanation than 'mold.' Because the building is still standing, it may be possible to glean additional clues. We'll see.

In any event, I have serious doubts about the efficacy of building a new skyscraper on GZ while the after effects of DEW are still being cleaned up as clearly they are at 130 Liberty, if not a GZ itself.

DEW cause molecular dissociation of materials. If the residual effects have not been fully eradicated, then it might be inappropriate, to put it no more starkly than that, to start construction on the what is supposed to be the world's tallest building, if you get my drift. (No pun intended)

Anyway, back to the point of this post and your seeming disregard for the possibility that no planes whatever hit the WTC.

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/PinocchioStudy/Chopper5NoseOut.jpg

Does the above look like a real jetliner crash to you?

Not to be rhetorical, I'll reply that the above looks like a faked video image to me. Nothing about the events of 9/11 survive any real scrutiny, right down to and including the absurdity that people trained to fly single engine aircraft at a few hundred feet above ground at maybe 100mph going with the wind, could then turn around a widebody jetliner, flying <500mph at 39,000ft from far over the horizon from NYC and then not only fly, but also navigate the planes into the WTC all the while going at over 500mph a mere 800ft above ground?

Pilots who fiy 757/767s do so only after months of training and only after having years of prior experience in smaller jetliners, like, say, 737s. Even then, it takes time and learned skills to fly a widebody jet, let alone to make it do things, like fly at 500mph a mere 800ft off the ground, that only the very best pilots can achieve, if even they can.

Voice simulation is a piece of cake. Hadn't you ought to consider thinking creatively abouyt high tgech weaponry and psy ops in connection with 9/11?

JerryL
December 16th, 2007, 07:09 PM
In briefly reviewing the 5 pages of this thread, it does not appear that the real essence of the 9/11 Truth Movement has come to the fore all that much.

In particular, almost no one seems to have delved into the contention that NO PLANES were involved on 9/11.

I, myself, have already experienced the shunning that comes with the territory of mentioning that directed energy weapons were what caused this:

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image119.jpg

Those of you who actually were present on or after 9/11/01 in NYC have an obligation to think about what you ACTUALLY saw and what you REALLY heard.

For example, if a jetliner traveling at over 400mph (the one) and at the unheard of speed of over 500mph (that low) in the other case, it would have broken the ear drums of anyone in the vicinity and would have been audible throughout Manhattan.

Yet, almost all people who say they think maybe they saw a plane, almost all either did not hear anything or did not hear anything that led them to think a plane, let alone a jetliner at full tilt boogie was right over their head.

If you saw GZ in the immediate aftermath of the destructive phase, then you know as almost no one else does that GZ was nearly pancake flat and you could walk across it at ground level.

Query: Where did the remants of not one but two 110-storey buildings go?

Now look at the above posted photo so that you can have a "seeing is believing" experience.

The buildings instantaneously dissolved into dust. That is what you're looking at; yet, I know full well that people will look at the above picture and say "no, I don't see stell being turned to dust instantaneously and yes, there was a huge mound of debris at ground zero."

Inactuality, the buidlings did dissolve instantaneously in midair and there was no signficant debris pile at GZ.

And, before you even try to go there, the subbasements were intact and were not filled with rubble.

All you have to do is search your own memory bank if you were there.

JerryL
December 16th, 2007, 07:18 PM
http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/3_0a.jpg

JerryL
December 16th, 2007, 07:24 PM
I know it is difficult to accept the contention that the Twin Towers were instantaneously pulverized and turned to dust. And, after the barriers to recognition are overcome in that respect, it is usually necessary to next get people to realize that a quantity of kerosene that might have filled an average sized swimming pool could not possibly have generated enough energy to even heat up steel throughout the WTC towers, let alone pulverize and turn the steel to dust.

I've done this before, so I know how hard it is to come to grips with what you actually saw if you were there.

Alonzo-ny
December 16th, 2007, 07:37 PM
I dont think you are properly addressing the generally understood reason for collapse, and therefore you are not disproving it. In fact I would say its impossible to disprove it. How do you explain the fact that there are hundreds of personal pictures and videos by many individuals. What about the people who saw the event and are 100% sure it was a plane. The videos where you can clearly hear a plane. No peoples eardrums would not be burst from a plane at 800ft. Also explain where this weapon was fired from? How exactly does this weapon work.

JerryL
December 16th, 2007, 07:49 PM
No, thank you for the humor.


I think I went on that ride you have in the picture when I went to Disney World last year.


Back to 130 Liberty... wanted to ask if anyone has an idea of if the delay of this building (130 Liberty) coming down has an effect on the construction of the remainder of the site... I remember reading somewhere that it wont, but since the whole project is tied together with the bus entrance etc I would think that there would be some sort of delays

No, you're still the one with the humor, however, it may be a bit on the deadpan side. If you actually did ride on what was posted above, then you might have ridden it to get to Disney World, but you didn't ride it at Disney World:

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEWcon/DEWconpics/12541.jpg

The cleanup effects from the use of the above pictured gizmo might make it, shall we say, unwise to build at GZ just yet.

I suggest closer investigation of the issues raised.

lofter1
December 16th, 2007, 07:54 PM
JerryL:

Where do you reside?

Where were you on 9/11?

(all humor aside)

For those of us who live in NYC (now and then) --- and experienced the horror show first hand --- it's difficult to take seriously someone from afar who basically says we've all been brainwashed into believing that we saw something that never happened.

If there were no planes, then what happened to the passengers & crews of same? Don't give conjecture, give some proof.

And explain the phone calls to loved ones from passengers & crew. Did those on the ground have simultaneous & identical dreams imagining the nightmare that was playing out before they knew what was going on? What kind of drug is capable of that?

You are clearly a bright guy. But you seem hellbent on tantalizing folks rather than truly enlightening them (us).

If you want to come here and post real information then some might welcome it.

But if you come here without facts -- and instead tell ungrounded stories -- then don't be surprised if folks treat you with no respect what so ever.

Alonzo-ny
December 16th, 2007, 07:55 PM
That image looks much faker than the one you claim to be.

JerryL
December 16th, 2007, 08:28 PM
I dont think you are properly addressing the generally understood reason for collapse, and therefore you are not disproving it. In fact I would say its impossible to disprove it. How do you explain the fact that there are hundreds of personal pictures and videos by many individuals. What about the people who saw the event and are 100% sure it was a plane. The videos where you can clearly hear a plane. No peoples eardrums would not be burst from a plane at 800ft. Also explain where this weapon was fired from? How exactly does this weapon work.

Hi alonzo-ny HRH,

Thank you for engaging in a thoughtful way, the thread benefits, I think, by that kind of exchange process.

You state:

"I dont think you are properly addressing the generally understood reason for collapse, and therefore you are not disproving it."

I assert the Twin Towers did not collapse, but rather, were pulverized on a near instantaneous basis by DEW. I further assert that use of the word collapse, in the face of what was seen to have occurred and what the effects were is a catastrophic failure of reason. However, it is not a failure of emotional response. No one wants to believe the Twin Towers were destroyed by exotic weapons; hence, the suggestion of the word 'collapse' to inaccurately describe pulverization works on an emotional level.

Look, are you familiar with NCSTAR1? That is the 298pg official explanation of what caused the destruction of the Twin Towers, issued by the U.S. Dept of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) back in October, 2005.

I'll assume, for the moment, you are familiar with NCSTAR1 and that it is that report to which your query referred. As you know, then, that report purposely DOES NOT describe what happened during the destructive phase shown in the two photos I posted above.

While you might be familiar with NCSTAR1, others might not be. It can be found here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

Accordingly, and as a matter of actual fact, THERE IS NO EXLANATION of the events of destruction of the Twin Towers. None.

Accordingly, as there is no explanation of what I am referencing, it is not accurate to say, as you have, that I am not disproving it.

You next state:

"How do you explain the fact that there are hundreds of personal pictures and videos by many individuals. What about the people who saw the event and are 100% sure it was a plane."

As a presumed New Yorker, you have access to the personal statements taken from the 500+ first responders who were on the scene on 9/11. These people were police, firefighters and EMTs. As such, they all had good vision and good hearing, generally as conditions of the kind of employment they had; and, they also were trained to be observant and had a duty to see and hear accurately. Fair statement?

Their statements have been compiled and made public by the NYTimes and can be accessed here:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2005/08/12/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC.html

I am frequently surprised that so many people refer to 100s or even 1000s of witnesses and to a seemingly inexhaustable supply of pictures and videos. Of the 500 people who were actually sent to respond to 9/11, it has been determined that of them, only about 20 report 'seeing' a plane; and, as to them, there's little or no agreement as to what they saw.

In fact, among the first responders that I find most convincing are those, and there are several, who actually dispute the presence of a plane, including one who was not only a senior firefighter, but in addition was a, you guessed it, a pilot with 30 years flight experience.

The videos of the event by a large prove the validity of the No Planes claim. However, before delving into that conundrum, I think I've posted enough for starters. It takes awhile to build up to the most challenging 9/11 issues.

After all, 9/11 was a psy op.

ramvid01
December 16th, 2007, 08:33 PM
This 'weapon' seems similar to one that appeared in a popular science magazine a few years back. It talked about a laser that was meant to destroy incoming missles.

But enough about that. Your theory sounds all nice and everything, but you have disproved nothing. How can you say there was no significant amount of debris left at the site? Did you look at two pictures and come to that conclusion. When a building of this size collapses, it is unlikely that it will come down intact in large peices.

And to say that the picture of the smoke cloud is steel obliterating is completely unfounded. Just because you can't see the steel falling doesn't mean its obliterated. Also did you ever think how much sheetrock, concrete, paperwork, and other dust producing products where in those buildings when it came down? That alone is enough to explain that dust cloud (you even posted it in the other thread of dust covered streets with papers).

JerryL
December 16th, 2007, 08:43 PM
JerryL:

Where do you reside?

Where were you on 9/11?

(all humor aside)

For those of us who live in NYC (now and then) --- and experienced the horror show first hand --- it's difficult to take seriously someone from afar who basically says we've all been brainwashed into believing that we saw something that never happened.

If there were no planes, then what happened to the passengers & crews of same? Don't give conjecture, give some proof.

And explain the phone calls to loved ones from passengers & crew. Did those on the ground have simultaneous & identical dreams imagining the nightmare that was playing out before they knew what was going on? What kind of drug is capable of that?

You are clearly a bright guy. But you seem hellbent on tantalizing folks rather than truly enlightening them (us).

If you want to come here and post real information then some might welcome it.

But if you come here without facts -- and instead tell ungrounded stories -- then don't be surprised if folks treat you with no respect what so ever.

lofter,

I've previously expressed gratitude for the information you've compiled on 130 Liberty. In a certain sense, your compilation would clearly seem to indicate that you are a strong candidate for some of the more difficult to deal with aspects of 9/11 truth. I say that because your work on 130 Liberty is pointing in exactly the right direction. You, yourself, are uncovering the incongruities associated with that building. Those incongruities arise out of 9/11 and are an aspect of it.

In all seriousness, lofter, please know that if DEW were used, then it may not be safe, yet, to build a new skyscraper on GZ. Go there. Go to Liberty Street. Pay close attention to Gate 3c. It is shrouded in secrecy and hazmat procedures are still being used there. You know that fuming that looked like smoke, but wasn't? See this lofter: It is still taking place to this day.

I have chosen YOU to confide in, lofter.

Alonzo-ny
December 16th, 2007, 08:43 PM
Can you explain why there are hundreds of 'fake' videos of the second crash but only one or two really obscure videos of the first. Seems they would want us to see at least a few clear vids of the first to make it 'undisputable'

My point about the destruction was that you cant prove it wasnt caused by crash damage > weakening of steel > collapse, not whether on not you thought thats what happened, but can you absolutely disprove it?

JerryL
December 16th, 2007, 08:50 PM
This 'weapon' seems similar to one that appeared in a popular science magazine a few years back. It talked about a laser that was meant to destroy incoming missles.

But enough about that. Your theory sounds all nice and everything, but you have disproved nothing. How can you say there was no significant amount of debris left at the site? Did you look at two pictures and come to that conclusion. When a building of this size collapses, it is unlikely that it will come down intact in large peices.

And to say that the picture of the smoke cloud is steel obliterating is completely unfounded. Just because you can't see the steel falling doesn't mean its obliterated. Also did you ever think how much sheetrock, concrete, paperwork, and other dust producing products where in those buildings when it came down? That alone is enough to explain that dust cloud (you even posted it in the other thread of dust covered streets with papers).

There is far too much volume of material, of steel, shown here:

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/1di7_TwinTowers.jpg


For it to have been reduced to this, absent pulverization and being turned from steel to dust, instantaneously:

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image128.jpg

JerryL
December 16th, 2007, 08:54 PM
Can you explain why there are hundreds of 'fake' videos of the second crash but only one or two really obscure videos of the first. Seems they would want us to see at least a few clear vids of the first to make it 'undisputable'

My point about the destruction was that you cant prove it wasnt caused by crash damage > weakening of steel > collapse, not whether on not you thought thats what happened, but can you absolutely disprove it?

By my count, there are fewer than 30 videos, not counting excerpts found, say, on youtube.

Several 9/11 websites have done a good job in comparing and contrasting and showing why fakery is involved in most of the videos. I suggest that the most interesting fake video is probably that which can be found by googling "Evan Fairbanks."

It is interesting that his actual, first statement about what he actually witnessed was that it "was like a bad special effect." He also described the event as being "whisper quiet."

The odd thing here is that when confronted with the actual truth, uttered the day of the event, we still don't believe it.

Alonzo-ny
December 16th, 2007, 08:59 PM
Can you explain why there are

30


'fake' videos of the second crash but only one or two really obscure videos of the first. Seems they would want us to see at least a few clear vids of the first to make it 'undisputable'

My point about the destruction was that you cant prove it wasnt caused by crash damage > weakening of steel > collapse, not whether on not you thought thats what happened, but can you absolutely disprove it?

You didnt answer.

JerryL
December 16th, 2007, 09:00 PM
That image looks much faker than the one you claim to be.




The Airborne Laser team in Wichita fully integrated the Lockheed Martin-designed beam control/fire control system inside the ABL aircraft, a modified Boeing 747-400F. Two solid-state illuminator lasers, which are part of the beam control device, and a surrogate high-energy laser were installed and fired repeatedly at a simulated ballistic missile target. The track illuminator laser is designed to track a target, while the beacon illuminator laser is intended to measure atmospheric turbulence that the high-energy chemical laser would encounter in its path to the target. During the ground tests, results from the illuminator firings were fed back to ABL, allowing the surrogate high-energy laser to shoot down a simulated target. The program achieved most of the objectives of the ground tests and expects to satisfy the remaining ones in the coming months.
http://www.boeing.com/ids/news/2006/q4/061027d_nr.html

arcman210
December 16th, 2007, 09:02 PM
In particular, almost no one seems to have delved into the contention that NO PLANES were involved on 9/11.
A close friend of mine has a prominent job at Newark Airport and worked there on 9/11/01. He came home the next morning and told my family and I the story of how they reacted when they found out about the whole incident and how they felt about one of the planes being lost from their airport.

Or maybe some government agency zapped him with one of those Men In Black memory erasers and made him think something else happened.


For example, if a jetliner traveling at over 400mph (the one) and at the unheard of speed of over 500mph (that low) in the other case, it would have broken the ear drums of anyone in the vicinity and would have been audible throughout Manhattan.

The planes were still 1000 feet off the ground.

The reason the "unheard of speed of 500mph" doesnt happen that close to the ground is because no pilot who isnt on a death mission would fly that fast at that speed.

Your statements have no scientific evidence or proof. They are all assumptions made on your own poor judgement.


Yet, almost all people who say they think maybe they saw a plane, almost all either did not hear anything or did not hear anything that led them to think a plane, let alone a jetliner at full tilt boogie was right over their head.

Who in the hell told you this?


If you saw GZ in the immediate aftermath of the destructive phase, then you know as almost no one else does that GZ was nearly pancake flat and you could walk across it at ground level.

Query: Where did the remants of not one but two 110-storey buildings go?
The site is 16 acres. The basements of the towers are 7 storeys deep. The pile wasnt pancake flat, it protruded 8 storeys off the ground. Thats 15 storeys of debris if you cant add those two numbers... plus the fact that it was spread out over nearly 20 acres.



The buildings instantaneously dissolved into dust. That is what you're looking at; yet, I know full well that people will look at the above picture and say "no, I don't see stell being turned to dust instantaneously and yes, there was a huge mound of debris at ground zero."

Inactuality, the buidlings did dissolve instantaneously in midair and there was no signficant debris pile at GZ.

No you are 100% wrong. The drywall, masonry, wood, and other items were pulverized into dust because of the massive forces exerted by the weight of the collapsing towers along with the air pressure exerted by the forces associated with those collapsing towers. The majority of the steel remained, which is what was left on the bottom.

The reason there were papers all over the places is because they were shot out of the building because of the massive air pressure that ran through the towers as the floors above were compressed into nothing. The dust is all the other pulverised materials. And dust doesnt burn, which is why none of those papers in the pictures you attempt to use as evidence were not on fire. Its the same concept as throwing sand or dust on a fire, or lighting a bon fire on a beach.


And, before you even try to go there, the subbasements were intact and were not filled with rubble.

The basements were only intact in the areas all the way to the east of the site... the area where the towers did not sit... the area where the surviving portions of the lowrise buildings sat. The basements under the towers were pulverized.



Stop trying to fabricate evidence... and take a physics or engineering class.

JerryL
December 16th, 2007, 09:10 PM
30



You didnt answer.

Wait a second. Let's restate assumptions.

Must I answer each and every question you pose; if so, why?

In responding to a given post, I, like most posters, tend to pick out the part that seems worthy of advancing the discussion in some way or another.

A second untested assumption that you appear to incorporate is both stated and inferred. It goes something like this:

The validity of what I post depends on my being able to answer all of your questions to your satisfaction.

I doubt I can do that.

For instance, although I answered your question about causation by confirming there is no official explanation; it is to be noted that you posed the question so as to mandate "proof of a negative."

That is a trick. It is generally understood and accepted that negatives cannot be proven for the precise lingquistic reason that something that is not cannot be disproven.

I think you know this. In repeating your request that I answer all your questions, even your negatively phrased ones, it seemed appropriate to restate the apparent assumptions.

I am posting up proof of concepts here as they pertain to 9/11. In so doing, I know that the information here posted will not be readily accepted. However, that reticence is not an excuse for never ending demands for "more proof" and demands for proof of things that cannot be proven.

I have satisfied reasonable burdens of showing the information I am relying on.

For that matter, posters have not commented very much on the actual information I have posted. For instance, I am being asked for more proof, while no one has yet mentioned the fact that I am actually sourcing actual witness statements who cast doubt on the widely held view that there were 100s or 1000s of eyewitnesses, when, in fact, that is not true; and, among the witnesses, what they actually said is more consistent with no planes being there than with any other claim.

I would ask that you kindly refrain from improperly shifting the burden of proof.

Thanks in advance

arcman210
December 16th, 2007, 09:14 PM
http://www.boeing.com/ids/news/2006/q4/061027d_nr.html
The above article which you used as a source in the other thread, is from 5 years after 9/11. It wasnt tested until 2005.

How could the item be used in 2001 if it wasnt even tested until 2005?

arcman210
December 16th, 2007, 09:20 PM
Must I answer each and every question you pose; if so, why?

In responding to a given post, I, like most posters, tend to pick out the part that seems worthy of advancing the discussion in some way or another.


In order to prove your point and present your evidence you must have an answer to all questions that pertain to what you are trying to prove. If you dont have an answer, or proof, your theory is just that... a theory.

In order to prove your theory, you need to have evidence. Case closed.


You hate your country, you hate your life, or you just have the wrong set of mind and think that everyone is out to get you. I dont know what it is, but you obviously have nothing better to do. You offend me and a number of others, and you contribute no progress to society. Its not a sci fi movie nor is it a matter that you have any logical reasoning to be debating. Get over it and take your theories to youtube where uneducated rebellious middle school aged teens can waste their time and believe everything you say without understanding what the force of gravity even is.

JerryL
December 16th, 2007, 09:22 PM
A close friend of mine has a prominent job at Newark Airport and worked there on 9/11/01. He came home the next morning and told my family and I the story of how they reacted when they found out about the whole incident and how they felt about one of the planes being lost from their airport.

Or maybe some government agency zapped him with one of those Men In Black memory erasers and made him think something else happened.



The planes were still 1000 feet off the ground.

The reason the "unheard of speed of 500mph" doesnt happen that close to the ground is because no pilot who isnt on a death mission would fly that fast at that speed.

Your statements have no scientific evidence or proof. They are all assumptions made on your own poor judgement.



Who in the hell told you this?


The site is 16 acres. The basements of the towers are 7 storeys deep. The pile wasnt pancake flat, it protruded 8 storeys off the ground. Thats 15 storeys of debris if you cant add those two numbers... plus the fact that it was spread out over nearly 20 acres.




No you are 100% wrong. The drywall, masonry, wood, and other items were pulverized into dust because of the massive forces exerted by the weight of the collapsing towers along with the air pressure exerted by the forces associated with those collapsing towers. The majority of the steel remained, which is what was left on the bottom.

The reason there were papers all over the places is because they were shot out of the building because of the massive air pressure that ran through the towers as the floors above were compressed into nothing. The dust is all the other pulverised materials. And dust doesnt burn, which is why none of those papers in the pictures you attempt to use as evidence were not on fire. Its the same concept as throwing sand or dust on a fire, or lighting a bon fire on a beach.



The basements were only intact in the areas all the way to the east of the site... the area where the towers did not sit... the area where the surviving portions of the lowrise buildings sat. The basements under the towers were pulverized.



Stop trying to fabricate evidence... and take a physics or engineering class.

Let me double check for accuracy of understanding: Are you offended by what I posted?

If so, I am sorry. I have not posted what I've posted in order to cause offense, anquish, upset or turmoil. I have done so because I think the rules of reason and or ordinary human thought processing support the contentions I am making. It is that and is only that.

I was not in either NYC, at or near the Pentagon and/or at or near any other location where any aspect of 9/11 took place. And, as to those who were, no one believes them anyway. Instead, most of us believe what what we saw on teevee.

Now for your post:

You state:

"A close friend of mine has a prominent job at Newark Airport and worked there on 9/11/01"

Ask him what he actually saw and did and whether he knows, with any degree of certainty, whether Flight 175 actually took off that morning from Newark and, if so, who worked that flight?

Ask him whether any of the several war game activities that were taking place that morning had any impact on the ATC system at Newark?

Ask him if, to his knowledge, a 767 aircraft can actually attain the same speed at less than 1000ft as it can at 39000ft; or, whether, in fact, the lesser air density at high altitude is akin to trying to run as fast on a track as you can in, say, three feet of water?

Ask him if he's ever seen an actual flight manifest for FL 175 and/or has seen the NTSB flight path?

If he has seen the flight path, ask him to explain how a 767 could attain supersonic speed as shown on the NTSB report?

I doubt if I will ever post enough proof for some. Are you one such?

JerryL
December 16th, 2007, 09:27 PM
http://www.boeing.com/ids/news/2006/q4/061027d_nr.html
The above article which you used as a source in the other thread, is from 5 years after 9/11. It wasnt tested until 2005.

How could the item be used in 2001 if it wasnt even tested until 2005?

You pose the question with a degree of apparent triumphalism. Why? Surely you are aware that in defense-related contracting, and especially hightech and secretive weapons that what is revealed to the public was, in most instances, kept secret for at least a decade, if not longer.

There are several eyewitness accounts, found among the NYTimes statements that refer to strange aircraft in the sky during the destructive episode on 9/11.

Unfortunately, some of the most specific accounts found among those witness statements are REDACTED.

One wonders why, on earth, civilain witness statements are redacted, but that, of course, is an issue that only 9/11 researchers have an interest in. However, it seemed fitting to mention it here.

Take a look at the statement of Patricia Ondrovic.

arcman210
December 16th, 2007, 09:33 PM
Now for your post:

You state:

"A close friend of mine has a prominent job at Newark Airport and worked there on 9/11/01"

Ask him what he actually saw and did and whether he knows, with any degree of certainty, whether Flight 175 actually took off that morning from Newark and, if so, who worked that flight?

Ask him whether any of the several war game activities that were taking place that morning had any impact on the ATC system at Newark?

Ask him if, to his knowledge, a 767 aircraft can actually attain the same speed at less than 1000ft as it can at 39000ft; or, whether, in fact, the lesser air density at high altitude is akin to trying to run as fast on a track as you can in, say, three feet of water?

Ask him if he's ever seen an actual flight manifest for FL 175 and/or has seen the NTSB flight path?

If he has seen the flight path, ask him to explain how a 767 could attain supersonic speed as shown on the NTSB report?

I doubt if I will ever post enough proof for some. Are you one such?

It was flight 93 first of all. You obviously havent spent much time researching the subject at all.

Yes, flight 93 took off from Newark that morning. It carried real passengers and real crew who have real family and who lived in neighboring towns and cities close to where I and a number of people in this forum live. Take it from people who have ties to family and friends with relatives and loved ones who lost their lives.

My friend doesnt work in flight control. He works in a security-related area of the airport, and thats all I can elaborate on it.

I can tell you how a plane can travel at 500 mph at 1000 feet instead of 39000 feet... because it can travel at 500 mph period. The reason planes dont fly at that speed at low altitudes is because of the risk of losing control of the plane and crashing into the ground. Pilots who arent on a suicide mission would never attempt this.

When you sit in your house on your computer and watch youtube all day, you are recieving uneducated and unsourced information that you take to be scholarly truth and you are accomplishing nothing. Read a real book or take a science class.

JerryL
December 16th, 2007, 09:33 PM
In order to prove your point and present your evidence you must have an answer to all questions that pertain to what you are trying to prove. If you dont have an answer, or proof, your theory is just that... a theory.

In order to prove your theory, you need to have evidence. Case closed.


You hate your country, you hate your life, or you just have the wrong set of mind and think that everyone is out to get you. I dont know what it is, but you obviously have nothing better to do. You offend me and a number of others, and you contribute no progress to society. Its not a sci fi movie nor is it a matter that you have any logical reasoning to be debating. Get over it and take your theories to youtube where uneducated rebellious middle school aged teens can waste their time and believe everything you say without understanding what the force of gravity even is.

I disagree, in part, with your assertion that "In order to prove your point and present your evidence you must have an answer to all questions that pertain to what you are trying to prove. If you dont have an answer, or proof, your theory is just that... a theory."

The part I disagree with is that I must have an answer to all questions that pertain to what I'm trying to prove.

However, I agree that what I am here asserting is no more than a theory. The fact is, there is no known way to prove dynamic human events. Even if I were present, all I would be able to do is recount what I saw and heard, with the recognition that if 10 of us were present, then we all probably saw and/or heard something differently.

Least persuasive of reality is something shown on freakin' teevee.

The rest of your post seems a bit argumentative to me. Surely you don't think you have a hammer-lock on patriotism or something, do you?

C'mon, I hope you haven't stooped to that level, have you?

Mightn't I remind you that as per Samuel Johnson (1700s or 1600s) "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

Take heed

arcman210
December 16th, 2007, 09:37 PM
Surely you are aware that in defense-related contracting, and especially hightech and secretive weapons that what is revealed to the public was, in most instances, kept secret for at least a decade, if not longer.

If its so secretive, how do you know for sure? You have no evidence that this is happening 10 years ago, therefore it is a theory.



There are several eyewitness accounts, found among the NYTimes statements that refer to strange aircraft in the sky during the destructive episode on 9/11.

Show me those statements.
And leave out the news choppers filming the events, and fighter jets that were protecting the skies later that day.

arcman210
December 16th, 2007, 09:43 PM
The part I disagree with is that I must have an answer to all questions that pertain to what I'm trying to prove.

Then you have obviously never taken a science class, therefore you have no logistical reason to be challenging the laws of physics with sci fi theories.


Least persuasive of reality is something shown on freakin' teevee.

You are believing theories that are shown in videos on youtube, or on websites created by people with goals, the goals to turn people against their goverment or country for no good reason.


The rest of your post seems a bit argumentative to me. Surely you don't think you have a hammer-lock on patriotism or something, do you?

Proves that you obviously have something against your country.

And no, I'm not an ultra patriot who believes anything my goverment says. I just have a grip on reality and rely on evidence in order to believe something, not just what seems cool or different that what others believe.


C'mon, I hope you haven't stooped to that level, have you?

I'm sad to see you and others at the level you've reached...

JerryL
December 16th, 2007, 09:44 PM
It was flight 93 first of all. You obviously havent spent much time researching the subject at all.

Yes, flight 93 took off from Newark that morning. It carried real passengers and real crew who have real family and who lived in neighboring towns and cities close to where I and a number of people in this forum live. Take it from people who have ties to family and friends with relatives and loved ones who lost their lives.

My friend doesnt work in flight control. He works in a security-related area of the airport, and thats all I can elaborate on it.

I can tell you how a plane can travel at 500 mph at 1000 feet instead of 39000 feet... because it can travel at 500 mph period. The reason planes dont fly at that speed at low altitudes is because of the risk of losing control of the plane and crashing into the ground. Pilots who arent on a suicide mission would never attempt this.

When you sit in your house on your computer and watch youtube all day, you are recieving uneducated and unsourced information that you take to be scholarly truth and you are accomplishing nothing. Read a real book or take a science class.

The supposed crash site for Fl93 did not look like a jetliner crash site. Here, for instance, is a piece of evidence released through the Moussaoui trial, where, as you know, the trial judge, Judge Brinkema, now claims the government lied:

http://internetdetectives.biz/images/case1/flight93piece3.jpg


Now, I will concede something that I think needs to be conceded. The most convincing aspect of 9/11 is the number of people, you included, who know people who died and who flat refuse to consider that they died in any manner other than having been on zee planes that the

19Arabswithboxcuttershijackedandcrashed.

Lest you try to claim that I am not sympathetic, don't even go there. It is true that people died.

I, myself, do not know anyone who died on zee planes I met a few widows on one occasion, however, I was clear enough to recognize that a person who's spouse died is not, in and of itself, proof of a jetliner crash, let alone a hijacking.

But why quibble about details. Hear this:

The strongest piece of emotional evidence that cannot be adequately addresed by anyone who questions 9/11 is the query:

What about the passengers?

That one is a show-stopper and I can't do anything with it or about it.

If posing that question is enough for you to conclude that you do not ever have to taken anyone who questions 9/11 seriously, then you are free to do just that as far as I am concerned.

You win, I lose, end of story,

bye bye

arcman210
December 16th, 2007, 09:58 PM
The strongest piece of emotional evidence that cannot be adequately addresed by anyone who questions 9/11 is the query:

What about the passengers?

That one is a show-stopper and I can't do anything with it or about it.

Then stop trying to get your ficticious point across, because when you make stupid ideas and theories about something you dont know about, that proves you have no clue what you are talking about and you dont care about people who happened to lose family and friends in the attacks. Luckily my family was not harmed but my friend lost two loved ones, and my neighbors and commuities were deeply effected by this. I cant take it when people like you come in here and try to pile your bullshit on top of all of us for no good reason but to make yourself feel like you are causing a revolution. Take your garbage somewhere where you can find some unintelligable people like yourself to believe it.

JerryL
December 16th, 2007, 10:15 PM
Then you have obviously never taken a science class, therefore you have no logistical reason to be challenging the laws of physics with sci fi theories.



You are believing theories that are shown in videos on youtube, or on websites created by people with goals, the goals to turn people against their goverment or country for no good reason.



Proves that you obviously have something against your country.

And no, I'm not an ultra patriot who believes anything my goverment says. I just have a grip on reality and rely on evidence in order to believe something, not just what seems cool or different that what others believe.



I'm sad to see you and others at the level you've reached...

The standard 9/11 conspiracy theory plainly violates both reason and the laws of physics.

As to reason, it does not stand to reason that persons with no flight experience beyond a few documented lessons in flying Piper Cub type aircraft could successfully, and simultaneously, commandeer widebody 767/757 jetliners and fly them from beyond the horizon to any particular target, let alone NYC and Wash DC.

Those who abandon reason in that respect sometimes assert that religious zeal and'or suicidal ideation are a substitute for skill. Normally, reason would operate to indicate that zeal and insanity are obstacles to being able pilot a widebody jetliner; all, that is, except for 9/11.

You appear to disagree with me about the speed the jetliners are capable of at low atlitude, even without taking into consideration that there were no audible signs a jetliner was flying that low that fast in NYC and no jet blast damage either.

Do you know why they have concrete barriers at airports when jets rev up?

Not one video showed any realistic jet blast that should have been visible and should have had an impact on many people.

Yet, the actual eyewitnesses report, at most, that maybe, out of their peripheral vision, maybe, just maybe they saw a plane (after having seen one on teevee, for the most part).

Reality is what it is. I am not making my claims up; rather, I have posted the source.

In addition, I know that hollow aluminum tubes cannot readily pentrate solid structural steel without so much as clipping even a piece of a wing or a tail fin or even a rudder.

The first fire chief, Chief Cassano, on scene at the North Tower specifically said he saw no plane debris.

What basis do you assert for doubting the first fire chief on the scene?

Instead, speaking of the laws of physics, the official myth would actually have us believe the scientific value of the Roadrunner Cartoon where the Roadrunner runs through the Acme building, leaving his imprint.

Earth to arcman: No, that is not reality. Instead, reality is like that which Wylie Coyote experienced when he tried to run through the Acme building.

You know, I have one of them "whatabout" claims, too.

It is this:

What about WTC 7?

It wasn't hit by a jetliner, yet it, too, self-destructed in <7 seconds on 9/11 for no apparent reason.

There are no satisfactory explanations of that event and none have been given.

ZippyTheChimp
December 16th, 2007, 10:31 PM
As many people on this site know, I have lived in Battery Park City for many years, and was in the neighborhood on the morning of 09/11/2001. I had the day off from work, and was deciding whether to vote in the primary that morning, or later in the day.

I did not see the first plane hit, but heard it, and assuming it was an accident, watched from the Bike path on West St (the area between Rector and West Thames). I was looking directly at the WTC when I SAW the 2nd plane hit 2WTC.

I won't debate this point with you.

However, I'd like you to provide documentation as to the decibel and pressure level that would have rendered me deaf.

ramvid01
December 16th, 2007, 10:40 PM
The first fire chief, Chief Cassano, on scene at the North Tower specifically said he saw no plane debris.

What basis do you assert for doubting the first fire chief on the scene?



Yes because the First Fire Chief deals with a plane hitting a 110 Floor Building on a fairly frequent basis. :rolleyes:

Your being completely irrational and really out of all the conspiracy theories, this has to be the most pathetic. I actually thought the missle conspiracy theory was better thought out, this though is a joke.

How can you base anything on witnesses or for that matter fire chiefs. A) How frequently does this happen B) if I am either an eye witness or a fire chief I would be scared for my life and C) why do you think there is a statute of limitation for most things to bring suit in court? To keep eyewitnesses relevant, because to begin with, eyewitnesses don't actually remember what they see, they are not a great form of evidence. Go read some sociology journals/law journals if you don't believe me.

And hey, if you were there, what would you really care about more A) care about what hit the building or B) whats happening to the poor people trapped or possibly your livelyhood?

lofter1
December 16th, 2007, 11:38 PM
JerryL.:

You would do yourself a big service if you were to summarize your theory and present it in a clear
and concise manner (I find that numbers or bullets are a great help when outlining an argument.

Also you have not answered my simple inquiry regarding your whereabouts today and on 9/11.
I'd like to be neighborly, cut you a break and not make the assumption that you were being rude by not responding.
However, given the round-about answers that you have been giving to other forumers this eveing I am quickly coming
to the conclusion that you are not here to engage in a dialog, but rather have come here to spew and foam and fume.

None of which is very neighborly or friendly of you.

So ... I'll give you yet another opportunity to tell us:

Where do you reside?

And where were you were on the morning of 9.11.2001?




lofter,

I've previously expressed gratitude for the information you've compiled on 130 Liberty.


Earth to JerryL.:

The information that I "compiled" was a simple "cut & paste" job from a NY TIMES online article (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=184056&postcount=614).

(I'm kinda well known around here for my prolific cutting & pasting :o .)

The John Galt Company is most likely peopled by a bunch of crooks -- rather than
a "psy-ops" gang from Omaha.

I'm as skeptical as they come -- but not so much so that I throw logic out the door.




I have chosen YOU to confide in, lofter.


Uh-oh ... now that ^ REALLY scares me.

First, you're not confiding in me, JerryL. :cool:

I'm sure you know that this is an open forum and lots of folks are reading
every word we share.

Nothing confidential about it.

If, on the other hand, my phone were to ring in the next 5 minutes and you said, "Hello, _______"
(and I heard you speaking my real name :eek: ), then I'd have to acknowledge that you have some
extraordinary powers and access to very inside information (I give my phone number to NO one :cool: ).

Finally, I have perused the website for Dr. Judy Wood (http://drjudywood.co.uk/) (where some of the images that
you have posted here are taken from). The image I have posted below (with her caption)
is enough to tell me that Dr. Judy really does not know what she's talking about.

Most New Yorkers will understand my skepticism when they look at the picture and read the caption ...

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image313.jpg (http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image313.jpg)Figure
313. Most of WTC3 disappeared during the destruction of WTC1.
The pedestrian walkway over the West Side Highway was connected to
something that is no longer there. The remains of WTC2 can be seen
near the center of the photo and the remains of WTC1 are partly
visible in the lower right corner.
(9/27/01)Source (http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4228.jpg)

arcman210
December 16th, 2007, 11:44 PM
You appear to disagree with me about the speed the jetliners are capable of at low atlitude, even without taking into consideration that there were no audible signs a jetliner was flying that low that fast in NYC and no jet blast damage either.


I know I keep citing sources of people I know, but I happen to know people who saw and experienced it first hand. A long time friend of the family, working as an iron worker on the (at the time) under-construction Goldman Sachs tower across the Hudson in Jersey City, missed seeing the first plane himself but heard it and the explosion. The second plane was clearly visible to him and his coworkers, who assumed it was a fire-fighting plane coming to dump water or sand on the other tower. When they realized it was too low and heard it accelerate more, they braced for the worst and watched in horror...



In addition, I know that hollow aluminum tubes cannot readily pentrate solid structural steel without so much as clipping even a piece of a wing or a tail fin or even a rudder.

You dont know anything. You make assumptions. The tower was hollow inside its walls too.


The first fire chief, Chief Cassano, on scene at the North Tower specifically said he saw no plane debris.

What basis do you assert for doubting the first fire chief on the scene?

He wasnt looking for that. He was looking to save people.
The plane didnt crash into the ground, it crashed 1000 feet up. Any plane parts that survived the massive explosion shot through the building and landed blocks and blocks away.


You know, I have one of them "whatabout" claims, too.

It is this:

What about WTC 7?

It wasn't hit by a jetliner, yet it, too, self-destructed in <7 seconds on 9/11 for no apparent reason.

There are no satisfactory explanations of that event and none have been given.

Debris. Fuel stored in the building. The fact that it was built partially on top on an electrical substation. The fact that the building burned for hours and was unattended to because of the safety of the area being compromised and the fear of buildings collapsing.

Do your research, and I dont mean youtube or conspiracy sites. Read the real information, study scholarly articles and documented evidence.


Myself along with the rest of this group keep proving all of your "theories" wrong and you have no rebuttle for them, you then shift your focus and claim that you dont need evidence. Give it up already.

lofter1
December 16th, 2007, 11:58 PM
JerryL.:

If what you write here isn't a sign of mental melt down (with my notes inserted), then henceforth you can call me Aunt Jemima ...




Now, I will concede something that I think needs to be conceded. The most convincing aspect of 9/11 is the number of people, you included, who know people who died and who flat refuse to consider that they died in any manner other than having been on zee planes [ WTF?!? ] that the

19Arabswithboxcuttershijackedandcrashed. [ Again: WTF?!? ]

Lest you try to claim that I am not sympathetic, don't even go there. It is true that people died.

I, myself, do not know anyone who died on zee planes [ Once more: WTF??? ] I met a few widows on one occasion, however, I was clear enough [ are you sure ? ] to recognize that a person who's [sp: whose ;) ] spouse died is not, in and of itself, proof of a jetliner crash, let alone a hijacking.

But why quibble about details [ oh, yeah, those damned details can be soooo troublesome :cool: ] . Hear this:

The strongest piece of emotional evidence that cannot be adequately addresed by anyone who questions 9/11 is the query:

What about the passengers?

That one is a show-stopper and I can't do anything with it or about it [ Except perhaps to acknowledge that there were passengers on planes that did really crash into the WTC that September morning. But that would ruin all your fun, eh? ] .

If posing that question is enough for you to conclude that you do not ever have to taken anyone [ your poor grammar here renders this "sentence" to be practically indecipherable ] who questions 9/11 seriously, then you are free to do just that as far as I am concerned.

You win, I lose [ couldn't have said it better myself ], end of story,

bye bye

If the final comment ^ means you shall not return, then the best of luck to you -- and don't let the door hit you on your way out ...

:cool:

ZippyTheChimp
December 17th, 2007, 12:50 AM
The standard 9/11 conspiracy theory plainly violates both reason and the laws of physics.My laugh-out-loud moment of the day.

Now I have hiccups, and won't be able to sleep.

212
December 17th, 2007, 01:04 AM
^ The super-duper death ray also causes hiccups. It's a common side effect!

lofter1
December 17th, 2007, 01:17 AM
Do the DEW!

(cures everything)

ZippyTheChimp
December 17th, 2007, 01:38 AM
This isn't right. It's not even wrong.Wolfgang Pauli__physicist

JerryL
December 17th, 2007, 06:21 AM
As many people on this site know, I have lived in Battery Park City for many years, and was in the neighborhood on the morning of 09/11/2001. I had the day off from work, and was deciding whether to vote in the primary that morning, or later in the day.

I did not see the first plane hit, but heard it, and assuming it was an accident, watched from the Bike path on West St (the area between Rector and West Thames). I was looking directly at the WTC when I SAW the 2nd plane hit 2WTC.

I won't debate this point with you.

However, I'd like you to provide documentation as to the decibel and pressure level that would have rendered me deaf.

Greetings zippy,

As I am new to the forum, I was not aware of your eyewitness account. I am very pleased to be in communication with you.

Can you please describe the sound you heard, using for instance descriptive words and time intervals, for the North Tower episode? I apologize if you have done this in other posts as I haven't seen them.

Using google and the words "decibel 160 ear drum jetliner" you'll soon discover that at the 160 level, your ear drums would burst. Rock concerts reach 140 db and can do damage. Jetliners are limited to 250mph in speed at altitudes below 10.000ft so as to comply with noise pollution regulations. At 540mph at 800ft above ones head, the experience of a jetliner would be at least equal to a Rock concert, perhaps reaching the ear drum bursting stage.

Certainly, one of the key factors I have relied on in furtherance of No Plane theory, and that is all it is, theory, is that almost no one reports hearing sounds that are consistent with a jetliner that fast that low.

Some theorists support a hologram theory where the imagery of a jetliner might have been devised. Some eyewitnesses report seeing a gray or blurry image of a jetliner. Others report seeing no windows and no markings. Still others report seeing the plane fly upside down.

These reports are all deemed to be consistent with possible cloaking devices that are known aspects of military high tech.

Let me quickly add that the witness reports are documented, military cloaking devices are documented. But I do not know if that is what happened on 9/11.

Finally, I must respectfully decline to take on the specific task of research as you've requested. I think such requests are unfair. If you have concerns ab out what you heard on 9/11, I think it is incumbent upon you to research that yourself.

Chances are, you'll be more convinced if you do that yourself.

I am not being coy here. I know from experience that if I do the research and the party requesting it is skeptical to begin with, then there is very little likelihood that I will ever satisfy the research requirements of that requester. Instead, one fulfilled research request will merely beget another and another after that ad infinitum world without end, amen. No thanks.

JerryL
December 17th, 2007, 06:27 AM
Yes because the First Fire Chief deals with a plane hitting a 110 Floor Building on a fairly frequent basis. :rolleyes:

Your being completely irrational and really out of all the conspiracy theories, this has to be the most pathetic. I actually thought the missle conspiracy theory was better thought out, this though is a joke.

How can you base anything on witnesses or for that matter fire chiefs. A) How frequently does this happen B) if I am either an eye witness or a fire chief I would be scared for my life and C) why do you think there is a statute of limitation for most things to bring suit in court? To keep eyewitnesses relevant, because to begin with, eyewitnesses don't actually remember what they see, they are not a great form of evidence. Go read some sociology journals/law journals if you don't believe me.

And hey, if you were there, what would you really care about more A) care about what hit the building or B) whats happening to the poor people trapped or possibly your livelyhood?

I think one problem you may encounter is this: If witnesses cannot be believed or accredited, what is your basis for accepting the accuracy of the standard model conspiracy theory?

From whence cometh your sense of reality?

Merely expressing doubt and casting aspersions is not generally thought of as being true indicators of reality.

I note, too, that your posts are decidedly thin on actual evidence and/or information. Merely siding with the official governmental conspiracy theory, without rationale or reason is, in my view, functionally equivalent to a cheap shot.

JerryL
December 17th, 2007, 06:38 AM
JerryL.:

You would do yourself a big service if you were to summarize your theory and present it in a clear
and concise manner (I find that numbers or bullets are a great help when outlining an argument.

Also you have not answered my simple inquiry regarding your whereabouts today and on 9/11.
I'd like to be neighborly, cut you a break and not make the assumption that you were being rude by not responding.
However, given the round-about answers that you have been giving to other forumers this eveing I am quickly coming
to the conclusion that you are not here to engage in a dialog, but rather have come here to spew and foam and fume.

None of which is very neighborly or friendly of you.

So ... I'll give you yet another opportunity to tell us:

Where do you reside?

And where were you were on the morning of 9.11.2001?



Earth to JerryL.:

The information that I "compiled" was a simple "cut & paste" job from a NY TIMES online article (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=184056&postcount=614).

(I'm kinda well known around here for my prolific cutting & pasting :o .)

The John Galt Company is most likely peopled by a bunch of crooks -- rather than
a "psy-ops" gang from Omaha.

I'm as skeptical as they come -- but not so much so that I throw logic out the door.



Uh-oh ... now that ^ REALLY scares me.

First, you're not confiding in me, JerryL. :cool:

I'm sure you know that this is an open forum and lots of folks are reading
every word we share.

Nothing confidential about it.

If, on the other hand, my phone were to ring in the next 5 minutes and you said, "Hello, _______"
(and I heard you speaking my real name :eek: ), then I'd have to acknowledge that you have some
extraordinary powers and access to very inside information (I give my phone number to NO one :cool: ).

Finally, I have perused the website for Dr. Judy Wood (http://drjudywood.co.uk/) (where some of the images that
you have posted here are taken from). The image I have posted below (with her caption)
is enough to tell me that Dr. Judy really does not know what she's talking about.

Most New Yorkers will understand my skepticism when they look at the picture and read the caption ...

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image313.jpg (http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image313.jpg)Figure
313. Most of WTC3 disappeared during the destruction of WTC1.
The pedestrian walkway over the West Side Highway was connected to
something that is no longer there. The remains of WTC2 can be seen
near the center of the photo and the remains of WTC1 are partly
visible in the lower right corner.
(9/27/01)Source (http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4228.jpg)

As I look at the above picture and read the caption beneath it, I do not have a skeptical response. Rather, the response I have is that the description given accurately details the conditions seen in the photograph.

lofter, you can judge me as you see fit. However, I do not consider it incumbent in a dialog to answer each and every question posed by each and every poster. Were I to have that expectation, I, myself, would likewise be sorely disappointed as not many of my questions have been answered, either.

Questions are also a form of rhetoric where the information imparted comes in the form of a question. Rhetoric doesn't always need to be answered. You agree?

I was not in NYC on 9/11 but was then still of a mindset to watch teevee. (I don't do that anymore). My first reaction to the near instantaneous destruction of the Twin Towers was that it looked fishy and was improbable, but I did not dwell upon my first thought.

I also thought the jetliner images looked odd, as the shadow thingys never did appear to properly reflect the angle of the sun, etc. Yet again, I did not dwell upon my first observations.

Finally, that osamabeenforgotten was mentioned a mere seconds after the second explosion event struck me as presumptuous; again, I did not dwell. By the next day, the standard version of events was implanted into me as well as it was in most people.

My first visit to GZ after 9/11 was in November of that year. Couldn't see much. I think I was surprised that they were still hosing it down and that it was so flat; but, as before, I did not dwell on my first thoughts.

You're quite right. I wasn't confiding in you in suggesting you go to GZ to observe conditions where hazmat procedures are still in effect, to this day, and evidence of fuming still present, a mere days prior to the commencement of foundation work on a new skyscraper.

Speaking of unanswered queries, it is as if you haven't recognized I'm calling attention to possible present dangers.

I'm surprised that you give such a benign interpretation to the John Galt company issue.

JerryL
December 17th, 2007, 06:54 AM
I know I keep citing sources of people I know, but I happen to know people who saw and experienced it first hand. A long time friend of the family, working as an iron worker on the (at the time) under-construction Goldman Sachs tower across the Hudson in Jersey City, missed seeing the first plane himself but heard it and the explosion. The second plane was clearly visible to him and his coworkers, who assumed it was a fire-fighting plane coming to dump water or sand on the other tower. When they realized it was too low and heard it accelerate more, they braced for the worst and watched in horror...




You dont know anything. You make assumptions. The tower was hollow inside its walls too.



He wasnt looking for that. He was looking to save people.
The plane didnt crash into the ground, it crashed 1000 feet up. Any plane parts that survived the massive explosion shot through the building and landed blocks and blocks away.



Debris. Fuel stored in the building. The fact that it was built partially on top on an electrical substation. The fact that the building burned for hours and was unattended to because of the safety of the area being compromised and the fear of buildings collapsing.

Do your research, and I dont mean youtube or conspiracy sites. Read the real information, study scholarly articles and documented evidence.


Myself along with the rest of this group keep proving all of your "theories" wrong and you have no rebuttle for them, you then shift your focus and claim that you dont need evidence. Give it up already.

arcman

Not one claim of yours is supported by anything other than righteous indignation, and uncritical thinking. Indignation, righteous or otherwise, is not evidence; rather, it is an emotional attachment.

Your own reports from your own sources raise questions. Why didn't your ironworker friend see a plane? What, exactly, did he say he heard? Have you asked him to describe the sound he heard? Most people know what a low, fast jetliner sounds like. Even though the suggestion has been very strongly implanted, some people are still willing to honestly reflect back on what they actually heard. Mind you, most people also know if they express doubt about the presence of a jetliner, they will then be treated like you're treating me.

That fear -- of being ostracized -- is very strong among human beings.

Your vituperation is, then, a disincentive to truth finding. You might still have the capacity to get some useful information from your eyewitness friends and acquaintances, provided you do not stack the deck against them.

Look, you can read Chief Cassano's statement if you like.

It is here:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110011.PDF

Do you consider it to be real information? I do.

At pg. 15 he is asked if he saw any plane debris and he plainly and unequivocally says "No, there was no plane debris at all." He then goes on to describe seeing an explosion, but no plane, with respect to the second explosive episode.

I don't htink you have a right to declare what Cassano was or wasn't looking for. He's the Fire Chief, right?

There is no official version of what caused WTC7 to instantaneously pulverize itself. Why are you pretending otherwise?

We are now more than 6 years from the event and still no WTC 7 explanation. Is that or is that not a fact?

arcman210
December 17th, 2007, 07:32 AM
Not one claim of yours is supported by anything other than righteous indignation, and uncritical thinking. Indignation, righteous or otherwise, is not evidence; rather, it is an emotional attachment.

Not one of your claims makes any logical sense. I'm through arguing with you, its like talking to a brick wall... but less intelligent.



Why didn't your ironworker friend see a plane? What, exactly, did he say he heard? Have you asked him to describe the sound he heard? Most people know what a low, fast jetliner sounds like.

He didn't see it because he wasnt looking at the WTC when the first plane hit, because like every one of us, he wasnt expecting it. He heard the explosion as well as the reactions of a few of his coworkers who saw the plane hit. No, I havent asked him to describe what the sound he heard was because I'm not looking to disprove his honesty nor do I care to know in depth how bad it was to witness the event in person.



I don't htink you have a right to declare what Cassano was or wasn't looking for. He's the Fire Chief, right?

Now you listen, JerryL. I dont think you have any right to challenge what we all know to be a factual account. I am not going to sit here and argue something like this. Get out of this forum and take your garbage elsewhere where you might get people to believe it.

Why on earth would you think I would challenge the accounts of what I saw on television, and what my friends, teachers, coworkers, and people I've known all of my life saw in person. Get a grip.

You are breaching a sensitive subject with me. I am not going to sit here and let you throw your ficticious garbage in front of me, and make you feel like you are convincing anyone that you make any sense.


We are now more than 6 years from the event and still no WTC 7 explanation. Is that or is that not a fact?

Yes there is. Stop relying on uninformed and uneducated sources as to what happened. Get out of your dark disturbed lifestyle and take a look into reality. I'm through arguing with you, I've got more imporant things to do like work.

JerryL
December 17th, 2007, 07:53 AM
Not one of your claims makes any logical sense. I'm through arguing with you, its like talking to a brick wall... but less intelligent.




He didn't see it because he wasnt looking at the WTC when the first plane hit, because like every one of us, he wasnt expecting it. He heard the explosion as well as the reactions of a few of his coworkers who saw the plane hit. No, I havent asked him to describe what the sound he heard was because I'm not looking to disprove his honesty nor do I care to know in depth how bad it was to witness the event in person.




Now you listen, JerryL. I dont think you have any right to challenge what we all know to be a factual account. I am not going to sit here and argue something like this. Get out of this forum and take your garbage elsewhere where you might get people to believe it.

Why on earth would you think I would challenge the accounts of what I saw on television, and what my friends, teachers, coworkers, and people I've known all of my life saw in person. Get a grip.

You are breaching a sensitive subject with me. I am not going to sit here and let you throw your ficticious garbage in front of me, and make you feel like you are convincing anyone that you make any sense.



Yes there is. Stop relying on uninformed and uneducated sources as to what happened. Get out of your dark disturbed lifestyle and take a look into reality. I'm through arguing with you, I've got more imporant things to do like work.

arcman,

It's a good thing I don't rely on you for approval; if I did so, I'd be in as much of a deficit as the US Treasury is.

Again, as to your friend's vantage point, there is the issue of WHAT HE HEARD. I thought I was quite clear in suggesting further query concerning "earwitness" information. My hypothesis, or guess; or, as I feel sure you'll want to say, my wild and unreasonable guess is that a person at the Jersey shore might be able to HEAR A JETLINER AT 800FT ABOVE GROUND AT 400+MPH (keeping in mind noise pollution regs prevent jetliners from exceeding 250mph below 10,000ft), from his vantage point.

My stupid wild guess is that a low flying jetliner at 400+ mph would grab a person's attention in no uncertain terms if a person were as close as your friend.

Not only that, there are very few people who thought the 1st explosion was that of an airplane, let alone a jetliner. Even teevee said is was unclear what happened. A few said it was a small plane. Those statements are inconsistent, I think, with a jetliner. the claim by some that they thought a small plane might have hit wtc1 is consistent with No Plane theory because, yet again, a 400+mph jetliner makes a hell of a lot of noise and would not be consistent with a small plane declaration.

However, you may have succeeded in tarnishing me with first a 'conspiracy' label and then one of stupidity and irrationality.

I submit that were your claims strong enough, it wouldn't be necessary for you to label me with put downs.

You say your friend heard the explosion, your words, not mine. Yet your friend did not hear a 400+mph jetliner in time to see it, despite it traversing the length of Manhattan, if the common myth is to be believed.

You know what, I think you're information defies reason and does not survive even a modest amount of critical analysis. However, that is just my opinion.

Please cite the source of the official explanation for what destroyed WTC 7. Surely you're not referring to the FEMA report that described its preliminary report as having "low probability" are you?

Stand by, however, NIST is holding a press conference tomorrow on the status of their long delayed WTC 7 report. Maybe you'll be vindicated tomorrow. We'll see.

arcman210
December 17th, 2007, 09:02 AM
Again, as to your friend's vantage point, there is the issue of WHAT HE HEARD. I thought I was quite clear in suggesting further query concerning "earwitness" information. My hypothesis, or guess; or, as I feel sure you'll want to say, my wild and unreasonable guess is that a person at the Jersey shore might be able to HEAR A JETLINER AT 800FT ABOVE GROUND AT 400+MPH (keeping in mind noise pollution regs prevent jetliners from exceeding 250mph below 10,000ft), from his vantage point.

My stupid wild guess is that a low flying jetliner at 400+ mph would grab a person's attention in no uncertain terms if a person were as close as your friend.

Once again, you make a uneducated and uninformed assumption. Your guess is, like you said, stupid and wild. At least you got something right.

The Goldman Sachs tower where he was working is over 1 mile away from where the WTC once stood. The position of the tower and the WTC means, along with the direction the plane came from, means the plane never crossed their path and hit the WTC before it had the chance to pass in front of the construction site of the Goldman Sachs tower... and it still would have been one mile away.

He was not watching the WTC when the first plane hit. He was working. If you have ever been near a construction site (or even know what one is), you would have the common knowledge that there is a high noise level and the sound of a plane even flying directly over the tower where he was working wouldnt have even raised an eyebrow.

I worked on buildings at JFK airport this past fall and have been 2500 feet from the runway when planes are taking off and landing, times when their engines are making noise through the process of acceleration... you dont hear the planes until they start flying near you and over you. When they fly in the opposite direction, there is hardly any sound.



Not only that, there are very few people who thought the 1st explosion was that of an airplane, let alone a jetliner. Even teevee said is was unclear what happened. A few said it was a small plane. Those statements are inconsistent, I think, with a jetliner. the claim by some that they thought a small plane might have hit wtc1 is consistent with No Plane theory because, yet again, a 400+mph jetliner makes a hell of a lot of noise and would not be consistent with a small plane declaration

What state or country were you in when the events took place? Who are you to say you know what happened? Have you ever even been to New York City? Seen the WTC before 9/11 in person? Been to an airport? Stepped foot in a library?

The reason people didnt see the plane is because they werent watching the WTC when it happened. There were no cameras fixed on it. Some people only saw it for a split second. Some people saw the whole thing.


I submit that were your claims strong enough, it wouldn't be necessary for you to label me with put downs.

If your claims had factual evidence, or if you just gave up your severely flawed arguement already, I wouldnt have to.



Please cite the source of the official explanation for what destroyed WTC 7. Surely you're not referring to the FEMA report that described its preliminary report as having "low probability" are you?

You mean the preliminary report released early on, before an in depth study was created? There was no rush to figure that building out because no people died as a result of its collapse. There was no rush to draw conclusions, instead the focus was on towers 1 and 2.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5#wtc7

Popular Mechanics would be a good starting point for you to start learning science and reality.

ZippyTheChimp
December 17th, 2007, 09:08 AM
Can you please describe the sound you heard, using for instance descriptive words and time intervals, for the North Tower episode?Why would you want to know about the North Tower when I didn't witness that event? And what part of "I won't debate this point with you" don't you understand?


Using google and the words "decibel 160 ear drum jetliner" you'll soon discover that at the 160 level, your ear drums would burst.This is not definitive documentation, but if you insist on Googling, try inverse square of the distance.


Finally, I must respectfully decline to take on the specific task of research as you've requested. I think such requests are unfair.Unfair? I cited Wolfgang Pauli for your benefit. And anyway, all ya gotta do is Google.


Your posts are so ridiculous that I choose to believe you're just having fun by pulling our chains, rather than you're wasting your time and energy over this absurd theory.

In either case, you're not very good at this conspiracy theory stuff, and I'm not going to waste my time.

arcman210
December 17th, 2007, 09:13 AM
As much as I'm having fun proving JerryL wrong, I have to agree with Zippy that I am wasting my time. I have to start getting back to work today, and getting off the forum and internet in general. One more week til vacation and lots to finish before Friday morning.


And JerryL, you'll be pleased to know that you got quite a chuckle out of my coworkers this morning with your comedic theories and responses to everyones questions.

We all agreed that you should put all of this effort into writing a comedy or a new sci fi movie, or a combination of both.

Ninjahedge
December 17th, 2007, 10:18 AM
Your appeal to intellect to close one's mind and accept a half baked coverup story would be laughable if it weren't so sad.

I call foul.

He is not saying you should not question it, but that when you start pulling conspiracies out of your butt, you are on a long road to a brick wall.

Was there a screw up? Definitely. Was there a cover up? Yes. Of what though? Of secret government agents putting suicide agents on the planes and ramming them into our own buildings? Of deals the Bush Administration made with the Saudis to attack us and then lay blame on a radical exile? Or more along the lines of simply trying to make sure none of the current admins arses could be labeled and blames for lack of investigation on what was deemed a serious threat by the previous administration?


I lay bets on the latter.

You are playing personal now Jason, and that is not commendable.

lofter1
December 17th, 2007, 10:22 AM
JerryL:

Thanks for finally telling us that you were NOT in NYC on 9/11, something that is very apparent in both your tone and your story-telling. Perhaps your particular viewpoint has come about because you weren't subject to the mass-drugging that the occupants of the entire NYC area were subjected to that day :cool: .

(Or ... perhaps your viewpoint is due to another sort of drug intake -- or lack thereof.)

Your one quick visit to NYC a couple of months after 9.11 offers one possible explanation regarding your inability to decipher the glaring mistake in the caption that is attached to Dr. Judy's photo of the south pedestrian bridge. After all how can one really know about a place if one has only viewed it from the perspective of the internet?

With all of your research I'm surprised that you haven't yet noticed Dr. Judy's error in observation and notation.

Leaving that behind, I must say that you still are being less than cordial.

You haven't responded to my question about where you now reside.

And I still await your phone call -- which will show that your powers of research are as comprehensive as you want us all to think they are.

:cool:

lofter1
December 17th, 2007, 10:32 AM
I call foul.

He is not saying you should not question it, but that when you start pulling conspiracies out of your butt, you are on a long road to a brick wall ...

You are playing personal now Jason, and that is not commendable.

NH: What? " ... you start pulling conspiracies out of your butt" isn't personal :confused:

Sounds pretty danged intimate to me ... ;)




Was there a cover up? Yes. Of what though? Of secret government agents putting suicide agents on the planes and ramming them into our own buildings?


You've entirely missed the point of JerryL.'s entire reason for being:

JerryL.'s worldview is that there were NO PLANES for any government to install their suicide agents within.

No planes. No passengers.

No 19arabguyswithsharpthingsthatJerryL.doesn'twantthe governmenttoknowthatheiswritingaboutsoJerryL.jumbl esalltheletterstogethertofoolthesecretwiretappersw hoaremonitoringhiseverykeystroke.

:cool:

Ninjahedge
December 17th, 2007, 10:35 AM
I respect your opinion. However, i see a weakened structure, softened by fire as a perfectly viable reason for collapse and you cant prove it isnt possible. That being said i can never know. Nor do i want to, the reality that it happened is bad enough, maybe a truth will emerge one day but i prefer to move on with respect.

Exactly.

I know the guys that did the structural analysis on the building and its failure mechanism.

I will reiterate it, yet again.

A good chunk of the perimeter columns and a piece of the core got take out. The load was transferred by the stabilizer truss at the roof (originally installed to help reduce sway) and loaded on the core and other columns.

This produced an unstable, but viable structural support system.

The jet fuel, already lit, kept burning and quickly heated the interior several hundred degrees Celsius.

This softened the steel. The Buckling formula involves a little thing called stiffness, or Modulus of Elasticity.

For more details, go here:

http://www.engineersedge.com/column_buckling/column_ideal.htm

When the temperature of structural steel goes up, this gets smaller, and the buckling strength goes down.

Couple this with already damaged/skewed columns (the initial eccentricity that initiates a buckling to occur) and you can see what happens next.

One, or more, of the columns fail. The load now has to go somewhere else, up the columns that are now in tension (after their base is gone, they cannot be in compression) and back down to the closest ones in compression. You also get a little additional twist as the column fails, adding more eccentricity to the neighboring column.

So, a column that was nearly at failure has more load, and a twist put on it. Guess what happens?

Failure.

You get a zipper effect. If you look closely at the tape, you can see the tower top tilt slightly towards the impact face right as it starts to collapse. That is from the progressive failure of the columnsaround the perimeter. And once this whole things gets started, it just went. Joists are not the strongest members in shear, and they just clipped right off, sending the perimeter columns shedding off in chunks (one gouging the side of the DeutcheBank building).

People always want to look for something more, and that is good. But they also have to respect when their theories are proven, at the least, implausible (and at most, impossible) and stop insisting that anything contrary is the polar opposite of what they are saying/insinuating about what happened AND about how the person challenging their idea sees the world and its politics.

Ninjahedge
December 17th, 2007, 10:41 AM
There is far too much volume of material, of steel, shown here:




For it to have been reduced to this, absent pulverization and being turned from steel to dust, instantaneously:



You are SO wrong.

From a guy that was on site, standing on several stories worth of compacted steel wreckage days after the incident, I can tell you, it was all there.

Do some reading bubbie! ;)

http://www.americanrecycler.com/11wtc.html (there was even a contorversy as to where it would eb shipped! Are you only listening to what you want to hear?)

Jasonik
December 17th, 2007, 10:47 AM
arcman210, if you cite Popular Mechanics you may be interested to listen to this radio interview (http://www.apfn.net/pogo/A003I060823-am-c3.MP3) with Davin Coburn, a reporter on the story you posted. Irrespective of the assertions of the host and callers he seems less than credible.

Ninjahedge
December 17th, 2007, 10:57 AM
NH: What? " ... you start pulling conspiracies out of your butt" isn't personal :confused:

Sounds pretty danged intimate to me ... ;)

Yep.

I was responding at the level of introduction. I avoided more, um, "direct" descriptions. ;)




You've entirely missed the point of JerryL.'s entire reason for being:

JerryL.'s worldview is that there were NO PLANES for any government to install their suicide agents within.

No planes. No passengers.

No 19arabguyswithsharpthingsthatJerryL.doesn'twantthe governmenttoknowthatheiswritingaboutsoJerryL.jumbl esalltheletterstogethertofoolthesecretwiretappersw hoaremonitoringhiseverykeystroke.

:cool:

Jerry had a point?


I must have missed it.

Ninjahedge
December 17th, 2007, 11:01 AM
The laser thing has no merit, BTW.

You don't even need to research it. Just look at how much energy it would take to vaporize steel and you will know that no portable generating or storage device would be able to supply that kind of energy.


Oh, Loft, that caption is priceless! My bad. Even worse than my last statement about losing its end support, I never realized that the bridge was never truly connected at the east end! Shows her lack of knowledge, and my need to look at some things a bit closer.

You never know when you will be required to remember footbridge details in the future! ;)

It also does not help when you have large shards of steel building structure coming down on top of it, but that is a minor technicality.


I think most of the steel "disappeared" because of looters. Had to be. :p

lofter1
December 17th, 2007, 11:17 AM
Plus, the south pedestrian bridge was not (as Dr. Judy's caption claims):

"connected to something that is no longer there".

That bridge was free-standing on the east end -- and only a staircase led down to the empty and open parking lot on the south side of Liberty Street.

Ninjahedge
December 17th, 2007, 11:21 AM
Ah! I did not know that!!!

I never crossed it myself, I only saw it from the roadway....

Now that I am in "reply" mode, I can't see the post we are talking about, but I seem to remember that the end of it seemed to be walled off.

My bad on that one! /goes to edit post..... ;)

ZippyTheChimp
December 17th, 2007, 11:28 AM
The intent was for the south bridge to connect to an office building at the parking lot. The Milsteins owned the lot, so of course, nothing got built.

arcman210
December 17th, 2007, 11:53 AM
arcman210, if you cite Popular Mechanics you may be interested to listen to this radio interview (http://www.apfn.net/pogo/A003I060823-am-c3.MP3) with Davin Coburn, a reporter on the story you posted. Irrespective of the assertions of the host and callers he seems less than credible.

The radio host and callers seem alot more disrespectful than Coburn, bringing back their same crap like "pull it" and the pentagon missile, things that were disproved. Things they have no evidence of. The radio host seemed to me like he was a former demolition contractor, knowing 100% that "pull it" was a demolition term. That statement by the radio host is at the same level of intelligence as JerryL's theory.

If in fact it was a controlled demolition, would Larry Silverstein really slip and say "pull it" as a way of saying they brought down the building? And if he did, would he allow it to be used? After all, they believe he is one of the lead guys involved with the conspiracy... so the theorists who believe this cospiracy belive that he hides the biggest conspiracy in human history and slips it out in a television interview and allows it to be aired?

When people rely on evidence like that as their primary source, its impossible to believe anything they say.

Jasonik
December 17th, 2007, 12:46 PM
irrespective of
prep.

Without consideration of; regardless of.


I presume you see Coburn's claim that the 9/11 hijacker's identities were verified with DNA evidence as credible. Bearing this in mind, I see how you have no reason to doubt his other claims of having been privy to secret evidence supporting the conclusions of Popular Mechanics.

My only point; one of the reporters and a defender and spokesman of the piece can be seen (by irrational people - I guess) to have credibility issues.

Radiohead
December 17th, 2007, 10:42 PM
Jerry L:
You're trying to tell us that the images in the videos below
were figments of our imagination?(very disturbing video but posted to make a point).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smKK8Tzhpso
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0Qu6eyyr4c

Were they holographic images beamed from Brooklyn and Jersey City?

Debating this point with you is tantamount to debating someone who thinks the world is flat. Why not at least spend your acid trips on productive ventures like listening to the Dead or Pink Floyd.

BrooklynRider
December 17th, 2007, 11:03 PM
I have to say that I have lingering questions myself about what really transpired on 9/11 and who was at the center of the "terrorism" that followed that event. I can't say I ever considered DEW's, nor do I think it a reasonable theory. With that interest, I have reread this thread from posts by Jasonik around 12/07/07 to present.

Whatever anyone thinks of JerryL's posts or theories, he did not attack anyone in this forum nor did he break rules by posting this theories in "Anything Goes." That said, there is a real problem and offense to be taken in the emotionally driven words of Arcman who is out of line. Period.


...You hate your country, you hate your life, or you just have the wrong set of mind and think that everyone is out to get you. I dont know what it is, but you obviously have nothing better to do. You offend me and a number of others, and you contribute no progress to society... Get over it and take your theories to youtube where uneducated rebellious middle school aged teens can waste their time and believe everything you say...

Everyone at this forum speaks for themselves. You don't speak for others. Your personal attack was uncalled for, rude and obnoxious.


Proves that you obviously have something against your country...

No. Your own prejudicial mind allows you to make such a statement and it bespeaks to a rather sheepish tendency these days to call anyone who questions our government or its intentions "unpatriotic."


...you dont care about people who happened to lose family and friends in the attacks...I cant take it when people like you come in here and try to pile your bullshit on top of all of us... Take your garbage somewhere where you can find some unintelligable people like yourself to believe it.

You don't know JerryL or anyone else here. Your baseless and mean-spirited post is more astounding than anything he wrote. You have been here for less that 75 posts. Where do you find the gall to speak about "when people like him come in here," when the largest body of your own posting is in this thread.

This is an open forum meant to spur discourse, however out of step it might seem. If anyone is posting "garbage," it would be the posts we have seen from you in this thread that run afoul of every rule and guideline we encourage (and can enforce) to ensure courtesy toward one another in the most heated moments.


Now you listen, JerryL. I dont think you have any right to challenge what we all know to be a factual account. I am not going to sit here and argue something like this. Get out of this forum and take your garbage elsewhere where you might get people to believe it.


Who exactly are you to be representing yourself as a person who can intuit what we "all know to be a factual account"?

You don't have to "sit here and argue." Find another thread, complain to a moderator if you think something is out of line, or log off.

There are some great and legendary arguments running through numerous threads at Wired New Yokl. However, for repeatedly telling JerryL to get out of the forum and the rude personal comments directed at him, I think it is you who has crossed the line. First and foremost, we are a courteous forum community. Consider that as you mull the infraction you just earned.

212
December 18th, 2007, 12:36 AM
^ I can only speak for myself --
but arcman's expertise and sound scientific arguments impress me.

(I know, polite language is important too.)

lofter1
December 18th, 2007, 12:49 AM
To be fair: Zippy was on board and took part in much of that give and take -- and he found no need to give arcman any online warning or infraction.

In fact it seems that it was JerryL. who got close to being called out (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=204616&postcount=125).

As a long -time poster I'm noticing a recent change in what is and what isn't allowable -- but it seems that the specifics of new rules haven't been revealed to forumers.

I've posted something addressing this in the "Forum Issues" zone HERE (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/Infractions).

ZippyTheChimp
December 18th, 2007, 01:06 AM
In fact it seems that it was JerryL. who got close to being called out (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=204616&postcount=125).I'm not sure what you mean by this.

JerryL
December 18th, 2007, 07:41 AM
Greetings, posters,

Work demands prevented me from posting from yesterday morning and will continue to do so for much of the day to day. Later, this evening, I will try to reply to posts asking questions and raising concerns from yesterday to today.

I understand the emotional jolt that 9/11 causes. Still, it is better to discuss these things than not to.

Thanks

ZippyTheChimp
December 18th, 2007, 08:31 AM
It's like anticipating the next episode.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews10/flash_gordon_conquers_the_universe_/flash_gordon_conquers_the_universe_PDVD_00801.jpg

ManhattanKnight
December 18th, 2007, 09:06 AM
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/7150/mmonstersfm9.jpg

Ninjahedge
December 18th, 2007, 10:15 AM
I'm not sure what you mean by this.

He seemed a bit trite when he said, in a condescending matter, "Google 160 decibells and se that your eardrums would burst" instead of phrasing it in a way that would be seen more as an intellectioual point of argument.

He was belittling you. "Try looking behind you if you want to know what to sit on" kind of rhetorical-phrased advice.

I did not find him insulting, but I did find him rather trite and unaccomodating. Not willing to discuss, but rather to dump and not truly listen to what was being said in response more than to try to find a way to contest it.


Like I said, not a BAD person, but definitely stubborn and possibly a little callous.

I don't know if either really deserved infractions, but a warning for personal bents was definitely in need for Arc (although I agreed with him on some of his points).

So, whatever. I have said my peice.

Jasonik
December 18th, 2007, 10:29 AM
http://davidszondy.com/future/tesla/tesla.jpg (http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Tesla_20Death_20Ray_20Bandsaw)

The mercury in WTC dust (http://www.mercuryexposure.org/index.php?science_id=160) points directly toward the use of Tesla's death ray (http://davidszondy.com/future/tesla/teslaray.htm). Though publicly discredited it has been kept secret and developed by the shadow government.

Nikola Tesla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla) lived in room #3327 in the New Yorker Hotel (http://wirednewyork.com/hotels/new_yorker_hotel/). Tesla insisted the number be divisible by three.

3327/3=1109

Using the death ray on 9/11 is a hint toward its maker. Tesla, being from the Austrian Empire, used the traditional date notation, 11.09.2001.

Q.E.D.

Ninjahedge
December 18th, 2007, 11:25 AM
For what it is worth?

Oh give me a frigging break already!

Did someone count the hairs on this dead mans head and determine that they equal the precise number of days between his death and the 9-11 attack?

:p

Andrew Johnson
December 18th, 2007, 12:22 PM
Plus, the south pedestrian bridge was not (as Dr. Judy's caption claims):

"connected to something that is no longer there".

That bridge was free-standing on the east end -- and only a staircase led down to the empty and open parking lot on the south side of Liberty Street.

Hello - I have been looking at Dr Wood's research for over 12 months now and have been privilieged to be involved with Mr Leaphart and Dr Wood in asking the questions which Lofter1 seems to have answers to.

In reference to Lofter1 (whoever he or she might be - no worries about me using my real name here!) I have 2 points:

1) The caption is accurate - i.e. did people have to jump 10 feet down out of the pedestrian bridge? Therefore is it not correct that the bridge was indeed "connected to something that is no longer there".

2) If this was the only caption that Dr Wood had written as a study of the WTC disaster, there may be some mileage in questioning it closely.

However, do you have any other explanation for the items of evidence covered in Dr Wood's study?

a) Circular holes in some of the buildings and in the street?
b) Destruction of "the Spire".
c) Lack of debris in the basements
d) Survival of the PATH train and items in the Mall Stores
e) Functionally intact bath tub.

I have now been reading people's attempts to ignore this evidence (which seems to be real whether you were in NYC on the day of 9/11 or whether you saw the events and their explanation solved in minutes on TV -with the culprits already named long before the evening news broadcasts took place)

I also now ask anyone to consider the links between Dr Wood's research and the whole energy issue in general. Is it just coincidence that Prof Steven E Jones has, with others, tried to "debunk" (at times pernciously) Dr Wood's diligently gathered evidence, when we consider that he also played a key role in introducing confusion in the Cold Fusion research in the late 80's and early 90's

Oh, and why did we not get a chance to discuss some of these issues on Ambrose Lane's show in July this year?

Yes, all this - and more - can be read about here:

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=1&id=1&Itemid=60

Thanks for reading!

BrooklynRider
December 18th, 2007, 01:28 PM
The mercury in WTC dust (http://www.mercuryexposure.org/index.php?science_id=160) points directly toward the use of Tesla's death ray (http://davidszondy.com/future/tesla/teslaray.htm). Though publicly discredited it has been kept secret and developed by the shadow government.

Nikola Tesla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla) lived in room #3327 in the New Yorker Hotel (http://wirednewyork.com/hotels/new_yorker_hotel/). Tesla insisted the number be divisible by three.

3327/3=1109

Using the death ray on 9/11 is a hint toward its maker. Tesla, being from the Austrian Empire, used the traditional date notation, 11.09.2001.

Q.E.D.

I think its all pretty interesting. It's a totally new topic for me.

Jasonik
December 18th, 2007, 01:32 PM
Factionalizing by pet theory is especially effective in causing infighting, with theorists' energy being mostly spent discrediting themselves or their competition. By introducing laughably farcical scenarios, most reasonable people will reject them out of hand and give less credence to the more plausible and or provable theories within the spectrum. At the same time, media and outside observers are sure to point to these obviously false theories as an introduction to questioners of events. The resulting movement is less cohesive, less collaborative, more suspicious, and viewed more widely as suspect and not credible or valid.

"Nothing to see here, move along now," is the effective message.

ZippyTheChimp
December 18th, 2007, 04:18 PM
Don't mess with Nikola.

We should be sending the checks to ConTes.

Andrew Johnson
December 18th, 2007, 05:04 PM
By introducing laughably farcical scenarios, most reasonable people will reject them out of hand and give less credence to the more plausible and or provable theories within the spectrum. .

Hello - specifically which parts are laughable? Do you think I am "cointel pro"?

You or anyone can find out all about me here: http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/

Click the "about" button. I encourage you to do so, and explore the rest of the website.

Unlike you, Jasonik, I use my real name and I am quite happy for people to ask me questions if they are unsure about anything.

I am specifically interested in debating points of evidence, so if you have any useful evidence to contribute to the list I raised above, or want to specifically question aspects of it, that would be just fine.

Thanks.

Ninjahedge
December 18th, 2007, 05:09 PM
Factionalizing by pet theory is especially effective in causing infighting, with theorists' energy being mostly spent discrediting themselves or their competition. By introducing laughably farcical scenarios, most reasonable people will reject them out of hand and give less credence to the more plausible and or provable theories within the spectrum. At the same time, media and outside observers are sure to point to these obviously false theories as an introduction to questioners of events. The resulting movement is less cohesive, less collaborative, more suspicious, and viewed more widely as suspect and not credible or valid.

"Nothing to see here, move along now," is the effective message.

When there IS nothing to see here, people should not be insulted when being told to move on.

Strange how whenever something is tossed out and relegated (factually) to the realms of farsical conjecture, its defenders call on the mere refutal of it as some sort of proof that it existed.

So the 'fact' that tesla demanded to be put in a room that was divisible by three, and the coincidence that, when divided BY three, it came to 11-09 (which, in most places/common formats, means November the 9th) it is determined that Tesla's magic death ray was actually used AND that there was a plot to have something happen on 9-11-2001.


Maybe it was the same guys that decided 911 was a good emergency number!!! Maybe it was guys that were pissed off at 7-11 and were a little late!

Enough with the attempts to connect things that are not connected.


And AJ, watch your step here.


The caption is accurate - i.e. did people have to jump 10 feet down out of the pedestrian bridge? Therefore is it not correct that the bridge was indeed "connected to something that is no longer there"

Her position is that it somehow connected to a building that evaporated. What happened was that the pedestrian stairway somehow got demolished.

No death-ray, no evaporation.

No horse hockey.

Ninjahedge
December 18th, 2007, 05:23 PM
PS, JK, I don't know what nd you are coming from in this, whether you are being sarcastic, strait forward, dead pan or baiting, so forgive me if I misinterpreted your posts.

AJ, your statements have to bear the brunt of proof.
Please show us what "holes" you are referring to.
Please refute the bills and steel totals that were recorded in the removal of the debris.
Please show me the places that DIDN'T survive and the ones that did, superimpose a debris layout of the towers and realize that not EVERYTHING around the towers was crushed.
Please take an engineering class and realize that when you fell a huge concrete tub, ON BEDROCK, with STEEL, it usually does not collapse from the exterior soil and hydrostatic pressure.
Please look up how that tub was repaired, shored and tied back to remain after debris removal.
Please do an area calculation of how much steel was actually IN the tower and how much open air volume was available below site.

I was there. I stood on piles of steel more than a few stories high, on a tub more than a few stories deep. The ENTIRE WTC PLAZA was covered in it, not just the tower footprints.

You OBVIOUSLY do not know how efficient this structure was (Bar joist floor construction and tubular steel exterior) because you would have known how much steel was actually IN the building, how much was IN the wreckage and HOW MUCH FRIGGING ENERGY IT TAKES TO EVAPORATE STEEL.


I saw the second plane hit. It was no death-ray. Go back to your story books and invent another that actually conforms to a few basic things:

1. Eye witnesses.
2. Records of the day (including flight)
3. Physics.

Otherwise do not bother coming back.

ZippyTheChimp
December 18th, 2007, 07:05 PM
http://www.slick-net.com/space/serial/serials2/cyclot_2.jpg

Feb 2001. (L-R) Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld
inspect a prototype of the DEW at the Skunk Works.

JerryL
December 18th, 2007, 09:27 PM
Jerry L:
You're trying to tell us that the images in the videos below
were figments of our imagination?(very disturbing video but posted to make a point).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smKK8Tzhpso
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0Qu6eyyr4c

Were they holographic images beamed from Brooklyn and Jersey City?

Debating this point with you is tantamount to debating someone who thinks the world is flat. Why not at least spend your acid trips on productive ventures like listening to the Dead or Pink Floyd.

Hi Radiohead,

I gather you posted the links to the 2 youtube videos because you find them convincing. Somewhere above, a poster commented that 'conspiracy theorists' are to be considered unreliable for relying on 'youtube' videos, but I gather you find the 2 you posted to be valid representations of conditions that actually took place?

I don't find them convincing in the least and here are a few reasons why I challenge the authenticity of the videos:

1. Aside from the obvious differences in apparent speed (the second was a lot faster than the first) and obvious differences in color and shape of the jetliner image (the one a shadow thingy, the other a silver thingy), the sound for both was way off.

Do you consider it possible to hear sirens better than a jetliner at 800ft above ground at 540mph?

2. The crash impact did not even make an audible sound and there was no discernible jetliner debris in either. No wings clipped off, no tail pieces,nothing.

3. Kerosene typically burns as thick black smoke. The pyrotechnical display in the youtube videos (and all others for that matter) ranged in color from light gray to dark gray but was not seen to be consistent with a kerosene based fire, in my opinion.

These are but a sampling of observations that can be made when the videos are viewed critically, where the word 'critically' simply means close examination and attention to detail, absent an attachment to a particular point of view or conclusion.

I have elsewhere said that my first reaction, and one that I quickly discounted, was that the image didn't look right to me. That is an honest recollection that I had. However, it took me years to begin the process of critical appraisal of what the video information actually demonstrates.

A good collection and overview of many of the video samples can be found here:

http://losalamos911truth.blogspot.com/

I know that a typical reply is that videos shot from different locations can result in different shading, etc. However, I do not find that rationale to be an adequate excuse for the complete lack of proper sound and the complete lack of the phenomenon of 'jet blast' that should have damaged nearby buildings and done some damage to eardrums.

Here's a comparison 'you tube' video showing another shape and another apparaent rate of speed.

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

Among the many first responders, otherwise known as 9/11 Heroes, who was present when the explosion at WTC2 occurred and who doubted a plane was involved, is of Battalion Chief Stephen King. His 9/11 Task Force statement is noteworthy and highly credible, in my opinion, not just because he doubted the presence of a jetliner because he didn't hear one from his vantage point at the command centre in WTC1, but because in addition to being a senior firefighter, he is also an experienced (30 years) pilot.

Have you read his full statement?

JerryL
December 18th, 2007, 09:42 PM
...

I saw the second plane hit. It was no death-ray. Go back to your story books and invent another that actually conforms to a few basic things:

1. Eye witnesses.
2. Records of the day (including flight)
3. Physics.

Otherwise do not bother coming back.

Speaking for me, I am delighted to discuss the No Plane theory from the perspective of eyewitnesses. I do so whenever I can online, such as in this instance.

You may have stated elsewhere in this forum the details of your eyewitness acount; if so, can you provide a link?

If, however, you are so inclined, can you please repeat the details of what you observed; meaning, what you a) saw; be b) heard; c) felt; d) smelled and e) tasted.

Please also indicate where you were when your observations were made and what you then did, if you would not mind doing so.

I hasten to add that if the experience was too painful and you'd rather not, then I understand and won't press the request further.

Finally, I am not asking you these questions in order to then question your credibility. I can assure you I will take you at your word.

JerryL
December 18th, 2007, 09:48 PM
As much as I'm having fun proving JerryL wrong, I have to agree with Zippy that I am wasting my time. I have to start getting back to work today, and getting off the forum and internet in general. One more week til vacation and lots to finish before Friday morning.


And JerryL, you'll be pleased to know that you got quite a chuckle out of my coworkers this morning with your comedic theories and responses to everyones questions.

We all agreed that you should put all of this effort into writing a comedy or a new sci fi movie, or a combination of both.

Real jetliners do not penetrate steel buildings without degrading one bit:

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/PinocchioStudy/Chopper5TailOut.jpg

... and then come out the otherside intact:

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/PinocchioStudy/Chopper5NoseOut.jpg

Radiohead
December 18th, 2007, 10:18 PM
-The Titanic did not sink; it was vaporized by aliens; the Titanic "find" years later was an elaborate hoax.

-The Eastern Airlines crash at JFK in 1975 that killed 113, including New York Nets star Wendell Ladner, was actually masterminded by Dr. J. Apparently Ladner used J's locker room towel without asking.

-The 1999 crash that killed JFK Jr. was guided off track by the ghost of LBJ. It was a little known fact that toddler JFK Jr. once spotted LBJ's wearing his mom's undergarmets, and was in the process of writing a tell-all tome.

If I tried to peddle any of the preceding as the truth, I would likely be declared insane. The claims surely wouldn't be given any credence on this board or any other. They would be viewed as the incessant ramblings of a madman. I should probably be pitied, and my claims ignored.

Aren't claims that there were no planes on 9/11, despite eye-witness and video evidence, just as ludicrous. Would any rational person even put forth such "theories"? IMO, those who try to propogate such silly claims also need to be pitied, and ignored.

I hope this isn't construed as a "mean-spirited" post. I tried to be as diplomatic as possible. I do know that if I tried to promote JerryL's theory at any local tavern, the barkeep and clientele would likely tell me to go F@#K myself, followed by throwing me out on my a@@.

BrooklynRider
December 18th, 2007, 10:21 PM
If it was a death ray, I'm extremely disappointed that it didn't take out the ridiculously named "survivor stairs." What a headache those have become.

JerryL
December 18th, 2007, 10:38 PM
Exactly.

I know the guys that did the structural analysis on the building and its failure mechanism.

I will reiterate it, yet again.

A good chunk of the perimeter columns and a piece of the core got take out. The load was transferred by the stabilizer truss at the roof (originally installed to help reduce sway) and loaded on the core and other columns.

This produced an unstable, but viable structural support system.

The jet fuel, already lit, kept burning and quickly heated the interior several hundred degrees Celsius.

This softened the steel. The Buckling formula involves a little thing called stiffness, or Modulus of Elasticity.

For more details, go here:

http://www.engineersedge.com/column_buckling/column_ideal.htm

When the temperature of structural steel goes up, this gets smaller, and the buckling strength goes down.

Couple this with already damaged/skewed columns (the initial eccentricity that initiates a buckling to occur) and you can see what happens next.

One, or more, of the columns fail. The load now has to go somewhere else, up the columns that are now in tension (after their base is gone, they cannot be in compression) and back down to the closest ones in compression. You also get a little additional twist as the column fails, adding more eccentricity to the neighboring column.

So, a column that was nearly at failure has more load, and a twist put on it. Guess what happens?

Failure.

You get a zipper effect. If you look closely at the tape, you can see the tower top tilt slightly towards the impact face right as it starts to collapse. That is from the progressive failure of the columnsaround the perimeter. And once this whole things gets started, it just went. Joists are not the strongest members in shear, and they just clipped right off, sending the perimeter columns shedding off in chunks (one gouging the side of the DeutcheBank building).

People always want to look for something more, and that is good. But they also have to respect when their theories are proven, at the least, implausible (and at most, impossible) and stop insisting that anything contrary is the polar opposite of what they are saying/insinuating about what happened AND about how the person challenging their idea sees the world and its politics.

No, the descriptions you rely on do not reflect good science. Most of the so-called studies erected an analytical 'box' such that the analysis stopped dead in its tracks at the point called "initiation of collapse." After that arbitrarily derived point, nothing else was explained at all.

Small wonder, then, that as things stand, kerosene is presumed, but not shown to be able to, cause this:

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/dirt/dirtpics/Image122.jpg

I assert that what is seen is pulverization, molecular dissociation and complete annhilation of material, almost instantaneously.

Posters, you are truly looking, not at the new Pearl Harbor; rather, you are looking at the new Hiroshima.

Weapons of mass destruction have been particularized so as to be able to utterly destroy only targeted structures, in confined areas, without undue radiation. One problem, however, is that the effect is very difficult to quench. Hence, the months long 'fires' that wouldn't seem to go out. Those were not fires, rather, they were the effects of directed energy weaponry.

One company -- APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES -- indirectly brags about the capacity to do this by using drawings that are descriptive of their "capabilities":

http://drjudywood.com/articles/ARA/pics/defens1_poof_l.jpg

http://drjudywood.com/articles/ARA/pics/sec_1_lwtc.jpg

Perhaps lofter1 can be of assistance here in helping to ascertain exactly what "capabilities" ARA is showing us it has by virtue of the above posted, cryptic photos from their website.

www.ara.com

Dr. Judy Wood is, indeed, the person who coined the phrase "The New Hiroshima" to describe the destruction wrought on 9/11/01.

ZippyTheChimp
December 18th, 2007, 10:56 PM
While searching the galaxy for dark matter, Flash stumbles across the missing WTC debris.

http://members.tripod.com/%7Erbowser/metropolis/flash1.jpg

lofter1
December 18th, 2007, 10:58 PM
... can you please repeat the details of what you observed; meaning, what you a) saw; be b) heard; c) felt; d) smelled and e) tasted.

Please also indicate where you were when your observations were made and what you then did, if you would not mind doing so.

I hasten to add that if the experience was too painful and you'd rather not, then I understand and won't press the request further.

Finally, I am not asking you these questions in order to then question your credibility. I can assure you I will take you at your word.

If he can be taken at his word then why all the demands for details?

Did someone not make it through law school?

The attempt at the structured interrogatory is somewhat pathetic.

It borders on sounding like an intervention crossed with an inquisition.

But of course if the replies are "too painful" then it will be understood and a person of such compassion "won't press the request futher".

Jeez. Could this be more maniulative?

Me smells someone who does not play well with others.

Which is evidenced by the fact taht there still has been no response to the original question put on the table upon arrival.

ZippyTheChimp
December 18th, 2007, 10:59 PM
Unable to locate the balls of her theory, Dr Judy resorts to an alternate visual aid.

http://www.jcrocket.com/images/flashgordon/fgsmall2renee.jpg

lofter1
December 18th, 2007, 11:02 PM
LMAO ^

(and will someone please play the infract game in response to continued incorrect usage of the quote function. pretty please? lots of points. like a hundred of 'em. soon. :cool: )

ZippyTheChimp
December 18th, 2007, 11:07 PM
Some info on Dr Judy

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/patriots_question/index.html



JUDY WOOD

So much has already been written debunking the claims of Judy Wood that there is little more that can be added. Physicist Greg Jenkins, of dc911truth.org, did the 9/11 community a service when he videotaped a conversation he had with Judy Wood following a presentation she gave in Washington. Her apparent inability to understand basic concepts of physics which Jenkins attempted to discuss with her exposed the essential flawed basis for her claims, not just about energy weapons from space being involved in the WTC attacks, but even about her understanding of the events of 9/11 themselves.

Even Wood's early analysis of the Towers' destruction was inherently flawed, as promptly pointed out on discussion forums, and clearly refuted by Greg Jenkins in the Journal of 9/11 Studies:

"In an attempt to analyze the collapse times of the WTC towers (what she calls the "billiard ball" analysis), the conservation of momentum and energy are flagrantly violated. She assumes that with each collision, all momentum in the problem is obliterated. Her underlying assumptions are left unstated and the reader is left to ponder this egregious violation of physical law."

lofter1
December 18th, 2007, 11:31 PM
Zip, thanks for that link ...

Discrediting By Association:
Undermining the Case for Patriots Who Question 9/11
JUDY WOOD / Relevant Papers

INTERVIEW WITH DR. JUDY WOOD AND DR. GREG JENKINS (http://journalof911studies.com/letters/Wood-JenkinsInterview.pdf);
Analysis by Greg Jenkins and Arabesque; May 15, 2007; Journal of 9/11 Studies

A study of some issues raised in a paper by Wood & Reynolds (http://journalof911studies.com/letters/d/a-study-of-some-issues-raised-in-a-paper-by-wood-&-reynolds-by-frank-legge.pdf);
Dr. Frank Legge; January 11, 2007; Journal of 9/11 Studies

The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center (http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf)
Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins; Journal of 9/11 Studies

Was a "star-wars" beam weapon used at the WTC? (http://journalof911studies.com/letters/b/scientific-critique-of-judy-woods-paper-star-wars-beam-weapons-by-james-gourley.pdf)
Scientific Critique of Judy Wood's Paper "The Star Wars Beam Weapon";
James Gourley; January 9, 2007; Journal of 9/11 Studies

Why the damage to WTC Bldgs. 3 and 6 does not support the beam weapon hypothesis (http://journalof911studies.com/letters/Szamboti_The_Damage_to_WTC_Bldg._s_3_and_6__and_th e_debate_between_the_controlled_demolition_and_bea m_weapon_theories.pdf)
and some correspondence with Dr. James Fetzer about it;
Tony Szamboti; Updated March 20, 2007; Journal of 9/11 Studies

Introduction to and Interview with Dr. Judy Wood conducted at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. (http://journalof911studies.com/letters/b/interview-judy-wood-at-national-press-club-regarding-the-use-of-directed-energy-beam-in-the-demolition-of-the-wtc-by-dr-gregory-jenkins.pdf)
regarding the use of Directed Energy Beams in the Demolition of the World Trade Center Towers;
February 9, 2007
Greg Jenkins; Journal of 9/11 Studies

9/11 Family Members and Scholars: Request for Correction Submitted to NIST (http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/RFCtoNISTbyMcIlvaineDoyleJonesRyanGageSTJ.pdf);
Bob McIlvaine, Bill Doyle, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage,
Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice; Journal of 9/11 Studies

ZippyTheChimp
December 18th, 2007, 11:44 PM
Video of interview of Dr Judy Wood by Dr Greg Jenkins on Jan 10, 2007

Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgN591u3MhQ)

Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWzZocY-sUQ)

Part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYAwR3f16Z4)

Part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2E70dsEnJ8)

Jasonik
December 19th, 2007, 12:09 AM
Andrew Johnson, just because one thing follows another does not mean the former caused the latter. (Kind of testy for your second post don't you think?) Explanation of a tactic is not an accusation.

You are asserting that Prof Steven Jones is in conflict with your views are you not?

How do you explain iron microspheres in the dust? (Or deny their existence?)

There is iron in the dust according to the World Trade Center Environmental Contaminant Database (WTCECD) (http://wtc.hs.columbia.edu/wtc/wtc.aspx).

lofter1
December 19th, 2007, 02:29 AM
AJ: THIS (http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=66) is a little sad:




... I am married and have 2 children who are now 7 and 9 years old -

and they both now know 9/11 was an Inside Job (thanks in part to this song (http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Music/Starstika-911-Was-An-Inside-Job.mp3)) ...

The non-stop chorus of that "song" repeats "9-11 was an inside job" ...

Which is a claim that pro-conspirators repreat ad infinitum.

But who did that "inside job"? I mean WHO?

Names please.

Specifics, not "Bush and the Secret Services" and nonsense like that.

Please show us the full trail that you have uncovered.

I can't imagine that y'all have spent this much time on this (as well as the Mars Empire and Neil Armstrong's vacation -- which wasn't a trip to the moon after all -- and all those other secretly plotted things) without figuring out who was / is smart enough to pull off all these shenanigans and still keep it from leaking out.

To what end are all these dark things being done? What do these people (whose names only you & yours know) want to do?

And why don't you do something about it instead of just letting it happen over and over and over?

After all, is this secretive and deceptive world which you describe the one you want your two children to inherit?

lofter1
December 19th, 2007, 02:58 AM
I'm so glad I watched the vid of Dr Judy, who has now clarified that all the smoke I saw from my windows that morning and which was rising from the towers for 1+ hour was actually "nano-dust" from when the building(s) went "poof" -- yes, "poof" (that is her scientific term). This happened when the buildings were "dustified" -- she claims she's still looking for a better word to describe what that really means.

Talk about a whack job :cool: ...

Andrew Johnson
December 19th, 2007, 04:09 AM
My, my - more anonymous, faceless posters working hard!

Greg Jenkins? He pops up, does an ambush interview, stays around for a few months then ... disappears!!!

Want the FULL story of that interview with Jenkins? Read it here!

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=60

Why has Jenkins not written about anybody else? Why did he not interview anybody else?

Looks like Lofter1 isn't interested in balanced or complete information.

So, we have journal of 9/11 studies - which should be really named:

"Journal of a bit of 9/11 studies, but mainly writings attempting to debunk the work of another professor who caught our bosses with their pants down and wrote about it"

Looking at the number of papers making rude comments about Dr Wood, I think the above title would be more appropriate - but I suppose the Website URL would be unusable.

Andrew Johnson
December 19th, 2007, 04:27 AM
Andrew Johnson, just because one thing follows another does not mean the former caused the latter. (Kind of testy for your second post don't you think?) Explanation of a tactic is not an accusation.

You are asserting that Prof Steven Jones is in conflict with your views are you not?

How do you explain iron microspheres in the dust? (Or deny their existence?)

There is iron in the dust according to the World Trade Center Environmental Contaminant Database (WTCECD) (http://wtc.hs.columbia.edu/wtc/wtc.aspx).

We think the supposed Iron Microspheres could be just as Jones say they are - but the cause is totally different - i.e. they were transmuted by the energy weapon - check out "hutchison effect".

And your "because one thing follows another" point is vague. Jones was involved in the Cold Fusion scene - and we think the destruction method is related to cold fusion, so it makes sense they (the perps) would involve someone who could talk about it with apparent authority - or just someone labelled "physicist". Read Eugene Mallove (now dead) "Fire from Ice" 1991

We have seen Jones try to distract people by focusing on one piece of evidence and describing it as having the wrong cause. Here is an example for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92sw2S7pn4U


He also tries to pretend "the Spire" didn't turn to dust he said it "shook and fell"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO9Iv_4ZfNI

and here's Jones' thoughts on the "Next 9/11 attack"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h71WsJMGdI8

That whole discussion is pretty revealing actually.

And, I tried to help JOnes a bit, with some video work early in 2006. It's all on my website for those that want more. Forgive me if I no longer trust Jones or his conclusions. I try to learn from my mistakes.

JerryL
December 19th, 2007, 07:22 AM
lofter:

Your 'cut&paste' skills seemed to have backfired on you a bit this time. That Journal of 9/11 Studies (J911) you referred us to is noteworthy for devoting almost 80%, I repeat, 4/5 of its entire output to criticism of one person and her work:

Dr. Judy Wood.

Legitimate professional journals do not do that, unless, that is, there sole purpose for coming into existence is that of refuting the work of one person. But, even assuming that that is J911's sole purpose, something they have not otherwise acknowledged, it seems odd that if Dr. Wood's theory that directed energy weapons are a causal factor in the destruction of the WTC is baseless, why is it necessary to criticize it over and over and over and over, again?

Let's be clear here: J911 has succeeding only in legitimizing Dr. Wood's theory as, try as they might, the fact remains that DEW is the best supported theory.

The formerly oft-repeated syllogism that there wasn't enough energy to destroy the WTC by DEW never did explain why, if DEW didn't have enough energy, then how, on this earth, could kerosene of the type used to accelerate your VW Jetta from 0-60 in a day or two do this:

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image28.jpg

?

JerryL
December 19th, 2007, 07:39 AM
-

....

Aren't claims that there were no planes on 9/11, despite eye-witness and video evidence, just as ludicrous. Would any rational person even put forth such "theories"? IMO, those who try to propogate such silly claims also need to be pitied, and ignored.

I hope this isn't construed as a "mean-spirited" post. I tried to be as diplomatic as possible. I do know that if I tried to promote JerryL's theory at any local tavern, the barkeep and clientele would likely tell me to go F@#K myself, followed by throwing me out on my a@@.

radiohead,

When you say "despite eye-witness and video evidence" you betray those elements of truth-seeking and betray them utterly. Look, I have posted on this very thread the source for actual eye and ear witness accounts.

People have been herded into believeing there arfe 100s or even 1000s of eyewitnesses, yet, almost no one has posted a single one.

That is not to say there are none. In point of fact, I know of 7 people whose presence where they had a vantage point to see and hear a jetliner say they, in fact, saw "a plane." I know of none that I can recall right now who say the plane was a jetliner.

I know of two who say they saw either a missile or a rocket.

I know of many more who saw and heard an explosion; and, indeed, a pyrotechnical display can be taken as having happened, without a doubt.

The issue here is simply one of accuracy. Two explosions occurred, one resulting in a plane-shaped gash in WTC1. A gash that is consistent with the Roadrunner cartoon theme where the roadrunner gets to run through the Acme building, leaving his imprint there, while Wylie Coyote gets smacked as flesh, even that of a canine, is not capable of penetrating more solid materials.

One would have thought that people, upon reflection, would realize that jetliners, like Wylie, can't leave a near-perfect imprint of passage through a steel builing; especially not one that, when built, was the tallest in the world where the exterior steel wall was load bearing for that building. Not, that is, unless it is your asserttion that the Twin Towers were, well, faulty towers.

Jetliners are hollow, aluminum tubes. Birds can, and have penetrated the wings and the nosecones of such craft. Birds.

There was no debris of a plane at or near the foot of WTC 1 as per the Fire Chief who was in charge of the operation on 9/11 -- Chief Cassano.

The videos neither agree, one with the other, nor do they persuade. The shadow thingy is just that, if you are willing to look at it.

I have just within the last page or two of this thread posted still photos excerpted from a video that ran once and once only on teevee before being taken down and destroyed. That video shows a reputed jetliner doing what the Roadrunner does -- in one side, and out the other -- intact.

It is true that you cannot say there were NO PLANES to people as people believe what they see on teevee. That, however, is not an excuse for abandonment of the capacity for critical thinking.

Andrew Johnson
December 19th, 2007, 07:48 AM
PS, JK, I don't know what nd you are coming from in this, whether you are being sarcastic, strait forward, dead pan or baiting, so forgive me if I misinterpreted your posts.

AJ, your statements have to bear the brunt of proof.
Please show us what "holes" you are referring to.
Please refute the bills and steel totals that were recorded in the removal of the debris.
Please show me the places that DIDN'T survive and the ones that did, superimpose a debris layout of the towers and realize that not EVERYTHING around the towers was crushed.
Please take an engineering class and realize that when you fell a huge concrete tub, ON BEDROCK, with STEEL, it usually does not collapse from the exterior soil and hydrostatic pressure.
Please look up how that tub was repaired, shored and tied back to remain after debris removal.
Please do an area calculation of how much steel was actually IN the tower and how much open air volume was available below site.

I was there. I stood on piles of steel more than a few stories high, on a tub more than a few stories deep. The ENTIRE WTC PLAZA was covered in it, not just the tower footprints.

You OBVIOUSLY do not know how efficient this structure was (Bar joist floor construction and tubular steel exterior) because you would have known how much steel was actually IN the building, how much was IN the wreckage and HOW MUCH FRIGGING ENERGY IT TAKES TO EVAPORATE STEEL.


I saw the second plane hit. It was no death-ray. Go back to your story books and invent another that actually conforms to a few basic things:

1. Eye witnesses.
2. Records of the day (including flight)
3. Physics.

Otherwise do not bother coming back.

Oh dear NinjaHedge - you're wanting me to jump through your hoops? You can't find the information yourself on Dr Wood's site? (Clue: Holes)

I did a witness study - 500 accounts - posted on http://www.checktheevidence.com/ Ninjahedge - do you need me to spoon feed you? Need me to guide you through the links?

You think this site is some kind of "public trial area"? I don't need to do anything for you - or anyone here - all I do is present information.

Now, when it comes to a Qui Tam case, that's a bit different - you do need to do some of the things you mentioned. But as I am in the UK, it's unlikely I'll be in the court room. So, I'll be leaving that side to others more able to do that job.

And why shouldn't I bother coming back? I may have been facetious, but I haven't been rude to anyone. And at least people know who I really am, or can find out if they wish. How many other posters on this thread can we say that about? What are they afraid of is my question....

Jasonik
December 19th, 2007, 07:49 AM
No thanks fellas, I'll stick to physics. Welcome to my ignore list.

Lofter, this is a pretty good bit of paperwork. Beat the bureaucrats with their own game!

9/11 Family Members and Scholars: Request for Correction Submitted to NIST (http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/RFCtoNISTbyMcIlvaineDoyleJonesRyanGageSTJ.pdf);
Bob McIlvaine, Bill Doyle, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage,
Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice; Journal of 9/11 Studies

212
December 19th, 2007, 08:31 AM
People have been herded into believeing there arfe 100s or even 1000s of eyewitnesses, yet, almost no one has posted a single one.

Just few pages ago, you exchanged words with one of the moderators of this site who witnessed the second plane hit the south tower. Hundreds of people saw it. For heaven's sake, this was NYC, a crowded city in the middle of a morning commute, and you don't think the World Trade Center on fire would catch people's attention?

And I still don't understand ... if death rays are supposed to have hit the WTC and the Pentagon (hit by its own death ray???), then what happened to the passengers on the four planes? Were the planes hit by death rays too?

212
December 19th, 2007, 08:37 AM
And at least people know who I really am, or can find out if they wish. How many other posters on this thread can we say that about?

So what? Credibility is earned by more than one's name.

ZippyTheChimp
December 19th, 2007, 09:07 AM
Let's be clear here: Another laugh out loud moment.


Andrew and Jerry can be excused if they don't understand what a Theory is, relating to science. In common usage, a theory is speculation, an educated guess that acknowledges alternative conclusions.

A theory is quite different in the discipline of science - closer to fact than speculation, formulated by application of the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method). Unlike the two misguided zealots, Dr Judy should know better. Her methodology is so full of holes (not those in roofs) and amateurish, some have begun to suspect she is a government agent, planted to polarize and discredit legitimate inquiry. So now we have conspiracies within conspiracies.

The result is depicted in the Inside Job Video. While a few hopelessly polarized people are 'engaging' each other, the public-at-large is just walking by.

Mission accomplished?

As regards to her 'theory,' Judy is as much a doctor as this Judy is a judge.
http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/9132/judgejudydn4.jpg

I've had a few laughs here, but in reality, this is a sad commentary on the Dumbing of America.

Ninjahedge
December 19th, 2007, 09:55 AM
AJ and Jerry, by your drive-by pasting of articles and arguments you have obviously had on other sites, one can see you are not really in the mood to discuss anything or to truly learn what happened, but rather to force people to accept what you believe to be the case.

Like I said, Learn physics. Also learn the amount of sheer metal mass in an airline engine and realize it landed a few BLOCKS for the impact site:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/6310312271.jpg/6310312271-large.jpg

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/FEMAAircraftparts.jpg/FEMAAircraftparts-custom;size:426,582.jpg

Also, from what I have seen, death rays do not ignite in fireballs when aimed at a structure that does not store fuel or other combustibles:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/6586.jpg/6586-large.jpg

If it were hit and "dustified" there would be quite a different ignition cloud (vaporizing steel does not burn like gas or jet fuel).

Site: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/aircraftpartsnyc911

And as for me? I was about 3/4 of a mile away, uptown, looking out the window at the first tower when a small thing smacked into the second and released another ball of flame.

I was watching the news in the conference room until we were allowed home at about 2pm that day (I know, weird) and walked through the streets, with the dust settling around us, to get to the ferries.

I was looking at the people going into detox/sanitization tents after coming across. I went to a Pier in Hoboken and watched as the site continued to burn.

I believe I posted the whole thing here, if not elsewhere.

Proving myself?

I think not. I think it is up to you to prove, not just postulate, the actual events occurring as you are saying.

Don't bother quoting Judy anymore, she quacks so much she can't even be a duck. Do your own legwork.


As for the possibility that this is actually a deliberate smokescreen to bring out an impossible 9-11 conspiracy to discredit any more moderate, plausable 9-11 scheme. I can see that happening.

Blame 9-11 on Death Rays to draw attension away from the fact that Bush and Co. were informed of the danger, did not do anything significant to stop it (did not take it for what it was worth) and then later used it as a reason to invade a country that had nothing to do with it and gradually strip us of our constitutional rights and freedoms.

Could be possible. If not, it would make a pretty good movie (much better than what we have now!).

arcman210
December 19th, 2007, 10:25 AM
Everyone at this forum speaks for themselves. You don't speak for others. Your personal attack was uncalled for, rude and obnoxious.

No. Your own prejudicial mind allows you to make such a statement and it bespeaks to a rather sheepish tendency these days to call anyone who questions our government or its intentions "unpatriotic."

You don't know JerryL or anyone else here. Your baseless and mean-spirited post is more astounding than anything he wrote. You have been here for less that 75 posts. Where do you find the gall to speak about "when people like him come in here," when the largest body of your own posting is in this thread.

This is an open forum meant to spur discourse, however out of step it might seem. If anyone is posting "garbage," it would be the posts we have seen from you in this thread that run afoul of every rule and guideline we encourage (and can enforce) to ensure courtesy toward one another in the most heated moments.

You don't have to "sit here and argue." Find another thread, complain to a moderator if you think something is out of line, or log off.

There are some great and legendary arguments running through numerous threads at Wired New Yokl. However, for repeatedly telling JerryL to get out of the forum and the rude personal comments directed at him, I think it is you who has crossed the line. First and foremost, we are a courteous forum community. Consider that as you mull the infraction you just earned.

He was offending me with some of his words and actions, and quite frankly he was getting on my and everyone elses nerves...

And Zippy, who was a moderator and also involved in the debate during the days which I was involved, did not say that my comments were offensive nor did he tell me to ease off. I'm not saying he necessarily agreed with me, but he didnt tell me to knock off what I was saying or that it could have been taken as offensive.

You coming in a day later and telling me to knock it off (well after I've stopped posting in this thread) doesnt neccessarily make much sense to me.
Judging by your political views expressed in numerous other threads and the fact that you still have some doubts about 9/11 (there is nothing wrong with either of those... just as long as you didnt believe JerrryL's idiotic theory), it seems more like an attempt by you to tell me to stfu because you dont agree with my opinions...thinking that I am an ultra-patriot or a person who would never doubt their neo-con government (which by the way, I am very far from being either of those).

I want to clear up a couple of things. While I dont necessarily believe conspiracy theories presented about 9/11, I do believe this country is headed in the wrong direction and that there are most likely coverups as to the knowledge of 9/11 attacks... hopefully for one reason other than another, but we probably will never know for sure... I have an open mind and sit in the middle of the fence politically, probably more to the left of 90% of issues. BrooklynRider, the reasons for me "lashing out" against JerryL was because he and his type offend me... the type that get their information from youtube, the high school and middle school aged teens who have never even taken a science class and live in middle-america and have never been to New York. The kind who judge based on having no information and do it for whatever reason, whether its to be cool or to be different.
Doubting something because its believeable is one thing, but doubting it because you feel like its a cool theory is another... his theory was almost a joke; and when it comes to what happened on 9/11, thousands of our friends and neighbors died and lost loved ones. Thats nothing to joke about.
Thats all for me, and sorry if I violated any rules but I dont think I did.

ZippyTheChimp
December 19th, 2007, 10:54 AM
He was offending me with some of his words and actions, and quite frankly he was getting on my and everyone elses nerves...Speak for yourself. He was not getting on my nerves.


And Zippy, who was a moderator and also involved in the debate during the days which I was involved, did not say that my comments were offensive nor did he tell me to ease off.As I explained to another in a PM, I did not read the long point-by-point rebuttals by you (and others); I'm already familiar with Dr Judy, and only skimmed over the thread, picking out posts I wished to respond to.

Besides, you're an adult, and shouldn't need to rely on me to tell you what's right and wrong.


You coming in a day later and telling me to knock it off (well after I've stopped posting in this thread) doesnt neccessarily make much sense to me.You don't need BR to tell you either.


Judging by your political views expressed in numerous other threads...it seems more like an attempt by you to tell me to stfu because you dont agree with my opinions...Some of your remarks were out of line, regardless of your groundless perception of a motive behind pointing them out.


Now you listen, JerryL. I dont think you have any right to challenge what we all know to be a factual account. I am not going to sit here and argue something like this.You should have stopped right there.


Get out of this forum and take your garbage elsewhere where you might get people to believe it.It's not your prerogative to remove people from the forum.

Ninjahedge
December 19th, 2007, 11:17 AM
I have my own opinions on this, but do you think we could maybe graft off this sub-topic and leave the thread on its original, albeit rather unsubstantiated, topic?

JerryL
December 19th, 2007, 12:20 PM
AJ and Jerry, by your drive-by pasting of articles and arguments you have obviously had on other sites, one can see you are not really in the mood to discuss anything or to truly learn what happened, but rather to force people to accept what you believe to be the case.

Like I said, Learn physics. Also learn the amount of sheer metal mass in an airline engine and realize it landed a few BLOCKS for the impact site:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/6310312271.jpg/6310312271-large.jpg

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/FEMAAircraftparts.jpg/FEMAAircraftparts-custom;size:426,582.jpg

Also, from what I have seen, death rays do not ignite in fireballs when aimed at a structure that does not store fuel or other combustibles:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/6586.jpg/6586-large.jpg

If it were hit and "dustified" there would be quite a different ignition cloud (vaporizing steel does not burn like gas or jet fuel).

Site: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/aircraftpartsnyc911

And as for me? I was about 3/4 of a mile away, uptown, looking out the window at the first tower when a small thing smacked into the second and released another ball of flame.

I was watching the news in the conference room until we were allowed home at about 2pm that day (I know, weird) and walked through the streets, with the dust settling around us, to get to the ferries.

I was looking at the people going into detox/sanitization tents after coming across. I went to a Pier in Hoboken and watched as the site continued to burn.

I believe I posted the whole thing here, if not elsewhere.

Proving myself?

I think not. I think it is up to you to prove, not just postulate, the actual events occurring as you are saying.

Don't bother quoting Judy anymore, she quacks so much she can't even be a duck. Do your own legwork.


As for the possibility that this is actually a deliberate smokescreen to bring out an impossible 9-11 conspiracy to discredit any more moderate, plausable 9-11 scheme. I can see that happening.

Blame 9-11 on Death Rays to draw attension away from the fact that Bush and Co. were informed of the danger, did not do anything significant to stop it (did not take it for what it was worth) and then later used it as a reason to invade a country that had nothing to do with it and gradually strip us of our constitutional rights and freedoms.

Could be possible. If not, it would make a pretty good movie (much better than what we have now!).

I appreciate the effort that went into assembling the above post.

The engine wreckage has been used by PLANE SPOTTERS and by NO PLANERS with about equal effect. The plane spotters proudly point to it as evdience of a widebody 767 jetliner having hit one or the other of the Twin Towers. The no planers go into a bit more detail, use a more accurate map than the one you use and show that there are skyscrapers in the way of the trajectory you rely on such that no enging could have landed underneath a scaffold (without damanging the scaffold, no less) and with the presence of an unusually large contingency of cops who courdined off Murray Street so that a mysterious black van could come and park alongside a fire truck that was, itself, mysteriously parked on an obscuring angle and thereafter, lo and behold, engine debris.

There's a good photo essay depicting the conditions I've described above; besides, it has been hotly debated as to whether the debris you picture is, indeed, even large enough to be that of a 767 engine. Most say it isn't, but there's enough disputation out there to make that issue inconclusive.

There are all sorts of military means to produce the pyrotechnical display and either need not be detailed here; or, if the details are coveted, then they can be laid out in coming posts, over upcoming days and weeks. This will depend upon what direction the forum takes.

Now to the best part:

Your own statement:

"And as for me? I was about 3/4 of a mile away, uptown, looking out the window at the first tower when a small thing smacked into the second and released another ball of flame."

Thank you, ninjahead, for your eyewitness account.

With, but only with, your permission, I will add your eyewitness account, as you have written it and as it is quoted above, to that category of information that holds that almost no eyewitnesses say they saw a widebody jetliner hit wtc2, including you.

You have, by virtue of your statement, the capacity to bea declared NO PLANER, however, I repeat, I will not hold you to that unless you permit it.

I will not say that about you without your permission.

I will also say if there's anything you want to change about either the size, the shape, the configuration, etc. of what you say you saw or your distance away from the event (3/4mile) then feel free to do so.

Thank you

lofter1
December 19th, 2007, 01:14 PM
How many infractions for the mis-use of quote function there ^ :confused::cool:

JerryL.: Please provide a link to this (regarding the jet engine on Murray Street):



There's a good photo essay depicting the conditions I've described above


And please list the "skyscrapers" you refer to here ...



there are skyscrapers in the way of the trajectory

lofter1
December 19th, 2007, 01:21 PM
Amazing how anyone can extrapolate a statement from someone who saw an object from 3/4 of a mile away (how big would a jetliner appear from that distance, anyway?) hit the tower to this:




You have, by virtue of your statement, the capacity to bea declared NO PLANER ...

Maybe we should talk about, based on all of the above, what someone else could be declared to be ...

Ninjahedge
December 19th, 2007, 03:48 PM
What object would you describe it as?

A missile? I saw no contrail AND missile explosives look different than fuel/petroleum explosions.

As for the wreckage, Maybe you should do a bit of digging to find the finite element analysis that was done to determine the cause of collapse. I know the people that did it. I sat in on their presentation, and it fit very nicely to what I saw, what I had read, and what happened.

I suggest you re-read my statement on what happened and do a bit of studying to understand it. Some research/schooling on STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING might help. Then take that and try to refute what I said, given what has been provided (Eye witness, photographs, analysis, pictures of the hole, debris recovered).

You keep adding things to your explanation to make it fit.

Sometimes the solution is the one that fits all by itself, not the one you have to keep making fit.

Ninjahedge
December 19th, 2007, 03:56 PM
And no, I will not change what I said.

Me being 3/4 of a mile from the site had nothing to do with it. I said I saw an impact, a fireball and later saw pictures of the impact on live TV, newspaper, web both from institutions and private citizens.

A large object cut a horizontal swath into the WTC. It had flammable material. It had jet parts. Some of it made it throug the other side (thus the jet parts being proven).

Now unless you want to say that the government launched a large gas covered frisbee at the WTC at the same time a lecture on plane wreckage was being held at the point of impact, I fail to see where your "no plane" explanation fits in.

Even your own pictures, showing a plane hitting (and PIECES coming out the other end, not the whole frigging plane!) refutes your own statement.

"No plane can just go through a building like this" and no plane DID go through a building. It hit it and got sliced up like an egg through an egg slicer. Some peices (like engines) fared "better" than others.

You saying that one frame showing something protruding from the other side of teh building as proof that the whole plane went through and therefore refutes the whole premise that a plane hit is absolutely ludicrous.



Please PLEASE come back to reality. I respect challanging authority and raising questions, but not when the questions raised are ill informed and easily refuted.

THINK for yourself a bit before you just pick up and spew out what you want to believe.


THEN come back. Otherwise you will either get the same responses you have seen here, or none at all as you have alienated your audience with your misinformed postings and unwillingness to accept anything that would weaken your argument.

JerryL
December 19th, 2007, 04:31 PM
What object would you describe it as?

A missile? I saw no contrail AND missile explosives look different than fuel/petroleum explosions.

As for the wreckage, Maybe you should do a bit of digging to find the finite element analysis that was done to determine the cause of collapse. I know the people that did it. I sat in on their presentation, and it fit very nicely to what I saw, what I had read, and what happened.

I suggest you re-read my statement on what happened and do a bit of studying to understand it. Some research/schooling on STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING might help. Then take that and try to refute what I said, given what has been provided (Eye witness, photographs, analysis, pictures of the hole, debris recovered).

You keep adding things to your explanation to make it fit.

Sometimes the solution is the one that fits all by itself, not the one you have to keep making fit.

ninjahedge,

For reference, I'll acknowledge your entire post, but for the moment, I'd like to stay with the issue of what you witnessed. That is more important to me, because, as you say, you are an eyewitness.

As it is your observation that is under discussion, it simply doesn't matter what I might think you saw. I haven't got the foggiest idea what you saw, nor would I try to extrapolate and tell you what you saw.

I will, however, repeat what you said for purposes of facilitating the discussion:

" And as for me? I was about 3/4 of a mile away, uptown, looking out the window at the first tower when a small thing smacked into the second and released another ball of flame."

Fine. I have nothing to add or subtract. As far as I can see, the above quote is your story and your truth.

You do not say that you saw a wide body, 767 jetliner. You do not even say you saw an airplane of any sort. I assume that had you seen something that you could be more specific about, you would have said so.

I suppose I can inquire whether you heard anything or felt anything? If you'd care to comment on those queries, fine. I know at least one poster has indicated the topic of what was seen by that poster may not be inquired into; however, I don't recall that poster being you. If, however, I am mistaken and you are the poster who will not entertain queries about your eyewitnessing of the events at the WTC on 9/11/01, then pardon me please.

Fuel and petroleum fires are black. The WTC explosions were mostly gray. Actually, it is probably necessary to be more specific as "fuel" can mean any number of products as can "petroleum." However, gasoline is far more volatile than is kerosene. Gasoline is flammable, kerosene is not (merely combustible). Jets use kerosene, not gasoline.

I'm familiar with FEAs and am aware that the ones done for the official NIST investigation are fraudulent.

JerryL
December 19th, 2007, 04:39 PM
Amazing how anyone can extrapolate a statement from someone who saw an object from 3/4 of a mile away (how big would a jetliner appear from that distance, anyway?) hit the tower to this:


Maybe we should talk about, based on all of the above, what someone else could be declared to be ...

lofter,

As I've indicated to ninjahedge directly, I appreciate very much the eyewitness statement offered by ninjahedge, using words of ninjahedge's choosing.

I did not engage in extrapolation of any sort. I plainly stated that ninjahedge, if s/he chose to do so, could become a witness for NO PLANE theory.

Ninjahedge's statement cannot reasonably be said to confirm the claim that a widebody 767 jetliner hit wtc2 because the wording of the statement do not support any such conclusion.

It does not appear that ninjahedge has chosen to accept my invitation that s/he join in the No Plane camp; however, I do say that ninjahedge could if s/he wanted to.

JerryL
December 19th, 2007, 04:42 PM
How many infractions for the mis-use of quote function there ^ :confused::cool:

JerryL.: Please provide a link to this (regarding the jet engine on Murray Street):



And please list the "skyscrapers" you refer to here ...

I will try to look this up. It may take a matter of hours or perhaps a day. I will also post up a photograph showing the skyscrapers as they stood on 9/11/01 that are right smack in the middle of the imaginary path in the drawing shown on this page.

If there's still time to edit it, that map should probably be withdrawn. It is highly misleading by not showing building heights.

JerryL
December 19th, 2007, 04:49 PM
And no, I will not change what I said.

Me being 3/4 of a mile from the site had nothing to do with it. I said I saw an impact, a fireball and later saw pictures of the impact on live TV, newspaper, web both from institutions and private citizens.

A large object cut a horizontal swath into the WTC. It had flammable material. It had jet parts. Some of it made it throug the other side (thus the jet parts being proven).

Now unless you want to say that the government launched a large gas covered frisbee at the WTC at the same time a lecture on plane wreckage was being held at the point of impact, I fail to see where your "no plane" explanation fits in.

Even your own pictures, showing a plane hitting (and PIECES coming out the other end, not the whole frigging plane!) refutes your own statement.

"No plane can just go through a building like this" and no plane DID go through a building. It hit it and got sliced up like an egg through an egg slicer. Some peices (like engines) fared "better" than others.

You saying that one frame showing something protruding from the other side of teh building as proof that the whole plane went through and therefore refutes the whole premise that a plane hit is absolutely ludicrous.



Please PLEASE come back to reality. I respect challanging authority and raising questions, but not when the questions raised are ill informed and easily refuted.

THINK for yourself a bit before you just pick up and spew out what you want to believe.


THEN come back. Otherwise you will either get the same responses you have seen here, or none at all as you have alienated your audience with your misinformed postings and unwillingness to accept anything that would weaken your argument.

ninjahedge,

OK, a little more dialogue. Can you state the street or building address you were at and the floor you were on? If there are privacy concerns, can you, as an alternative, state the street and the intersecting streets along with what floor you were on or an approximate elevation?

As you were there, do you think, from your vantage point, distance, angle, etc. etc. that you would have been in a position to discern a 767 jetliner if one had been there; or, do you consider your vantage point as not having been good enough for you to make that distinction, no matter what?

For the moment, I find it far better to just stick with what you saw for purposes of this discussion. The other elements are in many respects simply not that important.

I don't try to persuade people to become No Planers; all I do is ask them to look at the available information and think about it.

Mostly, people have formed their viewpoints on the basis of what was said and seen on teevee, in my opinion. I say that when you look at the information carefully and critically, it unravels.

JerryL
December 19th, 2007, 05:10 PM
How many infractions for the mis-use of quote function there ^ :confused::cool:

JerryL.: Please provide a link to this (regarding the jet engine on Murray Street):



And please list the "skyscrapers" you refer to here ...

First things first: Here's a photo from 9/11 with the arrow showing the location of the reputed jetliner engine. As you can see, the buildings would have prevented the trajectory the diagram on pg 13 imagines:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/plane_engineDrop.jpg

Evidence of shrowunding of the scene can be seen here:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/GZ/firetruck_35b.jpg

I do not say the above proves planting of the engine took place. I do say that the engine could not have reached Church and Murray from a plane impact because the other buildings were in the way and because the engine was located underneath an undamaged scaffold, inconsistent with it having fallen from sky.

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/plane-engine.jpg

pianoman11686
December 19th, 2007, 05:28 PM
This will probably sound like a stupid question, but...wouldn't the engine have bounced a certain distance before settling in its final resting place? It was launched at nearly a horizontal trajectory, so it wouldn't have simply fallen flat onto the street and stopped moving.

I usually don't involve myself in these discussions of conspiracy, as there is little to learn from them. Here's a question, though, for the NO PLANE theorists:

If there were no planes, why did the towers fall when/how they did? The South Tower was hit second, but collapsed first - which is consistent, in my mind, with the impact of the second plane (location, speed, and angle). Who supposedly would have predicted this and "engineered" the collapse to logically follow from the initial impacts?

Alonzo-ny
December 19th, 2007, 05:28 PM
You really really really need a physics lesson.

ZippyTheChimp
December 19th, 2007, 06:03 PM
And no, I will not change what I said.

Me being 3/4 of a mile from the site had nothing to do with it.Don't you understand it doesn't matter what you say.

As a sycophant of Dr Judy, Jerry will do what she did, corrupt any 'data' ((I can't believe I'm actually calling it data) that's collected so it fits a pre-determined theory. Therefore, you will go into the no plane category (I'm laughing as I type this).

But Jerry doesn't know what to do with me, since I was only 600 ft away looking right at the building. Not to easy to get me into the no-plane bin, which is why I told him I would not debate that issue with him. I was aware of what he would try to do. He asked me

Can you please describe the sound you heard, using for instance descriptive words and time intervals,It's an old trick. Whatever my description, he would have stated that it wasn't how a plane that hits a building sounds, because he already had dismissed my account with...
you'll soon discover that at the 160 level, your ear drums would burst. Rock concerts reach 140 db and can do damage. He still hasn't provided any data as to what the decibel level would be at ground level. If he did find it, he wouldn't post it because it wouldn't support Dr Judy's theory.

For the record, I was also about 600 ft away when 2WTC collapsed, looking right at the building as I walked east from the BPC esplanade toward Liberty St.

JerryL, I won't tolerate your questioning eyewitness accounts with silly no-plane categories. Either accept them or ignore them, but question them again, and I'll ban you so fast, you'll think you were hit with a DEW.

We engage in intelligent discourse here.

ManhattanKnight
December 19th, 2007, 06:15 PM
I feel lucky now -- I experienced only a sonic hologram that morning when what I mistook for AA 11 swept in loud and low right above my roof. Launched me out of bed real fast; late sleeper.

ZippyTheChimp
December 19th, 2007, 06:23 PM
The miss-placed jet engine brings up an interesting parallel with a conspiracy theory from another era.

The Apollo moon landing conspiracy theory offered as evidence the fact that there were no stars in the photos. The reason is that although the sky was black, the sun was out, so cameras were set for daylight exposure, and dim stars did not register on film.

But that's not the point. If you believe that the government pulled off this hoax, how could they possibly miss including stars"

Likewise, if we are to believe this far more elaborate conspiracy was successfully accomplished, not in the desolation of outer space, but in one of the world's most populous cities, how could some idiot place the jet engine in the wrong place?

Check out Dr Judy's theory of why there were burnt cars across the island on South St.

JerryL
December 19th, 2007, 08:07 PM
Posters,

For the record here's my experience. I have spoken with several eyewitnesses via telephone, via email and, in a few instances, in person. Those who were closest to the event when the buildings were destroyed indicate that they dissolved in midair and that there was almost no experience of heavy material actually crashing onto the ground, something that surprised them.

Those who experienced the dust cloud say that it was not nearly as hot as they thought it'd be and that, if anything, it got cooler as the sun was being blocked.

Some in this category appear to be relieved that people are questioning the official story. Almost all of them have a certain fear level because they don't want to be ostracized for questioning the official version of events. Some speak in hushed tones about what they experienced because they know it doesn't jibe with the official story and that something is wrong.

One of those who was closest to the World Trade Center but on the south side, not the north described to me, upon my request as no one else had asked him what he heard, that he heard a sound that consisted of three distinct intervals of about 1 second duration each that went as follows:

"zhoop" [one second] boom [one second] crack [one second]. Then he saw smoke and fire.
Those who describe hearing, but not seeing, the second explosive episode say the heard a loud roar. I have not ever encountered anyone who said they were certain that what they heard was a jetliner.

Almost no one uses the word "crash" to describe anything they heard. On the contrary, eveyone seems to more or less agree with Evan Fairbanks who said the event was "whisper quiet."

I know of no account that describes the experience of either feeling or wanting to get the heck away from "jet blast."

Here's a link for those who might like to know the kind of damage that can occur from jet blast. I don't think there were any reported instances of such damage on 9/11, despite the fact that the reputed jetliners were traveling at unheard of speeds for the low altitude they were at.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_06/s/s02/side01.html

I will continue to be interested in what eyewitnesses have to say as there'll come a time, sooner than one might think, when eyewitnesses will be hard to come by. However I have read the red print and will try to abide its terms.

If I get banned, please know that I have highly valued my sojourn here.

JerryL
December 19th, 2007, 08:30 PM
I guess because I said a jetliner is limited to 250mph below 10,000ft because of noise pollution and possible ear damage, it might be incumbent upon me to 'prove' it; however, that is a common concern arising in connection with a common experience.

Do posters actually need proof that jet engines are loud?

Don't people observe that at airports, the workers wear ear protection routinely?

Anyway, see:

http://www.cdc.gov/nasd/docs/d000701-d000800/d000770/d000770.html

http://ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/0190.html

http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/quietflying/

http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/ac/AC36-3H.pdf

http://www.abelard.org/hear/hear.htm#how-loud

Hearing is an important human sense apparatus and what one hears can be an excellent indicator of reality. Do posters agree?

JerryL
December 19th, 2007, 08:44 PM
This will probably sound like a stupid question, but...wouldn't the engine have bounced a certain distance before settling in its final resting place? It was launched at nearly a horizontal trajectory, so it wouldn't have simply fallen flat onto the street and stopped moving.

I usually don't involve myself in these discussions of conspiracy, as there is little to learn from them. Here's a question, though, for the NO PLANE theorists:

If there were no planes, why did the towers fall when/how they did? The South Tower was hit second, but collapsed first - which is consistent, in my mind, with the impact of the second plane (location, speed, and angle). Who supposedly would have predicted this and "engineered" the collapse to logically follow from the initial impacts?

Hello pianoman,

The answer to your question is, of course an engine should bounce and, it should also do damage to that which it hits. However, the issue you actually present is a little different.

The issue of the piece of debris that looks a bit like a part from some jet engine or another (but probably not that of a 767) was raised first in the last 2 or 3 pages by lofter, if memory serves me correctly.

As the engine debris was posted in support of the commonly accepted story of what happened, not much was required in the way of secondary proof, such as how'd it get there. The original post included a neat little map that conveniently overlooked and misrepresented the height of the buildings in the apparent path that the map depicted and made no account for bouncing at all.

However, the issue you raised didn't come up until questioning on how the engine could have gotten there without damaging anything nearby was raised.

Mind you, that is typical. The commonly accepted version of events, any event, not just 9/11, but certainly 9/11, enjoys a certain air of presumptive validity. If it's the commonly accepted version, then it is accepted. However, if it is questioned, then you've got a whopper of a burden, far bigger than the proponent of the standard version, irrepsective of how outrageously false the standard version is or might be.

Clearly, the standard version of events of 9/11 are outlandish and mandate across the board failures of almost every system put in place to prevent such events all failing simultaneously, not once, but 4 times.

You know what, I have a question:

Why do people believe the standard version of events so unquestioningly?

I have been cautioned about the NO PLANE issue; so, it's not that I don't want to engage on the topic; rather, I think what I have to say about it is so unacceptable that it's best for me to just leave it alone.

I assert NO PLANES hit the wtc. Posters here know that; and, I know posters here do not agree with my assertion to the point of being vehement and adamant about it.

If I change my mind, and decide that the evidence supports PLANE SPOT theory, I'll raise the subject again, but not otherwise.

Radiohead
December 19th, 2007, 09:11 PM
radiohead,

When you say "despite eye-witness and video evidence" you betray those elements of truth-seeking and betray them utterly.



Let me get this straight. All those who witnessed the attacks in person, with their own eyes and ears, were betraying their elements of truth seeking(your terms) because they relied on two of their most important senses? Ditto for those who saw the attacks on television. What then should they have relied on besides sight and sound? Their sense of smell or touch? Their sense of humor?


The carriage below...I suggest you jump on board
http://img.nytstore.com/IMAGES/NSAPMI15_LARGE.JPG

Once you arrive at your destination, perhaps you can share your theories with this man....
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10132007/news/regionalnews/naked/photo01.jpg

JerryL
December 19th, 2007, 09:44 PM
<edit>

radiohead,

Do you want not to understand what I am saying by a factor of 180 degrees?

I am saying precisely that we need to pay attention to what people said they saw and they heard. Let me repeat that, once again, we need to pay attention to what people said they saw and they heard.

In that respect, I linked for the group and posted examples from what I think is one of the best sources for finding out what people said they saw and they heard; namely the 9/11 Task Force Statements taken from the First Respoonders who were on duty at the WTC complex on 9/11.

There were 503 or so statements. Almost none of those who were in a postion to see and to hear what caused the explosions refer to aircraft of any type and next to none, repeat, next to none of those who gave the 503 statements say they saw a jetliner, let alone a widebody one.

The most recent eyewitness statement that I know of is to be found right here on this thread. That statement is much appreciated for the contribution it makes to our knowledge base. And that is all that I can say about it.

What I can conclude with is that I continue to have an abiding interest in eyewitness testimony and that it is, in part, upon the basis of such testimony that I rely for the opinions I currently hold as being more accurate representations of reality than the standard explanation.

Alonzo-ny
December 19th, 2007, 10:14 PM
From the worlds most trustworthy medium but whatever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F8w0nMlb84
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q5nE-k0tUQ

In the first go to 4:30 do you hear vaporization? No i hear collapse
And the second do you hear silence? No i hear the roar of jet engines.

ZippyTheChimp
December 19th, 2007, 11:23 PM
Those who experienced the dust cloud say that it was not nearly as hot as they thought it'd be and that, if anything, it got cooler as the sun was being blocked.I was in the dust cloud; it was not hot. Why would it be? It was the product of pulverized material, not combustion.


Almost no one uses the word "crash" to describe anything they heard. On the contrary, eveyone seems to more or less agree with Evan Fairbanks who said the event was "whisper quiet."An incorrect assumption. Did they say they agreed with Evan Fairbanks? Did they know who he is? You're attempting to link eyewitness accounts to Evan Fairbanks in order to give him and his equally preposterous theories credibility.


I guess because I said a jetliner is limited to 250mph below 10,000ft because of noise pollution and possible ear damage, it might be incumbent upon me to 'prove' it; however, that is a common concern arising in connection with a common experience.

Do posters actually need proof that jet engines are loud?No, you need to prove that the sound energy at ground level from a jet airliner at 800 ft is high enough to rupture eardrums, as you contended. As I already told you, the level diminishes proportional to the square of the distance. That jet engines are loud is not data.


Don't people observe that at airports, the workers wear ear protection routinely?More useless information. We already know jet engines are loud. So are jackhammers, and their operators routinely wear ear protection. But that doesn't mean everyone who walks by goes deaf.


Why do people believe the standard version of events so unquestioningly?If that's what you've learned from this thread, then you've wasted your time. The 'standard version of events' has nothing to do with it.

pianoman11686
December 19th, 2007, 11:29 PM
Hello pianoman,

The answer to your question is, of course an engine should bounce and, it should also do damage to that which it hits. However, the issue you actually present is a little different.

The issue of the piece of debris that looks a bit like a part from some jet engine or another (but probably not that of a 767) was raised first in the last 2 or 3 pages by lofter, if memory serves me correctly.

As the engine debris was posted in support of the commonly accepted story of what happened, not much was required in the way of secondary proof, such as how'd it get there. The original post included a neat little map that conveniently overlooked and misrepresented the height of the buildings in the apparent path that the map depicted and made no account for bouncing at all.

However, the issue you raised didn't come up until questioning on how the engine could have gotten there without damaging anything nearby was raised.

Please, stop skirting around the question. And don't change the subject, like you do below.

I brought up a very simple explanation to refute your claim that the engine couldn't have landed there without damaging the above scaffolding. I don't know the heights of the buildings between the landing spot and the point of impact, but I do know what a projectile's path looks like, and in this case, I don't think it's outlandish to posit the engine part was propelled several hundred feet in the air (because, unlike much of the rest of an airplane, it is very dense) until it began a steepening decline. It could have easily landed in the intersection at the foreground, and bounced several feet to its final location.

It looks a "bit" like a jet engine, but almost certainly not like a 767 engine? How could you possibly know that from the photo? Do you know how large the object in the photo was, and how much larger or smaller it was than a standard 767 engine, after taking into account disfiguring from the impact? I doubt it.


Mind you, that is typical. The commonly accepted version of events, any event, not just 9/11, but certainly 9/11, enjoys a certain air of presumptive validity. If it's the commonly accepted version, then it is accepted. However, if it is questioned, then you've got a whopper of a burden, far bigger than the proponent of the standard version, irrepsective of how outrageously false the standard version is or might be.

Clearly, the standard version of events of 9/11 are outlandish and mandate across the board failures of almost every system put in place to prevent such events all failing simultaneously, not once, but 4 times.

You know what, I have a question:

Why do people believe the standard version of events so unquestioningly?

Um, because it makes sense? Because it was the single most documented event in human history? You do know that there are more photos, videos, and accounts of 9/11 than of any other event ever, right? It just happens that all the documentation is somehow falsified?

I'll tell you a story, Jerry. My story of 9/11. I was in English class - the first class of my sophomore year of high school - when the events took place. Our professor - an older man with a great sense of humor and an uncanny talent for making up ridiculous lies that the class would always fall for - greeted us by saying, "This isn't usually the way I like to start a class, but I've just been informed that two planes have hit the World Trade Center, and a fireball was seen at the Pentagon."

No one - not a single student believed him. We laughed and brushed it off as a joke. Half an hour later, when all the students were called over the loudspeaker to return to their homerooms, we still thought it was a false alarm. I remember whispering, in jest, to one of my friends in a stairwell, "We're under attack!" About an hour later, I started to learn, slowly but surely, the terrifying truth. Later that day, I met my mother, who told me she stared down 5th Avenue as the North Tower continued to burn, after watching the South fall. I could smell that distinct smell of burnt steel and office equipment several miles uptown.

I've probably watched those planes hitting the Twin Towers hundreds, maybe a thousand, times since 9/11. Not once has it dawned on me that it could've been a ploy to hide the real truth about the attacks. NOT ONCE.

I guess that makes me a charlatan.

lofter1
December 20th, 2007, 12:29 AM
JerryL.:

You're digging yourself into a big hole. Do things look any more logical from down there?

Either way, hopefully you'll be able to further clarify some of your previous posts.

First: Can you expand upon and explain the meaning of this phrase (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=205150&postcount=197), particularly the highlighted word:



Evidence of shrowunding of the scene can be seen ...

Second: You earlier referred (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=205083&postcount=188) to the buildings that you claimed were in the way of the trajectory
of the jet engine as "skyscrapers":


The no planers go into a bit more detail, use a more accurate map than the one you use
and show that there are skyscrapers in the way of the trajectory you rely on ...

Then you were asked to give the list of skyscrapers which would have been in the area
of the WTC (and thereby interrupted the path of the parts of the planes which passed
through the towers); you now say:



The original post included a neat little map that conveniently overlooked and misrepresented
the height of the buildings in the apparent path that the map depicted ...


The buildings in the photo you posted and which somehow have their heights "misrepresented"
are how tall, JerryL.?

Don't bother to look it up; I'll tell you, as I know those streets very well.

Those buildings in the photo west of Church Street near Vesey / Barclay / Park Place / Murray
are 15 - 20 stories each -- hardly a "skyscraper" among them.

Certainly nothing of a height to interrupt the trajectory of a hunk of metal which hit
a building 750 feet up and then flew through the air.

So you might want to take another look at what you posted ...



First things first: Here's a photo from 9/11 with the arrow showing the location of the reputed
jetliner engine. As you can see, the buildings would have prevented the trajectory the diagram on pg 13 imagines:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/plane_engineDrop.jpg


:cool:

ZippyTheChimp
December 20th, 2007, 12:48 AM
The trajectory of a projectile is a parabola.

The horizontal velocity depends on the initial force, and neglecting air resistance, remains constant.

Vertically, the engine moves the same as a free-falling body, accelerating at 32 ft/sec(2).

http://www2.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/vectors/u3l2b3.gif

JerryL
December 20th, 2007, 06:31 AM
Please, stop skirting around the question. And don't change the subject, like you do below.

...
I don't know the heights of the buildings between the landing spot and the point of impact, but I do know what a projectile's path looks like, and in this case, I don't think it's outlandish to posit the engine part was propelled several hundred feet in the air (because, unlike much of the rest of an airplane, it is very dense) until it began a steepening decline. It could have easily landed in the intersection at the foreground, and bounced several feet to its final location.

It looks a "bit" like a jet engine, but almost certainly not like a 767 engine? How could you possibly know that from the photo? Do you know how large the object in the photo was, and how much larger or smaller it was than a standard 767 engine, after taking into account disfiguring from the impact? I doubt it.



Um, because it makes sense? Because it was the single most documented event in human history? You do know that there are more photos, videos, and accounts of 9/11 than of any other event ever, right? It just happens that all the documentation is somehow falsified?

I'll tell you a story, Jerry. My story of 9/11. I was in English class - the first class of my sophomore year of high school - when the events took place. Our professor - an older man with a great sense of humor and an uncanny talent for making up ridiculous lies that the class would always fall for - greeted us by saying, "This isn't usually the way I like to start a class, but I've just been informed that two planes have hit the World Trade Center, and a fireball was seen at the Pentagon."

No one - not a single student believed him. We laughed and brushed it off as a joke. Half an hour later, when all the students were called over the loudspeaker to return to their homerooms, we still thought it was a false alarm. I remember whispering, in jest, to one of my friends in a stairwell, "We're under attack!" About an hour later, I started to learn, slowly but surely, the terrifying truth. Later that day, I met my mother, who told me she stared down 5th Avenue as the North Tower continued to burn, after watching the South fall. I could smell that distinct smell of burnt steel and office equipment several miles uptown.

I've probably watched those planes hitting the Twin Towers hundreds, maybe a thousand, times since 9/11. Not once has it dawned on me that it could've been a ploy to hide the real truth about the attacks. NOT ONCE.

I guess that makes me a charlatan.

Greetings pianoman,

Your post offers up a lot of information; and, for that, the thread can be grateful.

Actually, I'll start by incorporating the parabolic illustration from another of your posts (or was that from zippy?); that, too, is appreciated.

If you add that parabolic equation to the photo I showed, rather than the illustration in lofter's original post, that had all the buildings between GZ and Church and Murray illustrated as FLAT you should be able to deduce that the debris in question should not have been able to get to Church & Murray, absent violation of laws of physics.

Of course, and on the other hand, since almost every other aspect of the standard version of 9/11 events also violated them, the engine part thingy is in excellent company, isn't it?

As to the size of the thingy, you have a frame of reference. The thingy is shown right next to a Murray Street sign, correct? From that sign one can make reasonable assumptions about the size of the object.

Admittedly, I did not seek to 'prove' the engine thingy doesn't come from a 767. If you'll go back a few pages, you'll see that I indicated in substance that all of that could be gotten into depending upon how the thread develops.

Needless to say, one way forward here would be to post up a spec sheet on what kind of engines 767-200s have; then post up a photo of that engine then argue with lofter in post after post after post on why my observations are so incredibly wrong.

At the end of that day, no one will know for sure what piece of debris we're looking at.

It's up to posters to do this if they want.

As I already know the outcome, I, frankly, don't see the need to do it. Shouldn't it suffice in the first place to say that the picture of the engine thingy in front of a Murray Street sign, with a fire truck diagonally parked, that far away from GZ and with a sentry chair right next to the fire engine is sufficient for both sides in the dispute to claim visual support?

I think it is.

I don't know why posters, including you, seem to misunderstand what I am saying about the visual information and the witness accounts from 9/11. You guys are really badly misconstruing my words, even though they are relatively plain.

I'll try it in bold:

IF YOU ACTUALLY READ WHAT WITNESSES HAVE TO SAY and if YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE VISUAL EVIDENCE (looking closely at still photographs) and BOTH LOOKING AT and LISTENING TO videos, you will find that the standard version of events is not supported; rather, it is contradicted.

See this:

My contentions re 9/11 are based solely and exclusively on what can be gleaned from the record of the event where the record I place value on are those elements that are as close to the sources as possible or to those situations where the collectors of the information had an obligation to do the collecting carefully and methodically.

One thing that attracted me to this thread was the information it had on 130 Liberty Street, including people who had apparently gone to the site; and/or who were interested in it.

I am very, very, very interested in eyewitness accounts of the events of 9/11.

In fact, I'm sorry I rubbed you the wrong way with regard to asking people to state what they saw.

You inferred I was trying to get them to change their point of view. That was not my intent. I was trying merely to make sure I understood what they saw and where they saw it from.

We have a poster, ninjahedge, who was 3/4 mile away. That is darned close, in my opinion; as, in NYC, 3/4 mile is 15 N/S blocks. That is certainly walking distance for NewYorkers.

Someone that close who saw an aspect of the event without the filter of teevee is, in my view, an INVALUABLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION OF HISTORIC MAGNITUDE. It is too bad we can't talk about that too openly. Perhaps you'll reconsider putting us on pins and needles regarding that subjext, zippy?


If you've watched the planes hitting the towers a lot, then you know that there's only 2 videos showing the north tower hit: Naudet and Hlava. Looked at critically and in response to the question "what does the video show" you can only answer, truthfully and honestly as follows with respect to Naudet:

I see a blob that appears at a certain frame in the video and then it seems to fall at a 45degree angle into the north tower.

With respect to Hlava, you can say, I see the explosion but there is no discernible flying object at all.

With respect to the South tower hit there are a larger number of source videos; approximately 30. At least one has been destroyed, the one taken by Chopper 5 that was ridiculously easy to prove was fake. That is the one from which the 2 stills I posted earlier was taken showing the shadow thingy going in one side and out the other.

zippy, would you be willing to talk more about the cloud experience and your experience of seeing the building disintegrate before your very eyes?

Hear this: You, too, are an eye witness to an aspect of 9/11; as such, your information is of historic importance.

Thank you for consideration.

ps

I posted this thinking it was in reply to zippy. I've edited the name in the first instance, but there are probably a few additional references to 'zippy' that should read 'pianoman'.
Sorry for the confusion.

JerryL
December 20th, 2007, 06:44 AM
JerryL.:

You're digging yourself into a big hole. Do things look any more logical from down there?

Either way, hopefully you'll be able to further clarify some of your previous posts.

First: Can you expand upon and explain the meaning of this phrase (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=205150&postcount=197), particularly the highlighted word:


Second: You earlier referred (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=205083&postcount=188) to the buildings that you claimed were in the way of the trajectory
of the jet engine as "skyscrapers":


Then you were asked to give the list of skyscrapers which would have been in the area
of the WTC (and thereby interrupted the path of the parts of the planes which passed
through the towers); you now say:



The buildings in the photo you posted and which somehow have their heights "misrepresented"
are how tall, JerryL.?

Don't bother to look it up; I'll tell you, as I know those streets very well.

Those buildings in the photo west of Church Street near Vesey / Barclay / Park Place / Murray
are 15 - 20 stories each -- hardly a "skyscraper" among them.

Certainly nothing of a height to interrupt the trajectory of a hunk of metal which hit
a building 750 feet up and then flew through the air.

So you might want to take another look at what you posted ...



:cool:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/FEMAAircraftparts.jpg/FEMAAircraftparts-custom;size:426,582.jpg

As can be seen, the above illustration, posted by lofter, does not accurately depict the height of the buildings between Church and Murray and the WTC.

This photo does a better job of showing building heights and that's why it was posted:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/plane_engineDrop.jpg



Add zippy's parabolic illustration to the photo I showed, throw in some height particulars for the buildings and you'll be off and running with the ability to say that the engine should not have been able to get to Church and Murray, only to be confounded by those who'' undoubtedly claim otherwise.

At the end of that disputation, both sides will have something in their favor.

Those who say it couldn't have gotten there will have the laws of physics and of probability on their side; those who claim otherwise will have the standard version of events and the powers that be on their side. In the short run the latter is the stronger side, but not in the longer run.

ZippyTheChimp
December 20th, 2007, 08:30 AM
zippy, would you be willing to talk more about the cloud experience and your experience of seeing the building disintegrate before your very eyes?Misquote the moderator, get an infraction.

JerryL
December 20th, 2007, 08:37 AM
Misquote the moderator, get an infraction.

From the post:

"ps

I posted this thinking it was in reply to zippy. I've edited the name in the first instance, but there are probably a few additional references to 'zippy' that should read 'pianoman'.
Sorry for the confusion."

The name was corrected in the post, zippy, to and including an apology for the confusion for goodness sake. Shouldn't that have rendered the claim of misquotation unfounded?

ZippyTheChimp
December 20th, 2007, 08:45 AM
^
Ignore the moderator, get another infraction.

My statement was clear:
For the record, I was also about 600 ft away when 2WTC collapsed, looking right at the building as I walked east from the BPC esplanade toward Liberty St.

Ninjahedge
December 20th, 2007, 09:36 AM
I assert NO PLANES hit the wtc.

And that is a major sticking point and where you are wrong 100%.

If you are unwilling to accept that, then the rest of your position holds no water whatsoever.

Question, where were you that day? If you cannot say that you were 600 feet from the WTC when you say the missile, or death ray hit, then you are, by your own reasoning, at a severe disadvantage to the ones that WERE that close.

If you did not personally see how this happened and are willing to discount the testamony of people we know and trust here, your repeated verbose postulations of an erroneous conspiracy are not worth the bits they are stored on.

Until you are willing to actually discuss and admit the shortcomings of your own argument you hold no credibility to quite a few people here, and everywhere. You cannot disprove the planes hit without calling people liars, so you just say "Well, I can't prove it, but this is what happened."

Enough. Please "discuss" this or just go away.

JerryL
December 20th, 2007, 09:39 AM
^
Ignore the moderator, get another infraction.

My statement was clear:

Hi zippy,

pianoman had stated:

"... after watching the South fall. I could smell that distinct smell of burnt steel and office equipment several miles uptown."

That is what I was referring too.

I reaffirm my part in the confusion, as I had earlier apologized for.

Your statement:

"For the record, I was also about 600 ft away when 2WTC collapsed, looking right at the building as I walked east from the BPC esplanade toward Liberty St."

You are an invaluable eyewitness to an important historical event. I invite you to consider putting your account into the National Archives, together with a photograph of yourself; however, you might want to consider using a picture where you're not wearing your baseball cap .

There will come a time when eyewitness statements will be a valuable source of information for historians, researchers and other interested parties. Information about the witnesses will also likely be important.

Ninjahedge
December 20th, 2007, 09:52 AM
From the post:

"ps

I posted this thinking it was in reply to zippy. I've edited the name in the first instance, but there are probably a few additional references to 'zippy' that should read 'pianoman'.
Sorry for the confusion."

The name was corrected in the post, zippy, to and including an apology for the confusion for goodness sake. Shouldn't that have rendered the claim of misquotation unfounded?

Nope. You are not playing nice, and you are questioning a moderator?

"Excuse me officer, but from my perspective I was not speeding".

I am sure that the cop would LOVE that explanation.

As for my diagram, it is a thing called a SCHEMATIC. If you want the true heights, go to Google Earth and take a look.

Something hitting 70-80 stories up certainly has enough height to clear a few 20 story buildings. Again, look up your physics, do the calculation and tell us that it needed to travel XX MPH to get to where it is going. Refute that before you say that it could never make it over the top.



Oh, the interesting thing is, I like how you say that no plane hit it, but when plane parts (including ones that did not "clear " your "skyscrapers" like the landing gear) you try to refute the existance of the wreckage. Why? Because if that was actually plane wreckage, it puts a big hole in your postulation.

The one thing that people have found out about theories is this. They base it on what they know, what fits. They find out later that, if they got it right, other things that they did not even look at when they formed teh original, fit the model they proposed.

So far, nothing has not fit with what has been observed. Your theory, OTOH, has all these corollaries attached to it that require additional explanation to make them fit.

It does not matter how many dresses you put on it. That dog is not your sister.

Ninjahedge
December 20th, 2007, 09:58 AM
Hi zippy,

pianoman had stated:

"... after watching the South fall. I could smell that distinct smell of burnt steel and office equipment several miles uptown."

I will tell you what it smelled like to me, 3/4 of a mile uptown and now on the health registry.

It smelled like burning gas, plastic and electrical. It did not smell like burning steel. But, as a structural engineer with family in the FD, I guess I don't know what burning materials smell like.

Oh, I also did not see a beam, vaporization, or any expendature of energy at the time of impact, time of collape, or any other time. SO keep on postulating.


You are an invaluable eyewitness to an important historical event. I invite you to consider putting your account into the National Archives, together with a photograph of yourself; however, you might want to consider using a picture where you're not wearing your baseball cap .

HAHA funny.

not.

Do you even know what that photo is? Do you know what it refers to? After all, you know NYC better than all of us, so why don't you tell us?


There will come a time when eyewitness statements will be a valuable source of information for historians, researchers and other interested parties. Information about the witnesses will also likely be important.

No, this is just you trying to refute his statement by an implied unwillingness not to be anonymous to teh general public. Especially on a subject ALREADY AS WELL DOCUMENTED AS THIS ONE.

I was thinking of putting my name on that list and picture recounting my memory of the sun coming up that morning, but I figured ENOUGH PEOPLE ALREADY SAW THE DAAMN THING WITH THEIR OWN EYES TO KNOW IT.

Enough already, you are still floundering for a response to our assertions and relying on a weak attempt to discredit the poster rather than answer the questions.

I hope you are really not this oblivious or unwilling to admit when you are wrong.

JerryL
December 20th, 2007, 09:58 AM
And that is a major sticking point and where you are wrong 100%.

If you are unwilling to accept that, then the rest of your position holds no water whatsoever.

Question, where were you that day? If you cannot say that you were 600 feet from the WTC when you say the missile, or death ray hit, then you are, by your own reasoning, at a severe disadvantage to the ones that WERE that close.

If you did not personally see how this happened and are willing to discount the testamony of people we know and trust here, your repeated verbose postulations of an erroneous conspiracy are not worth the bits they are stored on.

Until you are willing to actually discuss and admit the shortcomings of your own argument you hold no credibility to quite a few people here, and everywhere. You cannot disprove the planes hit without calling people liars, so you just say "Well, I can't prove it, but this is what happened."

Enough. Please "discuss" this or just go away.

Here is what I consider to be the best source of eyewitnesses whose statements have been catalogued with some care for accuracy and detail:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2005/08/12/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC.html

I have posted this link before and have repeatedly indicated my reliance upon the information contained in the statements for purposes of formulating my position on this matter.

I have indicated that the statements, found at the link given, for Fire Chief Salvatore Cassano and for Battalion Chief Stephen King inform (that is to say have influence upon) my NO PLANE claim.

It might interest you to know that I also rely on the following compilation of the witness statements that has found that:

* Only 19 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually seeing plane 2 before impact and, as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 20%.
* Only 20 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually hearing plane 2 before impact and as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 21%.

* Only 8 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually seeing and hearing plane 2 before impact and as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 8.3%.


See:

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=134&Itemid=60

Do you have a source for eyewitness accounts that you consider to be better than the one I am referencing?

For the life of me, I cannot say that 100s or 1000s of people "saw the plane."

Rather, I can say that 19 or 20 of the nearly 200 who are known, with a high degree of reliability to have been in a position to see a plane, say they did so; and, of that number only 8 of them say they saw and heard a plane; and, as to them, it is unclear how many thought the plane was a widebody jetliner.

You keep asking me "if I was there" when I have made it clear a) I was not; and b) my opinion is based on the evidence consisting in 1)photographs; 2) videos; 3) witness statements; 4) reasoning (as in, the official story requires too great a suspension of disbelief to be credible; example: training to fly a Piper Cub is insufficient to permit me to assume a hijacker could commandeer a widebody jetliner out near the Ohio border or in upstate NY and find his way to NYC as doing that requires considerable navigational know how.

Thanks for your post and for engaging with me on this. I will understand if you refuse to engage further based on your assertion and claim that everything I say is wrong.

lofter1
December 20th, 2007, 10:05 AM
JerryL.:

First, please take more care when quoting / attributing info as posted by forum members.

I did not post either the map or the trajectory diagram.

Second, please do not continue to refuse to answer these simple questions:

1) Where do you reside?

2) Where were you located on the morning of 9.11.2001 (I do note that you have previously stated you were NOT in NYC on that date).

In regard to location: your apparent colleague, Andrew Johnson, directed us to link wherein he admits that he is a resident of the United Kingdom and was not in NYC on 9/11. Not sure why you do not offer up concrete information as to your location then and now.

JerryL
December 20th, 2007, 10:27 AM
I will tell you what it smelled like to me, 3/4 of a mile uptown and now on the health registry.

It smelled like burning gas, plastic and electrical. It did not smell like burning steel. But, as a structural engineer with family in the FD, I guess I don't know what burning materials smell like.

Oh, I also did not see a beam, vaporization, or any expendature of energy at the time of impact, time of collape, or any other time. SO keep on postulating.



HAHA funny.

not.

Do you even know what that photo is? Do you know what it refers to? After all, you know NYC better than all of us, so why don't you tell us?



No, this is just you trying to refute his statement by an implied unwillingness not to be anonymous to teh general public. Especially on a subject ALREADY AS WELL DOCUMENTED AS THIS ONE.

I was thinking of putting my name on that list and picture recounting my memory of the sun coming up that morning, but I figured ENOUGH PEOPLE ALREADY SAW THE DAAMN THING WITH THEIR OWN EYES TO KNOW IT.

Enough already, you are still floundering for a response to our assertions and relying on a weak attempt to discredit the poster rather than answer the questions.

I hope you are really not this oblivious or unwilling to admit when you are wrong.

ninjahedge,

Although your impugning of my motives is tiresome, the effort is still worth it in that although you dislike the assertions I make, you nonetheless continue to be of great help to all of us by sharing your actual sense perception.

You state:

"I will tell you what it smelled like to me, 3/4 of a mile uptown and now on the health registry.

It smelled like burning gas, plastic and electrical. It did not smell like burning steel. But, as a structural engineer with family in the FD, I guess I don't know what burning materials smell like.

Oh, I also did not see a beam, vaporization, or any expendature of energy at the time of impact, time of collape, or any other time. SO keep on postulating."

I consider, and I know in advance you vehemently disagree, that your statement of what you smelled might be consistent with Directed Ehergy Weaponry as a causal factor.

Look, all any researcher can do is collect data. Recollection and restatement of what one smelled is data. It is, technically speaking, an anecdote. Anecdotes are data, are they not?

That's all I'm doing here is assessing information. You smelled the effects of the destruction of the WTC complex. You have reported it. We are, I am, grateful for this information; as in, I REALLY APPRECIATE KNOWING THIS.

Why are you impugning my motives in that regard?

The steel at WTC largely vaporized and disappeared. There was very little of it left. GZ was, colloquially speaking, as flat as a pancake where once not one but two 110-storey builidings stood.

The foregoing paragraph is factual WITH THE ONE EXCEPTION that it DOES NOT DEFINE the word "flat". So, instead, let us rely on this photo to define flat:

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/search2.jpg

Here's another, more cropped view:

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image127.jpg

I will add that I have personally interviewed firefighters who report walking across GZ after the destruction of both towers and that they had no trouble doing so. It was an open field, to use their words.

Here is a photo, as well, of a piece of burnt steel from the WTC:

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-D-12.jpg

JerryL
December 20th, 2007, 10:35 AM
JerryL.:

First, please take more care when quoting / attributing info as posted by forum members.

I did not post either the map or the trajectory diagram.

Second, please do not continue to refuse to answer these simple questions:

1) Where do you reside?

2) Where were you located on the morning of 9.11.2001 (I do note that you have previously stated you were NOT in NYC on that date).

In regard to location: your apparent colleague, Andrew Johnson, directed us to link wherein he admits that he is a resident of the United Kingdom and was not in NYC on 9/11. Not sure why you do not offer up concrete information as to your location then and now.

I will try to quote better.

I'd like to double check for understanding: Is a condition of posting here that I reveal where I reside?

If it is a condition of posting, then I will reveal it. If it is not a condition for posting, then I will respectfully decline to reveal that information.

I will say, however, that I am a natural born citizen of the USA, currently residing within one of the 48 contiguous states.

I hope this sufficies.

Ninjahedge
December 20th, 2007, 10:47 AM
You jut are not worth it.

You keep sidestepping the questions you can't answer.

GL proving your death-ray BS. You are now on Ignore.

Have a day!

Alonzo-ny
December 20th, 2007, 10:54 AM
If you want to assert that it was completely flat why do you continue showing very cropped small images, mostly taken on the streets off the site? There are many images showing tons of steel piled on the site, what of documentaries ive seen with the old steel piled up high in SI?

Ninjahedge
December 20th, 2007, 10:57 AM
The steel at WTC largely vaporized and disappeared. There was very little of it left. GZ was, colloquially speaking, as flat as a pancake where once not one but two 110-storey builidings stood.

The foregoing paragraph is factual WITH THE ONE EXCEPTION that it DOES NOT DEFINE the word "flat". So, instead, let us rely on this photo to define flat:


I walked on that pile.

It was not flat.

You have never heard of camera angles?

http://img463.imageshack.us/img463/2630/p10100158ta.th.jpg (http://img463.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p10100158ta.jpg)
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/61/p10100154du.th.jpg (http://img205.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p10100154du.jpg)
http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/9245/p10100147bo.th.jpg (http://img188.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p10100147bo.jpg)

Yeah. Real flat.

Oh, notice the lack of steel. :p

ZippyTheChimp
December 20th, 2007, 10:59 AM
Only 19 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually seeing plane 2 before impact and, as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 20%.
* Only 20 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually hearing plane 2 before impact and as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 21%.

* Only 8 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually seeing and hearing plane 2 before impact and as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 8.3%Distorted interpretation of data.The numbers would only have meaning if the entire sample was in a position to observe the planes hit the buildings. I was in the vicinity of the WTC when ther first plane hit, but I didn't see it. What does that mean? Absolutely nothing.

You are continually being asked about your whereabouts because it is obvious that you have no experience with the density of Lower Manhattan. That 80% of the people in the area did not see the planes is reasonable to anyone who is familiar with the area.

The more relevant question is not where you reside, but how often, if ever, you been to Lower Manhattan. Your jet engine conclusions are completely wrong. I have walked down Church St almost daily for years, and the buildings on the west side of the street are not tall enough to support your conclusions. Also. moving north, Church St bends to the east at Vesey St, further exposing the intersection at Murray St to a trajectory from the South Tower.

And stop quoting entire posts. See the posting guidelines in Forum Issues.

Ninjahedge
December 20th, 2007, 11:06 AM
Flat as a pancake.

Look at how easily these guys are walking across it only a week after the collapse!

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/4696/p1010031vz9.th.jpg (http://img210.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1010031vz9.jpg)
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6403/p1010029yh5.th.jpg (http://img210.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1010029yh5.jpg)

lofter1
December 20th, 2007, 11:23 AM
might be consistent with Directed Ehergy Weaponry as a causal factor.

Look, all any researcher can do is collect data. Recollection and restatement of what one smelled is data.


You refute NH's statement regarding what he smelled on that morning, yet you offer no empirical data in regards to what smells would be apparent after DEWs are used.

Can you please offer specific data -- or links to same so that forumers can deduce for themselves -- from DEW tests showing the various smells emitted in regards to specific materials found at the WTC (steel, glass, aluminum, concrete).

lofter1
December 20th, 2007, 11:41 AM
The steel at WTC largely vaporized and disappeared. There was very little of it left. GZ was, colloquially speaking, as flat as a pancake where once not one but two 110-storey builidings stood.


So it was "flat as a pancake", eh?

What's THIS (http://www.toad.com/****nyccensors/wtc100301/wtc026.jpg), a Hollywood creation?

You claim the steel "vaporized and disappeared"? Dr. Judy will refute you on the "vaporized" claim (in the vid interview she specifically calls out the interviewer when he makes the "vaporized" assertion, saying that vaporization did not occur). Intersting to note you don't use Dr. Judy's favorite term for what she claims took place that morning: "dustified / dustification".

You also claim, in regard to the steel at WTC, that there was "very little of it left."

Does 200,000 TONS = "very little" :confused:

[ If that fits your definition of "little" then could I, please, borrow a little cash? ;) ]

Nonetheless, please READ ON (http://www.apwa.net/Publications/Reporter/ReporterOnline/index.asp?DISPLAY=ISSUE&ISSUE_DATE=032004&ARTICLE_NUMBER=770):


Each load of material generated from Ground Zero was given a four-part disposal ticket for tracking purposes ...

A total of 508 barges of material were loaded by the Department at the 59th Street and Hamilton Avenue MTS's, and another 1,423 barges were loaded by the city's contractor, Weeks Marine, at Pier 6 and Pier 25 ...

At the peak of the operation, approximately 10,000 tons of material were delivered daily to the site.

In closing, approximately 200,000 tons of steel were recycled directly from Ground Zero to various metal recyclers. The Fresh Kills Landfill received approximately 1.4 million tons of WTC debris of which 200,000 tons of steel were recycled by a recycling vendor (Hugo Neu Schnitzer). The remaining material, approximately 1.2 million tons of WTC debris, was landfilled on the western side of Section 1/9 at the Fresh Kills Landfill in a 40-acre site.

The project had come up to speed quickly, processing from 1,750 tons per day of debris in mid-September to 17,500 tons per day by mid-October. Average throughput over the duration of the project was 4,900 tons of debris processed per day.

Ninjahedge
December 20th, 2007, 12:04 PM
FYI, replace the *** with the "f" word in the link when you click on it (to any who might be clicking).

1.4 million tones is NOTHING Loft!

It was all particularized by dustification!!!!!!

ManhattanKnight
December 20th, 2007, 12:09 PM
A real WTC steel story:


September 29, 2001

A NATION CHALLENGED: THE SITE; Engineers Seek to Test Steel Before It Is Melted for Reuse

By JAMES GLANZ AND KENNETH CHANG

The huge steel columns and beams of the World Trade Center are being hauled off to be melted and recycled before engineers can inspect the twisted metal, which they say could hold important clues on how to build safer skyscrapers in the future.

The city has signed a contract that allows two New Jersey firms to recycle the estimated 310,000 tons of steel from the trade center site, including some 90,000 tons from each tower.

Kenneth Holden, commissioner of the department of design and construction, said the deal would help to recoup at least a tiny part of the original value of the towers and to dispose of the wreckage in an environmentally responsible way. He could not provide an estimate for the value of the steel. Ultimately the money would probably go to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owned the buildings.

But some engineers, including a team assembled by the American Society of Civil Engineers, say that examination of the steel could allow them to piece together the precise chain of events that led to the collapse of the buildings.

''If we don't collect the unbelievably valuable data, it will be a second tragedy,'' said Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, professor of structural engineering at the University of California at Berkeley and a member of the engineering society's team. Dr. Astaneh-Asl is also the recipient of one of eight grants awarded yesterday by the National Science Foundation to investigate the disaster.

Commissioner Holden said that while agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the office of the city medical examiner did inspect the steel for crime scene clues and human remains, no engineering examinations were taking place.

Mr. Holden said that while he would probably not object to allowing engineers to perform such examinations, his first priority was clearing the site so that human remains might be recovered.

''Our focus right now is moving steel out to see if we can find bodies alive or dead,'' Mr. Holden said.

Some of the steel is already being cut up for recycling at the two firms that were awarded contracts: Hugo Neu Schnitzer East in Jersey City and Metal Management of Newark.

''We thought they were going to be held for at least a while until we could get to them,'' said Dr. W. Gene Corley, senior vice president of Construction Technologies Laboratories in Skokie, Ill., and the leader of a 12-member team from the civil engineering society that would like to study the wreckage. ''If they're recycling all of it, that would make it more difficult.''

Dr. Corley said it was most important to set aside the parts of buildings that were near the spots where the airplanes slammed into them.

How the girders bent could tell the engineers which part of the buildings failed first. Microscopic analysis of the steel could tell them how hot the fires burned. Taken together, such information could yield insights on how to construct buildings that are more resistant to attack.

''These failures occurred very quickly, and some of the evidence for this is contained in those columns and beams,'' said Dr. Richard J. Fragaszy, program director in civil and mechanical systems at the National Science Foundation.

The two recycling firms said that they would be willing to accommodate the inspections if they could be done quickly, but that they were not aware of the project.

''If they want representative samples, I think that's fine,'' said Bob Kelman, senior vice president and general manager of Hugo Neu Schnitzer. ''We'd be happy to assist.''

The trade center steel has attracted interest in other quarters. Yesterday Police Commissioner Bernard B. Kerik confirmed a report in The New York Post that investigators were looking into accusations that organized crime figures, in the confusion after the attack, had carted away as much as 250 tons of scrap metal to yards in New Jersey and on Long Island. Mr. Kerik said the metal had been recovered. In any case, such small amounts of steel are unlikely to have a significant impact on the recycling operation or on any engineering inspections, should they eventually take place.

James A. Rossberg, director of the civil engineering society's Structural Engineering Institute, said he had tried to contact the city this week about the possibility of doing the inspections.

But Mr. Holden said he had not received that request. In the aftermath of the attack, phone lines running to the city's command center near ground zero were often not working properly and city officials had to deal with more immediate crises. Mr. Rossberg said he faxed the request again yesterday.
''We're trying not to be intrusive, certainly,'' he said, adding that there were ''a number of issues that are taking much greater priority.''

Still, some engineers said that the analysis effort should not hamper recovery work and that if it were not undertaken soon, important information would be destroyed.

Late yesterday, Mr. Holden said that the request from the society had finally reached him. ''I just got handed a letter literally 60 seconds ago,'' Mr. Holden said at 5:40 p.m. He said he would consider the request over the weekend.

Copyright 2001 and 2007 The New York Times Company

(Emphasis added)

lofter1
December 20th, 2007, 12:35 PM
FYI, replace the *** with the "f" word in the link when you click on it (to any who might be clicking).
Yes, sorry ... you must do that ^ in order to see the very large image (too big to post here) showing the huge pile of steel atop 3WTC with other massive amounts of steel in the vicinity.

I've re-sized it for easier viewing:

***

Jasonik
December 20th, 2007, 12:42 PM
Yes ManhattanKnight, forensic engineers were dustificated.

Statement and Questions Regarding the 9/11 Commission Interview
of Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Members of his Administration

revised May 11, 2004

The Family Steering Committee is pleased that former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and members of his Administration will be giving sworn testimony before an audience of Families of 9/11 Victims and the American public.

Since the Commission is responsible for fulfilling the Congressional mandate to investigate all facts relating to 9/11, the following questions for the Giuliani Administration and the Port Authority of NY & NJ must be addressed at the May 18th –19th hearings in order to facilitate informed decisions and recommendations.

1. A few short weeks after 9/11, tons of metal from the collapsed twin towers was sold to scrap yards in New Jersey. Thereafter, the steel was re-sold to other recyclers in the United States and overseas. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the “scrap” has ended up in India, Japan, South Korea, China and Malaysia.

It is the FSC’s position that the thousands of pounds of debris was crime-scene evidence. It should have been examined, catalogued, and stored in a secure location.

Why were the steel beams sold and shipped overseas and not retained as evidence? Was the material examined before it was sent overseas? If examined, then by whom? Were any diagnostic studies/tests performed? If not, then why? Whose responsibility was this? (emphasis added)

Former FBI Acting Director Thomas Pickard said that the FBI wanted to take over Ground Zero and make it a crime scene as was done at the Pentagon. If that had occurred all materials from the scene would have been protected until an investigation was complete. Pickard also stated that you, Mayor Giuliani, would not allow the FBI access to the pit area. Is this accurate? If so, then what was your reason for keeping the nation’s chief investigatory team—the FBI, out of Ground Zero?
Questions continued here. (http://www.911independentcommission.org/giuliani31804.html)


The Family Steering Committee (FSC) is an independent, nonpartisan group of individuals who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001. The FSC is not affiliated with any other group, nor does it receive financial or other support from any organization or individual.

JerryL
December 20th, 2007, 12:52 PM
If you want to assert that it was completely flat why do you continue showing very cropped small images, mostly taken on the streets off the site? There are many images showing tons of steel piled on the site, what of documentaries ive seen with the old steel piled up high in SI?

It has been my experience that when I make an assertion about what a photo shows, without showing the photo, then, in that event, the volume, level and intensity of the resulting castigation will be rather high.

That sort of thing is normally not, however, the outcome for those who post claims that are consonant with the standard version of events. The standard version holds that there was a huge pile up of debris at GZ. The photos I have posted and the plain fact that the buildings were dissolved in midair go ignored.

The removal of debris from GZ and photographs of that debris elsewhere may result in "a pile" but the fact remains, GZ was flat. In addition, tons and tons of dirt were brought into GZ to douse the effects (I claim) of directed energy weapons use. Very little is said about the volume of dirt brought into GZ. You'll recall that a very typical and very frequent occurrence at GZ was that of fuming whenever dirt (that was brought in) was moved or sifted for purposes of removing debris.

The common explanation that we were seeing smoke is, I claim, false. Smoke, coming days and weeks and months after the event is not a rational explanation. Rather, what was actually being seen was a form of fuming.

That fuming was seen to be still taking place at GZ in October -- of this year. And, dirt is still be trucked into GZ, this year. My claim is that the conditions are consistent with the chemical residue of DEW.


It is as if people do not want to believe their own eyes.

That phenomenon is quite real with respect to 9/11, in my opinion.

Thanks for your post, alonzo-ny. I recall you were gracious in reply to my first or second post on this forum.

JerryL
December 20th, 2007, 12:58 PM
I walked on that pile.

It was not flat.

Yeah. Real flat.

Oh, notice the lack of steel. :p

I assert that what you posted show a flat surface. The lobby windows of the towers are plainly visible, are they not?

Disputation is one thing, but frankly, I have no quarrel with the pictures you posted. I assert the pictures you posted show a flat surface, where the word flat means there was an insignificant rubble pile that was not even 1-storey in height in a location where 220 stories stood no more than a few yards apart.

Am I the only poster who asserts the steel was vaporized and turned to dust before it hit the ground?

I have posted at least two photographs of the destructive episode that are consistent, I think, with the claim that the towers were instantaneously dustified. I know that the tendency here amongst posters is to say that everything I say a photo shows is wrong, but, be that as it may, I assert that my interpretations of photographic information are no less accurate than the observations of anyone else are.

lofter1
December 20th, 2007, 01:07 PM
Am I the only poster who asserts the steel was vaporized and turned to dust before it hit the ground?

Seems so ... can you link to any others?

As I've already pointed out: Dr. Judy might spank you for using the term "vaporized".

Judging by her own words in the vid interview it seems she hates that word.


... Video of interview of Dr Judy Wood by Dr Greg Jenkins on Jan 10, 2007

Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgN591u3MhQ)

Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWzZocY-sUQ)

Part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYAwR3f16Z4)

Part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2E70dsEnJ8)

JerryL
December 20th, 2007, 01:11 PM
I value eyewitnesses who were only a short distance away from the event as it was taking place.

One wonders whether they heard sounds consistent with 110 stories of steel hitting the ground at once; or, whether they heard sounds consistent with instantaneous vaporization of the materials.

One also wonders whether their balance was interferred with by the huge volume of material hitting the ground; or, whether after a mere 8 seconds, all was quite and steady; and, even during the 8 seconds of destruction, there was precious little vibration?

lofter1
December 20th, 2007, 01:14 PM
You're confusing me JerryL. (as if that weren't your intent to begin with ;) , you sly puss) ...

Were the buildings "vaporized" or "dustified"?

You use both terms seemingly interchangeably as if their meanings were equal.

Vapor of course would go up into the atmosphere. Or would it? Can you tell me?

Dust would fall to the ground (eventually) or cover people who were in the area. Yes?

Please instruct and offer links to empiric evidence in regards to what occurred at the WTC on and around 9.11.2001.

Thanks in advance!

lofter1
December 20th, 2007, 01:20 PM
I value eyewitnesses who were only a short distance away from the event as it was taking place.

... sounds consistent with 110 stories of steel hitting the ground ...

... sounds consistent with instantaneous vaporization ...

... their balance was interferred with by the huge volume of material hitting the ground ...

Which is it JerryL., you obfuscating little wonder?

Did the building material hit the ground?

Or did it vaporize?

Or .... ?

Your use of the term dustification in regards to the two Towers seems to indicate that you believe that any material would only hit the ground as dust. If that is so then what would cause the noise which you claim "interferred" with the balance of the eyewitnesses?

Ninjahedge
December 20th, 2007, 01:49 PM
December 20th, 2007, 01:11 PM Remove user from ignore list (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/profile.php?userlist=ignore&do=removelist&u=16334)
JerryL (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/member.php?u=16334) This message is hidden because JerryL is on your ignore list (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/profile.php?do=editlist).


Ah, the best thing you've said all day.

Is he still trying to prove the world is flat?

JerryL
December 20th, 2007, 02:11 PM
Hi lofter,

I can tell you that I did not destroy the WTC complex on 9/11. I can also tell you that I do not know, either by heart, or by way of access to data, the serial numbers of the various components, sub-assemblies and/or versions of the devices, gizmos and/or weaponized high tech toys that were used to destroy the WTC. I do not know the exact process and cannot, therefore, provide you with the a detailed lethality index, chart and/or summary.

I suspect that you'd have better luck obtaining the serial numbers and the lethality effects from one or more past or current members of the Directed Energy Professional Society, or other source of knowledge concerning Directed Energy Weaponry.

For my part, I am seeking such information as best I can. Much of it is subject to secrecy classifications. It seems to me that those who know, aren't saying much. And, those who pulled off 9/11 appear to be going to rather extraordinary lengths to avoid detection and/or capture.

I say some of this in a 'tongue in cheek' manner cloaking the fact that your request for specifics is an improper, in my view, attempt to either shift a burden of proof, a known rhetorical trap; or to heap upon another an additional and probably insurmountable burden of proof so that the heaper can then declare a rhetorical victory of some sort.

From what I can gather, you 'win' all your rhetorical contests all of the time. Why, then, don't you just declare yourself victorious now and be done with it?

As for me, I know, I have yet to say any single thing that wasn't wrong.

BrooklynRider
December 20th, 2007, 02:13 PM
It is as if people do not want to believe their own eyes.

That phenomenon is quite real with respect to 9/11, in my opinion.

The argument that you know what other people saw is unintelligent and, as a person who witnessed the collapse live from the street, I find it offensive.

Certainly, you are free to argue any scenario you want. However, your assertion is that people who disagree are either [1] liars or [2] idiots.

These threads are for discourse. Your posts represent a new point of view that you are strongly asserting and a perspective that YOU have introduced. Answer the questions, state that you do not know the answer, or don't respond all together.

It seems the deeper other members here drill into the theory the more hollow the base of information informing this perspective.

Another insinuation that people here do not know what they personally saw or recital of your personal "facts" list without any correlating substantiation, you will be shut down.

JerryL
December 20th, 2007, 02:53 PM
brooklynrider,

The words 'attribution' and 'projection' come to my mind when reading your post.

We have in this thread, within the scope of the last 4 or 5 pages statements by actual eyewitnesses of what they saw. Are we agreed so far?

Fine, let's proceed.

I know of no one who has posted here who has said they saw a widebody jetliner hit either of the wtc towers on 9/11/01. If there are such people who have posted on this thread, then I am prepared to stand corrected on this issue. I certainly don't rule out the possibility that there may be people who post on this thread who have stated they saw a widebody jetliner hit the twin towers.

I want any such person to know, in advance, that I, personally, will take you at your word and will not contradict you in any way. I really regret that asking questions about what is said is interpreted as doubting what people have said. I have not done that, to my knowledge.

I do recall a very useful exchange in which a poster stated what was seen by that poster. It was graphic and specific. It was noteworthy, I thought, that no airplane was described. In other words, I was taking the person at their word.

I have also specifically pointed to a reliable source that contains 8 statements by people with good observation skills who said they saw and heard a plane.

I haven't contradicted them; rather, I have said that that number is a far cry from the 100s or the 1000s that others assert exist. If that is what they claim, I cannot corroborate it. Instead, I can find only a few reliable accounts of seeing and hearing a plane.

Is that a foul?

Now, having said that, other posters may impugn my motives, claim I am saying one thing, while meaning another, or whatever you choose. However, my fingers are typing the letters that are forming the words that I intend to have displayed; for what that may be worth.

I have repeatedly stated that my opinions on 9/11 are informed by interpretation of data.

Not one person here has been willing to engage directly with me in using the 503, accessible and researchable witness statements that form an excellent resource for testing various causal theories. I assume the Task Force Witness statements have been used by others at various times in this thread, but everytime I mention them in a post, that mention has been ignored, as nearly as I can recall.

Posters know that I assert DEW are a causal factor in the destruction of the wtc and posters know that I think the photographic record supports the claim.

There are also witness statements that support the claim.

I'll give an example. Please consider the statement of Patricia Ondrovic.

I claim the following factors from her statement are consistent with the assertion that DEW were used to destroy the wtc:

1--She describes automobiles blowing up right next to her for no apparent reason.

2--She describes mysterious unidentified flying objects

3--She states in plain language "that was a military operation"

4--Signficant portions of her statement where the lead in appears to suggest she describes other specific things she saw are redacted.

JerryL
December 20th, 2007, 03:41 PM
Correction:

I acknowledge that one person on this thread has stated s/he saw the wtc2 plane hit in a post occurring after I started posting here -- a few days ago. I had forgotten that, I think for defensive reasons. I think it was also made clear that the subject could not be mentioned at all in other posts; so, even here, I am not going to mention the moniker, much less that status, of the person who posted that eyewitness statement, other than to say I acknowledge its existence.

I am not contradicting it.

In fact, consider that instead of 8 reliable witnesses who saw a plane on 9/11, I, as a result of my own search for witnesses, now can assert there are 9 of them.

Please don't twist my words. I meant what I said; namely: I now know of 9 reliable witness accounts who say they saw a plane.

eddhead
December 20th, 2007, 04:53 PM
You seem to be concurrently validating the reliability of persons who witnessed the jets flying into the towers, while suggesting that, indeed, jets did not fly into the towers. Kind of a monte python approach to debating.

Lest there be any doubt, I know of several other reliable people who witnessed the second jet hitting the tower. I do not take this as an optical illusion. I take it as the jet hitting the tower.

Ninjahedge
December 20th, 2007, 05:06 PM
Ed, FYI, trim the quote (in edit you can delete the picture reference and other thnigs, in case you did not know) before people tell you not to do the 100% quote-and-post.....;)

JerryL
December 20th, 2007, 06:14 PM
eddhead,

No, you're not correct. I have been clear, but I'll repeat myself for sake of additional clarity. I understand that what I say is controversial; that controversy may, indeed, make what I say, though clear, harder to grasp.

I base my assertions on data. I base my assertions on data.

The reason why witness statements can lend themselves to NO PLANE assertions include, by way of example, the following:

1--There are eyewitnesses who say they did not see a plane and who dispute those who claim otherwise.

2--Even among the eyewitnesses, there is inconsistency between factors like "small" versus "large" plane; planes with or without windowsl; rockets, missiles, etc.

3--There are those who appear to want to say they saw a plane in order to get with the program, but who, ultimately, say otherwise.

The 3 items listed above are based on the information found in the Witness Statement Accounts published by the NYTimes, the source that I have repeatedly said informs my opinion on this matter.

Thanks for your post.