1023 replies to this topic

[frenat]

Quote

one of them being the vectoring of golfer paine stewarts plane in 16 minutes after he died when his plane lost compression?

Sorry, that is wrong.  
The intercept of Stewart's plane took over an hour.  The time has been reported incorrectly by many sources due to a confusion with the time zones.  Check for yourself in the official report from the NTSB here
http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm
Last contact was made at 0927:18 EDT.  Contact attempted at 0933:38 EDT.  The controller continued to try to contact for an addition 4 and a half minutes.  Then the first plane that made visual contact with the jet happened at 0952 CDT.  0952 CDT is 1052 EDT.  The difference in time from 0938 EDT(4+ minutes after last contact) and 1052 EDT is 1 hour and 14 minutes.
Reference note 7 at the end of the report

Quote

7 About 1010 EDT, the accident airplane crossed from the EDT zone to the CDT zone in the vicinity of Eufaula, Alabama

The report continues on in Central Daylight time from then on as the flight had crossed time zones.  It is also interesting to note that the first plane that made contact was an unarmed jet that was already airborne for a different mission and diverted.  A jet dedicated to air defense would have possibly taken longer.

Edited by frenat, 06 July 2007 - 02:41 PM.

[AROCES]

Quote

It is interesting you raise the topic of people involved not being identified.  Most people know that a number of the named 'hijackers' have been found alive.

So is BIGFOOT, now let's have some specimen. Dead or alive.

Quote

So who were the men on the airliners?  The only ‘evidence’ we have of Bin Laden being involved is an obviously faked video tape supposedly found by US troops in Afghanistan.  Then the FBI themselves have stated “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”  This also backed up by then director of the FBI Robert Mueller who said in a speech “The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper”  So, whether you follow the official story or the conspiracy theory, the people involved have not been identified to a degree that would stand up in court

And Bin Laden himself never cared to set the record straight, he just decided to take the blame and run for the rest of his life.
Ever wonder why  Bin Laden disagreed with you then?

Quote

With 9/11 as an inside job it is safe to say that the perpetrators wanted absolutely to cover their tracks.  Therefore why is it surprising there is no hard direct evidence linking anyone to the operation?  There is though plenty of circumstantial evidence linking the likes of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney to the operation.  Check Rumsfeld’s assertion that Flight 93 was shotdown and Cheney’s “the orders still stand” episode to get interested.  Read up on their PNAC involvement and Rebuilding America’s Defences document for their motives.

Fine, now you have your HARD EVIDENCE and it is braodcast in the entire world. Still no one is buying it, huh?   Someone is being fooled here really by Alex Jones and the conspiracy theoriest.

Quote

It is amusing you accuse conspiracy theorists of a lot of innuendo when your own post is full of rhetoric and not much substance flyingswan.  Can you, as an engineer, explain how the top portions of WTC1&2 crushed the rest of the structure at freefall speed?  How did WTC7 collapse on itself due to fires and relatively minor damage to one face, also at freefall speed?  Or how an explosion occurred in WTC7 before the twin towers had collapsed?  If you can convincingly explain away those issues I am sure conspiracy theorists will be impressed.  Incidently, my brother happens to be a qualified engineer and welder yet he cannot account for the collapse of the buildings without factoring in explosives.

The only way to asnswer your assumption is with proof of a bomb, and you have none.

Edited by AROCES, 06 July 2007 - 10:09 PM.

[flyingswan]

Quote

no the windsor tower burned for a long time--bldg 7 had isolated pockets limited to about 12-14 offices on one side of the building and burned for only a few hours-- and what do you have to say about the squibs caught in the video of the collapse running up the side of the building?

If you think a building should withstand an uncontrolled fire that "burned for only a few hours", set fire to your own home and see how it does.

You see "squibs", I see overpressurised windows breaking as the internal collapse proceeds.  These "squibs" occur after the penthouse moves.

[Q24]

Quote

Why is it so unreasonable to believe that the terrorists could have planned the bombs and the controlled demolition?

As I said earlier…

Quote

No it would be illogical as terrorists simply do not have the ability to carry out an operation like that. With questionable backgrounds they could not gain access to the buildings. They would not have the ‘inside’ people necessary. They likely could not acquire the amount of explosive/demolition charges required within the US. They would not have the expertise. Assuming that the buildings were taken down covertly in a controlled demolition there would only be a select few groups able to carry it out – terrorists living in caves in the Middle East would not be one of those groups.

Also why would terrorists go through the whole elaborate scheme of trying to make people think airliners brought the towers down?

The PNAC document, Rebuilding America's Defences, basically put, sets out a plan for the United States to remain the world’s leading power.  It states that, "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."  Lo and behold, within 8 months of the Bush administration coming to power, including PNAC activists Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz, we do indeed have their new Pearl Harbor in 9/11.  Since then the rest of the plan, ie setting up permanent forward bases abroad and preserving a favourable balance of power in the middle-east, is playing out well.

Quote

If thermite/thermate was involved, why didn't it react to the impact of the planes? How did it cut the supports since it could only go down? How did that much thermite/mate get there? Where is the barium Nitrate?

I have already described in this thread how the demolition charges could have avoided being set off by the airliner impacts and also how the demolition charges could have been placed without detection.  Regarding how thermite could have cut the supports – could it have been placed on horizontal beams or at the vertical joins between columns?  I find it strange anyone could believe 500°C office fires covering limited floors could collapse the towers, then presume that 2500°C thermite reactions working at strategic points in the building could not.

Quote

Did a CD charge go off, or was it something else?

Something else such as…?

Quote

In sum: no-one on the conspiracy side has explained how fast the buildings should fall.  My qualified opinion is that once the top floors start moving, the lower floors are loaded far beyond anything they were designed for and offer little resistance.

I can answer that: the towers should not have fallen at all.  Even if a collapse at some level began, due to the grid construction of the towers, it should only have been a partial collapse.  Then, even if by some quirk the entire tower were to collapse it should not have been at freefall speed.  I find it impossible to believe the top portion of the towers crushing the large majority of intact lower portion at freefall speed theory.

WTC7 had been burning for a long time before it collapsed.  It had an added penthouse that reduced the structural margins.  Eventually due to fire damage and thermal stresses the structure beneath the penthouse gave way and it collapsed into the building.  A few seconds later, with a lot of interior structure now gone, the rest of the building collapsed very easily.

Would you say it was a bad building design?  I mean, the entire building relying on a single column at the base of the penthouse to hold it up.  I say "single column" as that is what NIST seem to be currently promoting.  Also, was the steel in WTC7 not fireproofed?

The witness inside WTC7 seemed to pack a lot of activities into the time between the impact and his "explosion".  I am not convinced by his assertion that his "explosion" came before the tower collapse.

Well the article does clearly say that after the explosion “They made it back up to level 8, where Barry Jennings had a view of the twin towers, both buildings were still standing.”

- did you know that our current presidents first oil company "arbusto energy" was financed by the bin ladens?

And how did you know? No blogs please.

The Wikipedia entry for Arbusto Energy and CBC News have reported the Bush/Bin Laden links.

And Bin Laden himself never cared to set the record straight, he just decided to take the blame and run for the rest fo his life.
Ever wonder why he disagreed wtih you then?

On 28th September 2001, in an Osama Bin Laden interview with Ummat newspaper based in Pakistan, he stated, “I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act.”  Full transcript here.

Why is it the Western media never reported on this particular interview?

Edited by Q24, 07 July 2007 - 01:21 AM.

[AROCES]

Quote

And how did you know? No blogs please.
The Wikipedia entry for Arbusto Energy and CBC News have reported the Bush/Bin Laden links.

Bin Laden's family wealth came from construction business, and clearly they were just business men when they invested into Arbusto.
Why not allow the investment then?

Edited by AROCES, 07 July 2007 - 04:05 PM.

[AROCES]

[

Quote

The Wikipedia entry for Arbusto Energy and CBC News have reported the Bush/Bin Laden links.
On 28th September 2001, in an Osama Bin Laden interview with Ummat newspaper based in Pakistan, he stated, “I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act.”  Full transcript here.
Why is it the Western media never reported on this particular interview?

  He is not involved, and yet he decided to run and hide. Can you imagine if he can help out and pin down the US government as the ones behind 9/11?
Can you imagine if he can prove he was not the one? All you folks will be soooooooooooo right and Bush will be dead duck. But no, he hides not Bush and you folks are on this never ending conspiracy that you have no proof of.
And that is why the Western Media ignored YOUR official story or version.

Edited by AROCES, 07 July 2007 - 06:19 PM.

[AROCES]

Quote

Well, that was actually AROCES suggestion.  I prefer the idea of the airliners being guided, as I outlined in my earlier post, to ensure they impacted the towers where required.  I am not saying that I know exactly what did or did not happen, just suggesting ways that an inside job was very possible.
Assuming you accept the involvement of a controlled demolition Dr Who, who else do you think could have orchestrated the attack?  Think who had the means and motive.  Ask yourself who has benefited.

Second aircraft hit the building banked, meaning a turn or adjustment was made at the very end to hit the building. For me that indictates no guiding device.

[flyingswan]

Quote

I can answer that: the towers should not have fallen at all.  Even if a collapse at some level began, due to the grid construction of the towers, it should only have been a partial collapse.  Then, even if by some quirk the entire tower were to collapse it should not have been at freefall speed.  I find it impossible to believe the top portion of the towers crushing the large majority of intact lower portion at freefall speed theory.
Would you say it was a bad building design?  I mean, the entire building relying on a single column at the base of the penthouse to hold it up.  I say "single column" as that is what NIST seem to be currently promoting.  Also, was the steel in WTC7 not fireproofed?

You don't seem to understand much about structures in general or how they respond to damage.  Suggest you read a few of the engineering sites that cover 9/11.

None of the buildings were designed to survive what was inflicted on them that day, but then no-one expected such an attack.  They were designed to comply with the building codes of the day.  Fireproofing was there, but the combination of impact damage followed by fire meant that the fireproofing was damaged before the fire started.  There were also reports that the fire was fed by a large store of diesel fuel in the building.  Comparisons with other building fires don't take these factors into account.

Quote

Well the article does clearly say that after the explosion “They made it back up to level 8, where Barry Jennings had a view of the twin towers, both buildings were still standing.”

What is more likely?  That he was mistaken about the sequence of events, or that such a big event was missed by everyone else in the building at the time?

[Q24]

Quote

He is not involved, and yet he decided to run and hide. Can you imagine if he can help out and pin down the US government as the ones behind 9/11?
Can you imagine if he can prove he was not the one? All you folks will be soooooooooooo right and Bush will be dead duck. But no, he hides not Bush and you folks are on this never ending conspiracy that you have no proof of.
And that is why the Western Media ignored YOUR official story or version.

And they call conspiracy theorists crackpots even with official story believers coming out with things like this?  First, Bin Laden would have no more proof than the rest of us who carried out 9/11.  Second, his story would not have got a mention in the mainstream Western media (as his claim of innocence in Ummat did not).  Third, he would not wish to remain visible for fear of ending up as Saddam Hussein has.

The majority of Western mainstream media is nothing more than a political tool, owned by a handful of individuals, making news easily manipulated to sway the masses to a certain persuasion, that is why nothing but the official story of 9/11 is reported.  An example of this is Rupert Murdoch who controls 175(!) newspapers plus TV news channels in each of the US, UK and also Asia.

You aren't on the payroll of Rupert Murdoch are you AROCES?  Don't answer that, it's just my joke.  

Quote

Second aircraft hit the building banked, meaning a turn or adjustment was made at the very end to hit the building. For me that indictates no guiding device.

Yes, though the 'bank' was not drastic.  This video shows a guided missile whose flight-path was adjusted twice on the final run to its target.  The airliners could have been guided in a similar way.

Quote

You don't seem to understand much about structures in general or how they respond to damage.  Suggest you read a few of the engineering sites that cover 9/11.

None of the buildings were designed to survive what was inflicted on them that day, but then no-one expected such an attack.  They were designed to comply with the building codes of the day.  Fireproofing was there, but the combination of impact damage followed by fire meant that the fireproofing was damaged before the fire started.  There were also reports that the fire was fed by a large store of diesel fuel in the building.  Comparisons with other building fires don't take these factors into account.

That was mainly waffle flyingswan.  Back to the question I was trying to ask – are you really asserting that WTC7 was entirely dependent on a single structural column at the base of the East penthouse to keep it standing?  Are you even asserting that the building was entirely dependent on a number of columns at the base of the East penthouse?  That would be to suggest all the rest of the structural elements making up the walls, centre and whole West side, including all of the adjoining columns, bolts, rivets, weldings, through all 47 floors, were largely ineffective in supporting the building.  Reading your theory: -

"Weakening of a single column causes global, freefall collapse of high rise, steel framed structures."

Flyingswan you're a genius - demolition companies across the world are going to hail you as a god when you reveal this little gem to them!  

Quote

What is more likely?  That he was mistaken about the sequence of events, or that such a big event was missed by everyone else in the building at the time?

From reading what has been released, it would seem WTC7 had been largely evacuated after the first airliner impact, with the official and his escort possibly being the only people in the stairwell and within the vicinity of the explosion.

[AROCES]

Quote

And they call conspiracy theorists crackpots even with official story believers coming out with things like this?  First, Bin Laden would have no more proof than the rest of us who carried out 9/11.  Second, his story would not have got a mention in the mainstream Western media (as his claim of innocence in Ummat did not).  Third, he would not wish to remain visible for fear of ending up as Saddam Hussein has.
The majority of Western mainstream media is nothing more than a political tool, owned by a handful of individuals, making news easily manipulated to sway the masses to a certain persuasion, that is why nothing but the official story of 9/11 is reported.  An example of this is Rupert Murdoch who controls 175(!) newspapers plus TV news channels in each of the US, UK and also Asia.
You aren't on the payroll of Rupert Murdoch are you AROCES?  Don't answer that, it's just my joke.  

And what do you call the hundreds of HARD, CONVINCING, UNDENIABLE, SOLID, NAIL IN THE COFFIN PROOF that is all over the internet that will support and prove Bin Laden is innocent??????
Don't tell me you folks been kept silent, Rosie Odonell's mouth alone is as big as the entire media.
No one is listening to you and you can't admit that you basically have nothing but tabloids stuff.

Edited by AROCES, 08 July 2007 - 06:24 AM.

[AROCES]

Quote

Yes, though the 'bank' was not drastic.  This video shows a guided missile whose flight-path was adjusted twice on the final run to its target.  The airliners could have been guided in a similar way.

What do you mean not drastic? A 767 can't bank like a fighter plane. That looks to me like it's almost at it's maximum bank angle.
  Your video shows a missile homing on, change it's target and made a last second maneuver to hit the MOBILE tank. A passenger airline not traveling as fast as a missile and with a target 10,000X bigger than a tank and is not mobile does not need a last second maneuvering, if a homing device is applied.

Edited by AROCES, 08 July 2007 - 06:45 AM.

[flyingswan]

Quote

That was mainly waffle flyingswan.  Back to the question I was trying to ask – are you really asserting that WTC7 was entirely dependent on a single structural column at the base of the East penthouse to keep it standing?  Are you even asserting that the building was entirely dependent on a number of columns at the base of the East penthouse?  That would be to suggest all the rest of the structural elements making up the walls, centre and whole West side, including all of the adjoining columns, bolts, rivets, weldings, through all 47 floors, were largely ineffective in supporting the building.  Reading your theory: -

"Weakening of a single column causes global, freefall collapse of high rise, steel framed structures."

Flyingswan you're a genius - demolition companies across the world are going to hail you as a god when you reveal this little gem to them!  

As I said, you don't understand structures.

Every structure depends on a number of elements to support itself, and if some of those elements are damaged then the loads are redistributed through the remaining elements.  This redistribution is not uniform, some of the remaining elements can carry much larger additional loads than others.  The critical element is the one that is brought closest to its ultimate load.  If there is a fire, then this critical element can be further weakened though the fire heating it or further loaded by thermal stresses, and it will also give way.  The loads again redistribute, making another element the critical one.  At some point you will reach the situation where a large part of the structure is depending on a critical element, and when this gives way, the structure collapses.

Edited by flyingswan, 08 July 2007 - 10:16 AM.

[flyingswan]

Quote

From reading what has been released, it would seem WTC7 had been largely evacuated after the first airliner impact, with the official and his escort possibly being the only people in the stairwell and within the vicinity of the explosion.

The witness mentions police and firefighters in the building.

[Q24]

Quote

And what do you call the hundreds of HARD, CONVINCING, UNDENIABLE, SOLID, NAIL IN THE COFFIN PROOF that is all over the internet that will support and prove Bin Laden is innocent??????

I think the difference is with information on the internet you have to go looking for it, whereas with mainstream news outlets information is practically forced upon the public.  That obviously leads to everybody knowing what the mainstream wants them to know but only some people knowing the rest.  And I do think the vast majority of people who really know ‘the rest’ regarding 9/11 do believe an inside job took place.

Quote

Your video shows a missile homing on, change it's target and made a last second maneuver to hit the MOBILE tank. A passenger airline not traveling as fast as a missile and with a target 10,000X bigger than a tank and is not mobile does not need a last second maneuvering, if a homing device is applied.

The point was that you can make a guided missile or airliner, fly exactly how you want it to.

Quote

Every structure depends on a number of elements to support itself, and if some of those elements are damaged then the loads are redistributed through the remaining elements.  This redistribution is not uniform, some of the remaining elements can carry much larger additional loads than others.  The critical element is the one that is brought closest to its ultimate load.  If there is a fire, then this critical element can be further weakened though the fire heating it or further loaded by thermal stresses, and it will also give way.  The loads again redistribute, making another element the critical one.  At some point you will reach the situation where a large part of the structure is depending on a critical element, and when this gives way, the structure collapses.

You seem to be implying there can never be a partial collapse of a structure, nor that it could topple sideways due to damage.  I would have to disagree as seen here, here and here.  I realise these buildings were not of the same design as WTC7 but surely similar principles apply in that if the load bearing structure gives way unevenly it must topple.  Apart from that, I would agree that "at some point" with enough of the critical elements removed obviously a building will collapse one way or another.

What exactly was the factor of safety of WTC7 anyway flyingswan?  Estimating a factor of safety of 2 (it is probably a lot higher than this) on the main columns, that would necessitate every single column needing to be weakened 50% just to reach its load bearing design capacity.  Or even if fully half of the area of the building had severe fires then the columns in that area would need to be weakened 100% (melted) to reach its load bearing design capacity.  Knowing that these fires were not engulfing the entire area of the building and cannot melt steel, neither of the above can be true.

So questions flyingswan - in your opinion, how many of the total main structural columns would have to be weakened, and by how much, for a collapse to occur as we saw with WTC7?

Quote

The witness mentions police and firefighters in the building.

The witness mentions firefighters in the lobby but says the 23rd floor was evacuated.  It would not be hard to believe they were the only two in the stairwell approaching the 6th floor when the explosion occurred.

Edited by Q24, 11 July 2007 - 01:42 AM.

[AROCES]

Quote

I think the difference is with information on the internet you have to go looking for it, whereas with mainstream news outlets information is practically forced upon the public.  That obviously leads to everybody knowing what the mainstream wants them to know but only some people knowing the rest.  And I do think the vast majority of people who really know ‘the rest’ regarding 9/11 do believe an inside job took place.

What the heck else do you guys want? A daily all channel, all newspaper, prime time reporting of your accusation until everyone says, alright we believe you now???

Quote

The point was that you can make a guided missile or airliner, fly exactly how you want it to.

Nope, you fly it excatly how it is suppose to be flown, NOT excatly how you want it.
An airline can't fly and maneuver like a missile.

Edited by AROCES, 11 July 2007 - 03:25 PM.