I found that line amusing since everything else that went before in your post was a reinterpretation of the facts.



The collapse movements on 9/11 were sudden, virtually symmetrical, near freefall and complete, with visible ‘squibs’ – all features shared with controlled demolition. Then you say “no similarity”… who is reinterpreting the facts here? Sure, argue against controlled demolition if you like but anyone can see the similarities even if you go on to believe they are only superficial.



Woah there, sorry to cut in mid-sentence but can you quote some of the people who designed and built the Towers who support the ‘official’ story? I’m not saying they aren’t there, just that I am not aware of them so if you could help me look into this I would be grateful.

I do know of John Skilling, head structural engineer for the Twin Towers. His team carried out an analysis that showed the Towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. Skilling stated: -

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Then there is Leslie Robertson, chief engineer for WTC design who said in the PBS documentary I think you mention above: -

“We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707, that is, to take this jet airplane, run it into the building, destroy a lot of structure and still have it stand up.”

How about Frank DeMartini, construction manager for the WTC who stated in a History Channel documentary prior to 9/11: -

“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”

Unless you can come up with some equally credible sources for the ‘official’ story who actually designed and built the Towers as you said, I think it’s safe to say you were reinterpreting facts again.

Before any ‘official’ story followers pipe up, “oh they designed it for an impact but no not thiiis impact!” there is a link here comparing a 707 impact to that of a 767 and we see there is a strong argument there is really not much difference.



Well if you are going to reinterpret the ‘official’ investigation’s findings then I’m not surprised you cannot find fault. Regarding metallurgical testing of steel recovered from the WTC debris pile, NIST found no evidence of consistent or extreme temperatures. Indeed they stated themselves in NCSTAR 1-3C: -

“From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements, no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure.”

I mean the above is fairly flat line; not so many ways you can interpret that is there. There are other points about the metallurgical analysis including the fact that most exposure was found specifically to be at a low temperature, some recovered elements marked for saving were ‘accidently’ disposed of and the interesting pieces of corroded steel recovered, which FEMA recommended for further study and they said possibly occurred prior to collapse were completely ignored by NIST’s so called ‘investigation’!

Reinterpreting indeed.

Q24-

Someone disagrees with you.

Link 1

Link 2


Berkeley Engineer Searches for the 'Truth' About the Twin Towers

Engineer Society Accused of Cover-Ups

Oh, very convincing link. Compares the mass difference against the design case, but completely ignores the velocity difference. It's the velocity difference, cruise speed v approach speed, that makes the factor ten difference in impact kinetic energy compared with the design case.

And you deny that conspiracy theorists reinterpret the facts.

He can’t be disagreeing with me as I didn’t even give my opinion; I just reproduced text from the NIST investigation stating that metallurgical analysis, ie scientific testing of steel recovered from the WTC site, showed no conclusive evidence that fire significantly weakened the structure. Furthermore, the guy in the link appears to be carrying out only a visual inspection and makes no claims regarding temperature exposure to the steel.



That would depend which design case you are choosing to look at. I believe it was Leslie Robertson who said the design case allowed for a 707 travelling at 180 mph and claimed that bizarrely it did not take account of the fuel load.

Regarding the fuel load, see John Skilling’s comment in my last post. Then contrast the velocity claimed by Robertson, with research from the 2003 book, City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center, which states a three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, found: -

“The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.”

This is further supported by NIST’s investigation 2 years later where NCSTAR1 pg.6 states: -

“An additional load, stated by The Port Authority to have been considered in the design of the towers, was the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest commercial airliner when the towers were designed, hitting the building at its full speed of 600 mph.”

Now either perhaps John Skilling, the authors of the book (which incidentally does not support an inside job) and the Port Authority source referenced by NIST are all wrong or Leslie Robertson is wrong or, and this is what I believe most likely, there were in fact two design cases carried out by different teams for an airliner impacting the structure.

One case allowed for a 180mph approach with no fuel loads and the other case allowed for a 600mph approach and did include fuel loads. Either way, whichever is used, neither of the cases supported that the structures would collapse in any way…

… we all know that only twilight zone computer models can achieve that.

1964 theory and 2001 practice are obviously two very different things.



And, notice they opted not to discuss fire loads. After all, they had rent space to fill up. Also, they never envisioned crazies barreling into the buildings full throttle in 1964. If terrorism had been a consideration at the time, things might have been designed differently.

I don't think there is any escaping the fact, that no matter how you spin it, or how anyone else dodges the responsibility or liability, those buildings were doomed if ever confronted by the hard facts of the real world and trials of reality.



"To the best of my knowledge, the considerations of the fuel in the airplane, in terms of an explosion or great fire, was not considered. Now, we were not responsible for that aspect of the design."

Les Robertson, as seen in 911 Mysteries.

You know that I think?

I think Winston Churchill was a Nazi sympathist, who did all he could to set up England for attacks from Germany. He secretly wanted his own people killed, in order to make profits from a wartime economy!

Go chew on that. How does that feel?!

Pretty stupid, huh? So, lay off the USA!!!

Are there any copies of this three-page paper around, or are we just relying on Skilling's memory for "600 mph"?
Certainly Leslie Robertson stated, in this link:
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB
Notice the likely impact is with an aircraft "lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark". This means flying at low speed and with a low fuel load. In the days before 9/11, why would anyone consider a faster speed? Notice also his remark that "little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft". In other words, that was back in the days before fire/structural interactions could be modelled computationally. This also means that there was no way to predict the effect of a fire following an impact at any other speed, and particularly not in a three-page paper. The tools were also not available to model an impact in any detail, so it would be interesting to see what methods they did actually use. Since the buildings didn't collapse immediately after the impact, but only after the fires (which the designers could not predict) had caused further damage, we can deduce that the designers did in fact do a good job in designing against aircraft impact.

You are all a bunch of nuts! But I'm fine with that. After all, I believe UFOs travel by levitation and "Jumping Lightyears" (apports) of 100 light-years. No doubt many people consider me a crackpot as well. It doesn't matter that we are all Ph. D.s in physics or engineering, like myself.

The Twin Towers represent a new technology for tall buildings, as, of course, you all know. It is essentially a tube made by those
vertical columns on the outside. Lightweight trusses hold each column in place, as well as supporting the load of that floor. The truss is just hooked over brackets on the outer tube and the inner core, with its elevators and escape routes. So a customer has an acre (minus the inner core) with no "posts" to obstruct the view. Brilliant design.

The engineers who figured out what a 707 could do to the building were not wrong. They just never imagined that a later generation of planes would have such strong wings that they would shear through multiple columns. That they did is evident from the videos. Nor did they consider that a very hot fire would make those trusses bend under the load of one floor and unhook themselves from both the columns and the core. The trusses might not have bent in a U shape and unhooked themself if they were strong I-beams, welded to the columns and the core. Or if they had effective insulation, but it was all knocked off by the initial collision. So, those were the weak points in the design, and I wonder how Al Qaeda found out?

~~Cebrakon

I'm not going to participate in 9/11 conspiracy arguments any more, now that I know the truth, but as regards the last point, I expect it was publicly available knowledge concerning the design of the buildings. I don't expect it was was a secret exactly, if someone knew where to look.

1000 Years for Revenge: International Terrorism and the FBI--the Untold Story




A Conversation With Peter Lance by Claire E. White


Timeline-Triple Cross


Peter Lance Website


I don't quite know what to think about the importance of Sibel Edmonds, but I try to see her in some relevant context to the whole picture.



Open Letter To Thomas Kean, From Sibel Edmonds

Did they find out, or did they just plan on crashing the aircraft, with the towers collapsing being a bonus for them?

All the claims you "wish to make"?? What claims are you referring to, exactly? All the claims you have posted from those links have been exposed as trash. Posting the same worthless links over and over is classic troll behavior. And when those links are vile propaganda, concocted by a deviant whose sole purpose is to attack and smear the character and integrity of William Rodriguez, it's truly despicable.



Coming from you, that's a compliment. Much like a Charles Manson-ish character calling me 'crazy' would be.



It's far more than misleading - it's intentionally deceptive. An outright lie.

Roberts fabricates the quote to directly smear Rodriguez.

As for his link to the actual quote, that's where you took up Roberts' argument. ..

"I always talk about explosion, not bombs- since I am not an explosives expert."

Below this quote, Roberts states "False", citing other quotes he claims 'contradict' the first quote.

And as I've shown you, many times, there is no such contradiction.



No. The problem is your (and Roberts') errant interpretation of Rodriguez' quote - "I always talk about explosion, not bombs- since I am not an explosives expert."

You conclude that Rodriguez is denying (or not sure) there were bombs in the building. But that conclusion is based on your interpretation of his quote.

With "I always talk about explosion, not bombs - since I am not an explosives expert", you assume he is saying 'I'm sure there were explosion(s), but I'm not sure there were bombs - since I am not an explosives expert'.

But that's not what he means. Not at all.

You and Roberts have plucked this single comment out of context, from a thread where people have already asked Rodriguez all sorts of questions. Some of the questions get into specific details about the event, which is the reason he clarifies his position - that he is not speaking as an explosives expert. By saying "I always talk about explosion, not bombs - since I am not an explosives expert", he is simply saying that he's not an expert on bombs / explosives.

Just as he's continued to say he's not an explosives expert in his interviews since then. Nothing has changed. Your argument is wrong, because your interpretation of the quote is flawed.



So...

You've decided to show your contempt for the mods, by refusing to comply with their requests to drop the issue?

Even declaring your intention to re-raise the issue at any time in the future, whenever you feel like it?


And the mods will appreciate this complete lack of respect for their authority on this forum, you believe?

My claim is that Rodriguez is an unreliable witness, and all the evidence you need to see that is in these links:
http://911stories.googlepages.com/home
http://www.911myths.com/html/william_rodriguez.html

I am not interested in the famous turbonium ability to find strange new meanings for any piece of text that you read.

Incidentally, Rodriguez doesn't appear to share your "slimeball" opinion of Roberts:
"I like Mr. Mark Roberts very much and agree with him in many aspects."
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=256...mp;postcount=17

It doesn't look like either of you have dropped the issue since you are both still arguing over it and disrupting the thread in the process, can we stick to debating the topic at hand please and avoid the pointless bickering.

Thank you.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/cons...les/7485111.stm

an interesting watch.

Perhas the question should be ...would an on scene reporter even know if WTC7 collapsed, without being told in their earpiece? Could they even visually identify WTC7? How many of us non-lower Manahatten types could...before that day?
It sounds very much like she was indeed getting "bad input".
Good grief, how many times has the media gotten it wrong in the heat of the moment? It was an on line screw up. It's pathetic "evidence". (looking for links for an "online reporters for truth" website link...)

How many times has the media gotten it wrong in the heat of the moment?

Whew...you know the answer to that one! The information coming out in the heat of the moment is probably 50% or better wrong!
This film is rather self explanatory.


Good lord, on 9-11, Peter Jennings talked through the obvious collapse of the first tower, and didn't actually realize what had happened--despite the fact it was apparent to any of his viewers who were watching!

Misinformation is easy in such circumstances. Frankly, it is to be expected.

When you know you are going to die anyway, the size or the quality of the blade doesn't make any difference. I'm 57, and I can tell you that you can come with your box cutter any time and the box cutter will be in your throat. I'm just as afraid of dying as anyone else, and I'm French to top it all, yet I will not run nor cry... I might sh---t in my pants, but you would not succeed. Sorry

Try a 3-4 inch buck knife tool or clip knife tool.

Lock-in-place blades would have aroused a moment of concern. But, considering what happened, or who did what, or which screener employ followed what rule, it was no wonder people were overtaken by groups of hijackers.

On the subject of airline security, there's been a recent report that security in New Zealand allowed someone on an aircraft with a chainsaw. It was only when another passenger complained about the smell of petrol that it came to light. The security staff explained that chainsaws were not on the list of banned items.

No, it is impossible. The fact is, commercial pilots are trained to punch a four-digit code into the flight control’s transponder to warn ground control crews of a hijacking. It's utterly ridiculous to argue that the 9/11 pilots didn't have 2 seconds to punch in the code before the supposed "hijackers" took over the planes!!

It's one of the feeblest claims of the official 9/11 fairy tale.

Your links were shown to be worthless the first time you posted them. They don't magically become valid when you post them over and over again, ad nauseum.

Is that so? Do you have a link describing this training? I'm actually curious and not trying to be critical. While I'm sure all pilots intellectually know the transponder code for a hijacking, I am also sure that it is never practiced in flight or in a live airplane. So the question then becomes, is this something that is practiced in the sim? Even then, would that be foolproof? From my experience as a pilot, (sadly private only) transponder codes for emergency, hijacking and no radio are known but only "practiced" in drills. This practice would involve talking through the procedure of entering the code (never actually entering it) during a sim emergency. Emergency and no radio codes were talked through but not the hijacking code. That was only done on book tests.

Further, from my experience watching radar screens, many pilots that declare an emergency do not enter the transponder code for an emergency. A situation more common, more likely to occur to any individual pilot than a hijacking and many still either forget or just don't do it. It is also worth noting that depending on the model of transponder that "punching" in the the code may take more than a few seconds. Some models use a dial for each of the four numbers, some are digital and push button. Just something to think about.

Turbo - who has NIL aviation experience - has thus never heard of the old credo:

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

You may think that, but I have found your opinions to be consistently unconvincing. By this stage, I am not posting the links to convince you, but to show anyone else who is bothering to follow this nonsense what a mass of evidence you are trying to ignore.

I notice you are also ignoring this bit in my last post on this subject:

I believe the official 9/11 story and have seen nothing on this forum to make me deviate from that. Christopher C. Humphrey, Ph. D.
Yeah, they don't give those out to fools.

On the other hand, I have never been quite sure about the JFK murder. There seems to be too much evidence of a shooter
on the grassy knoll and a single shot through the neck, which would have been fatal by itself. I do know that the first doctors to look
at the body assumed that this was an entry wound. But it got all messed up when the installed the resperator.

As for many other odd events associated with the JFK murder, my rule is "never ascribe to conspiracy what can just as easily
be attributed to panic, sudden impulse, and stupidity." And pure chance.

~~~Cebrakon

MORE 9/11 THEORIES? WHAT THE NON-EXISTENT HELL! (because I dont believe in hell) I have seen soooo many 9/11 theories out there! (So there just HAD to be one on this forum)

Its crazy, I even saw one saying the smoke from the building resembled a demon and was therefore satans work. (on other sites)

Frankly as much as we'd like some fact we can rely on about what happened in 9/11 nobodys going to give it to us,even if they did we can't even tell fact from BS anymore in this world

Is this a reply to me? I can't tell.

First, we have the facts, witnessed by millions of people on live TV. I was one of those millions. It is a fact that about 20-30 minutes after the Twin Towers were hit by large, high-speed passenger jets full of jet fuel for cross-country, they collapsed, in pancake fashion. My grown son actually witnessed these events in real time with his bare eyes, from the top of the Macy production building in Brooklyn. He didn't seem too shook up by it, though he had friends who were supposed to be at work in WTC, but arrived late, saw the disaster of the first tower and promptly got back on the train. Thousands were saved by doing that. Smart, those New Yorkers. And late. They also stay late.

Among the visible details on the videos is that the first hit (last to fall) was a straight in North-South hit pretty near the top of the tower, and it wasn't going terribly fast, maybe 400 mph. The wings sheered through more than one of the outside beams of the hollow tube that forms these towers. (We have one in Tulsa!). The wings also cut through the core, destroying all stairwells.

The second plane was traveling (radar estimate) at 500 mph, hit at non-zero angles, so it took out more floors, but did not take out all the
core. Thus some stairwells survived and a few people made it down that way. I think there was 1 out of 3 stairwells left.

Theories only enter the picture when we try to find out why the floors collapsed, pancaking one on top of another. The experts came to the conclusion that the problem was not the exterior pillars, but the struts that held the outside pillars upright. They had no direct
connection with one another. So the main theory is that after about 20-30 minutes of 1000 degree heat, they sagged, and their hooks to wall and core came out. The pillars were immediately unstable, and came down quickly. This looks more like fact than theory, since the
experts who build the WTC were metallurgists, and examined the remains of the steel at the dump site. Under a microscope.

So it seems that theories entered the picture only after wild-eyed conspiracy theorists claimed that it was a controlled demolition (CD), making it a massive conspiracy, since the activity of demolition prepared could hardly be hidden, at least not during working hours.

If a towel-head was smart enough to cause a controlled demolition, I don't see where they would hide their bobcats (a very compact type
of bulldozer), during working hours. There is a lot of pre-demolition work necessary for a controlled explosion.

~~~Cebrakon

what inane jibberish!! the notion that the plane took out the core is unfounded in reality-- had that been the case they would have fell immediately....but no they fell AT FREEFALL SPEEDS!! completely eviscerating the pancake theory as it 1-ignores the cores and 2-it does NOT ACCOUNT FOR RESISTANCE!! there little doubt by anyone that the core remained intact and your rediculous attempts at obviscating the truth are pittiful-- everyone investigating the REAL truth KNOWS that the govt is eminating false propaganda like demons in the smoke,holograms and lasers from the heavens-- those are govt stooges intended to smear the FACTS that the towers were imploded with explosives-- bldg 7 is all that is needed to determine that we are not in kansas anymore never mind the obvious pulverization of both twin towers to dust,eye witness testimony of explosions,secondary devices and bombs and the obvious continual cover-up all point the blame directly at the highest levels of the us govt and military industrial complex-- if you dont know your history how can you ever hope to see tomorrow?? 9/11 was unequivocally an INSIDE JOB where innocet civilians were sacrificed to create a pre-text for genocide in the middle east and the raping of america by opec and its tyrannical overlords

Actualy wtc7 colappsed straight down and the twin towers.
Yep only steel was the rubble.
Not everything explodes in fire

Anyway its a bit like telling someone who has low education that Hitler became the 1st person to land on the moon.
They get confuesed on which story is the truth unitl the goverment says it was neil Armstrong and Buzz.
And they go ´its the goverment we need to belive them` but when another high person says something they just ignore him.
Its a bit like lost sheep finding a solution to get home but dont know on which path to take.

It's the way he completely ignores all the other people posting on this thread and just pops up now and again to repeat the same old de-bunked rubbish that really makes Sunofone such an asset to the search for truth. Face it, Sunny, all of your evidence is on a par with the demons in the smoke.

Has anyone on this forum ever used this argument?

At this point we're never going to know the truth about 9/11. Which is the norm when the government is trying to cover things up. What matters at this point is that they used this to get us into a war with people who did nothing to us. We're now at war with people so we can steal from them and rich people in this country are getting richer because of it.

Let's leave the war aspect aside for the moment.

You are using a false analogy in your post - "we will never know the truth" and "government covers things up". You are making the implication that the government ALWAYS lies and whatever they must be false - that is not the case.

Does the government - any government - lie? Almost certainly. Do they try and cover up events / facts? Yes, they do.

That does not automatically mean the US government is trying to hide "the truth" about 9/11. Why cannot people accept that terrorists pulled off a successful attack? And that the current administration took advantage of those circumstances? Why is that so hard to believe?

I'll accept that if that's the case. When do you think they'll admit it?

pathetic propaganda-- you havent and cant debunk the video of the collapses or the eye witness testimony!! demons in the smoke,which was govt propaganda, is NOT what persuaded the father of the star wars program maj gen stubblebine or 27 cia veteran ray mcgovern to claim inside job-- nor was it the reason that the physics prof from brigham young university came forward to write a 48 page analysis of why explosives were the only plausible scenario for the collpases witnessed and video taped that day-- also for the others here ...the reason we dont accept that the govt merely took advantage of an oportune moment is because it wast the cia that admittedly trained its asset usama bin laden in false church,va where he resided before we used him to create the taliban against the russians AND because plans have been submitted as recent as 1966 that involve military operations against civilian targets that were to be used as a pretext for war by wearing false colors and blaming other nations...NOT ONLY THAT but just months prior to 9/11 richard pearle authored a paper titled rebuilding americas defenses which was used as a guide for their group the project for a new american century(PNAC) where they boldy proclaimed that the "transformation" of americas military into an imperialistic force would be a long one absent a "new pearl harbor"-- now top that off with norad standing down and war games mimicking the exact scenario that transpired,demolitions and anthrax murder intimidation and that is more than enough for even the most basic of intellects to grasp-- only those with a motive of deceit still proclaim the govt version-- 9/11 was an iside job ....end of debate-- accept reality or respond to these facts and expose your self by trying to rationalize them

So, how exactly is one supposed to debate this issue with you when your "argument" seems to always end up essentially saying:

"I'm right, you're wrong, go a head and try to debate this, but any comments that don't agree with mine just prove that you are either too blind to see the truth or are part of the cover up"

?



Cz

Indeed so. No one could refute those arguments, that's for sure.

...deleted...

ETA: I decided to make a seperate thread with what I had posted here as I feel the Insider Trading aspect of 9/11 deserves to have it's own seperate thread. It is something that doesn't get as nearly enough attention as it should and I would love to hear peoples rationale for how it is simply nothing more than a coincidence if that is what they believe.

The thread is here: 9/11: Insider Trading Before The Attacks

On the contrary, I've been debunking the "insider job" claims about the collapses at length, both on this and on the earlier threads. I've been showing that the collapses are perfectly reasonable outcomes of the impacts and fires, I've been showing that none of the "smoking gun" evidence for controlled demolition is anything of the sort, I've been showing the gaping holes in the arguments of the likes of Steven Jones and I've been posting links to plenty of eyewitness and other evidence that contradicts the conspiracist claims.

You have ignored all this and just pop up every so often with a new variant of your standard rant. You are making the conspiracist side of the argument look bad, just like the people who point to demons in the smoke.

ill repeat ....you HAVE NOT and CANNOT refute the testimony of "secondary devices","bombs planted to take down a building" and "seven is exploding" NOR can you even hope to expell the collpases of either tower and more importantly bldg 7 into dust at freefall-- never will common sense and intellectual discernment be thwarted by pathetic excuses or willful ignorance-- face it 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB

Yes, you pick a few random quotes from people that confirm your ideas and completely ignore all the other eyewitnesses that said WTC7 was suffering a severe fire and obviously in danger of collapse.

None of the buildings collapsed into dust, they all left very large heaps of steel and concrete, and all went at rather less than free-fall speed, though I have yet to see any calculation from a conspiracy theorist of how fast they would expect a building to fall.

Ok... since we're playing the "lets ignore things other people say and just repeat what I've already said" game...




Cz

My goodness if your a citizien of a government that you fully believe is behind such acts. Why not migrate to another country where you can raise your kids in peace and tranquility for the next 10 to 15 years. Or is your goal in life to prove the evil empire exists and that we as walking zombies need to wake up and fear the real threat...not osama or the jihadists but bush and the rest of the the republicans? Get a grip on reality. No government is perfect and when your the super power of the known world your under the microscope. We attacked Iraq for the oil yeh and my cousin gets dollar a gallon for gas. No attacks since 9-11 on American soil people. Be happy with that or is that ignorant of me?

I think that's ignorant of you. Maybe there have been no more attacks because the people who planned or sat by and let the attack happen, are happy because they've gotten what they want, a war that should have never happened and a lot of money they made off that war. And my goal isn't to prove anything to you. I just want to watch your reactions, you ignorant walking zombies, when you do wake up and realize that Bush and the reast of the republicans, or big business like I like to call them, are the real threat. You get a grip on reality. No government is perfect but they are supposed to be working for the good of the people right? At this point ours is just like any other criminal. The longer they get away with their crimes the more confident they become and the bigger their crimes get. Isn't it our job to stop them?

How many "secrets" do governments hold? How's that bridge you drive over every day doing? How's the seismicity at Yellowstone doing...due for an eruption any day now...or millenium. You cry fire, you damn well better mean it. The real world is no th SciFi channel (I do enjoy their movies).

Do you understand intelligence and all it's legal ramifications? All the 9/11 information was available, just that the various players couldn't cooperate and share their information....

Like I tell the kids on the bus...if the rules seem silly (active photophones on the bus), blame the lawyers, who defend the stupid. The rational explaination, and response, to the 9/11 information would have nabbed the culprits early...but there are "legal" entanglements...the "wall".

Obama will keep secrets from you , every bit as much as GW...I promise you that.

Pilot training? Many links point out what pilots are trained to do in such an event - it's standard procedure...

During normal operations it is expected that a flight crew could manually dial-in a new ATC-directed Mode 3A transponder radar beacon code, through the transponder control panel, in roughly five to ten seconds.

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/200...Day-14/i685.htm

FAA guidance to controllers on hijack procedures assumed that the aircraft pilot would notify the controller via radio or by“squawking”a transponder code of “7500”—the universal code for a hijack in progress.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec1.pdf


Regarding your comment that "many pilots that declare an emergency do not enter the transponder code for an emergency" -

Even if we accept that claim, it only supports my point. If it takes only 5-10 seconds to punch in the code, then it would probably take even less time than that for a pilot to declare an emergency.

We're supposed to believe hijackers gained control of 4 planes in under 10 seconds.

I'm baffled that you (among others) actually buy into such nonsense.

It is a mass - of garbage. That's quite evident to those who have followed along this thread.



Because it has no relevance to the issue.

Rodriguez is entitled to his opinion. Personally, I think Roberts is pond scum.