Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Left-Field

9/11: The Black Boxes at Ground Zero

212 posts in this topic

The letter from Gregory Urich is a request for clarification and detailed study of the claims that are applicable to both sides of the discussion – these are issues that should have been addressed by the official investigation in the first place. Anyone could just as easily dismiss NIST’s investigation based on the scathing criticism it received from James Quintiere, their own former Chief of the Fire Science Division.

Urich refutes 13 of the AE911T list of 15 points of evidence for controlled demolition, using words like "completely incorrect". In only two of the points does he suggest that the evidence is ambiguous and that both NIST and AE911T should investigate further.

As you know perfectly well, Quintiere's theory is that the insulation in the towers was substandard, and this, rather than insulation damage in the impacts, was why the fires brought the building down. He also claims that the NIST simulations underestimated the severity of the fires, which if correct rather undermines your theory that NIST were desperately trying to make a collapse happen.

He has explicitly rejected the controlled demolition theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheeto,

Remember: ask for references and if it's not in your profession, find experts who can help. Don't trust me, don't trust them - trust yourself. Go to a university with a structural engineering faculty and find some of the lecturers. Tell them what both sides say and that you want to know who is right, etc. Then try someone else in the department, and another. Go to a different university. Go to an engineering firm.

Ring up a demolitions firm and ask if they think it was a controlled demolition. Look up some firms on the net and send some e-mails asking for their help.

Go to a flight school that has B737, B747, B757 or B767 simulators or training. Ask the instructors - could the supposed hijackers have done this? Do they believe it happened? Then go to another instructor, and another flight school and ask the same questions.

Be informed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you REALLY want to find out what happened, I strongly suggest that you go over to the JREF forum.

Yes, watch a rabble of pseudoskeptics bully and shout down anyone who dares to question the official story. JREF is the mirror image of everything that is bad about certain truth movement groups.

Sorry, Q. You really don't know what you are talking about.

In ALL FEA outputs, if you set the "deformation scale" to 1:1, you see nothing.

That is why you'll note that all the outputs have notes on the bottom that say something like "deformations 10x".

The twisting of WTC7 that bothers you was the result of this exaggeration of that deformation.

Sorry, tfk. I just stated a fact that the simulation does not look like the reality. The tactic of declaring, You really dont know what you are talking about in response to what is such a blatantly true observation wont work so well outside of JREF. Despite your explanation for this, surely the idea of the simulation is to recreate the collapse event to determine the probable cause and clearly NIST have not done this to any precise degree. I note your claim that this is ok and should not be questioned but I do not agree with it.

NIST agreed to a 2.25 second of NEAR free-fall. They said the same BEFORE Chandler (a high school physics teacher, not a structural engineer) had his breathless revelations.

In reality, the best estimate (my own) for the collapse during that period is closer to 0.94G. Not 1.0G.

Of course, before this and after this short interval, it was far slower.

And this is EXACTLY the acceleration that one would expect from a buckling failure.

I am not so concerned with David Chandler or your own estimations but rather the fact that NIST have admitted, In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105ft), the distance travelled between times t=1.75 s and t=4.0s. Again, I note your claim that freefall is now expected but I do not agree with it.

Do you know, it makes me wonder what the years of arguments regarding WTC7 up to now were all for. At least three points long argued by proponents of the official story (the emergency generator fuel supply, debris damage being a significant factor and non-freefall of the building) have been thoroughly refuted. The response to NISTs admittances has invariably been along the lines of, humph… yes… well of course that was never central to our argument anyway. Sure. Despite adherents to the official story being proven wrong time and again, all it took was for NIST to claim that the entirety of the structure effectively relied on a single column, theorise that an extraordinary event never before seen must have occurred and create a simulation not even matching the actual collapse to convince them.

Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.

I repeat this section of quote describing the big lie because it is so absolutely true.

The fact that you can't get at your copy because the gov website is down does not inspire confidence that you've ever glanced at the reports.

Genuine question - is that the kind of critical thinking that you picked up on the JREF forum?

Edit: You did not respond to a question from my last response to you - what do you make of the Israeli intelligence agents detained in New York on 9/11 in direct relation to the attacks and reported as having explosives detected in their van?

Edited by Q24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q,

The video footage does not clearly show a plane, more the blur of ‘something’ hitting the Pentagon.

Wrong.

You don't know how to pull the important, revealing tiny details out of your data.

You'd do well to watch this whole video.

Here's the point that PROVES that it was a plane the size of a 757. Not an A3, cruise missile or any other nonsense.

I'll have the video start at 2:15 seconds. Stop it exactly at 2:19 seconds.

If you want to take measurements off of this video, all of these images need to be scaled to compensate for the fish-eye, wide angle lens & its barrel distortion.

Nonetheless, you can immediately see that the nose of the plane is poking out on one side of the parking lot gate box, while the tail is sticking up above the box in the sky. It is those few simultaneous bits of data, the nose & the tail, that prove that it was plane the size of the a 757. (Note: Look carefully at the skyline. The tail is there in one frame & gone in the next. There is zero doubt. None of the other alleged aircraft have a tail this big.)

What I believe best reveals the presence of a large passenger airliner at the scene is the large number of corroborating eyewitness statements

Yup. Some of them professional pilots.

Nobody said "missile".

along with five light poles which were knocked down on the approach path happening to approximately match the wingspan of a 757.

Yup.

The presence of aircraft parts also to an extent supports an aircraft impact along with the pattern of damage to the Pentagon upon close inspection.

Not "to an extent". Those are 757 parts.

Saying all that, I see no evidence this aircraft was specifically Flight 77. From when Flight 77 disappeared from radar approximately 40 minutes prior to the Pentagon event, right up until the current day, there has been no official confirmation of the impacting aircraft’s identity - air traffic controllers, the FBI and NTSB all indirectly confirm this.

And suddenly, you take a U-turn, right back to Crazy-ville...

There is a small mountain of evidence that it WAS AA77. Including DNA of the passengers, and the FDR that was pulled out of the wreckage.

There is not one single piece of evidence that it was any plane other than AA77. I invite you to present your STRONGEST evidence that it was not AA77.

TomK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Define "pseudo-skeptic" and how you feel it applies to me, specifically.

I take the time to do actual research, Kenny, and then make decisions based on the available, documented facts and evidence.

You just get it in your head that "that s**t ain't right", form your opinion based on nothing more than some rantings on fringe-of-the-fringe CT sites and your complete and total lack of understanding of the physical world (with no apparent desire to learn anything) and then declare your opinions to be facts.

You are certainly entitled to your opinions - laughable as they are - but you are NOT entitled to your own facts.

The "no plane" theory is SO out to lunch that even the seriously whacked-out CT's out there think that people who believe and propagate that particular piece of tripe are lunatics.

I have verifiable facts and documented evidence.

You have uninformed opinion and willful ignorance.

Do the math.... if you can.

Cz

You, your 'facts' and 'evidence' are all part of the cover-up. KennyB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kenny, are you aware that they latter released the video footage that shows the plane crashing into the pentagon? I would think that would be proof that a plane hit the pentagon. So i find it funny that you would say that someone is a ?pseudo-skeptic? for believeing it, you seem to be the one with an unchangeable mind even with out a shred of evidence to back up your claim other than conspiracy theories which constantly make things up. Some actually make somewhat valid points, but yours is just insane, no offence.

I have to say though, i do find it funny that a man such as Steven Jones, which is a proffesional and highly respected man with a very good education, very respected by peer's, would just make something up like this, i could even go as far as saying its impossible that he would. He would have nothing to gain and all to loose, he must be stating this because he believes it to be true. And even after the "Debunking" he still seems to stick to his origanal statement, which i'm sure after the debunking he seems like the kind of man that would double check. Read his history on wiki, a very respected man, all of a sudden not respected??

The only video I've seen is the one from the service station showing about a one second shot of something a lot smaller than a 757 hitting the Pentagon. Wonder what the security video the people at the hotel were looking at when the FBI came in and took it?

KennyB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q,

Help me tailor my answers to your background.

How old?

What do you do?

Technical background?

Yes, watch a rabble of pseudoskeptics bully and shout down anyone who dares to question the official story. JREF is the mirror image of everything that is bad about certain truth movement groups.

IF you go over there & ask question like an adult, politely (not obsequiously) and with an open mind, you will find a huge number of people who are extraordinarily willing to provide you with guidance and information.

If someone goes over there with a snarky attitude, or are unwilling to do any work on their own, they will get treated like an insincere, petulant child. AS THEY SHOULD BE.

Sorry, tfk. I just stated a fact that the simulation does not look like the reality. The tactic of declaring, “You really don’t know what you are talking about” in response to what is such a blatantly true observation won’t work so well outside of JREF. Despite your explanation for this, surely the idea of the simulation is to recreate the collapse event to determine the probable cause and clearly NIST have not done this to any precise degree. I note your claim that this is ‘ok’ and should not be questioned but I do not agree with it.

You have a question about the appearance of the building as it descended.

Have you sent a note to NIST to ask them to explain this?

If so, what was their answer?

If not, why not?

What do you know about the limitations of simulations like this? What do you know about "chaotic behavior" and bifurcations in long sequences of events. And their impact on the models.

I am not so concerned with David Chandler or your own estimations but rather the fact that NIST have admitted, “In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105ft), the distance travelled between times t=1.75 s and t=4.0s.” Again, I note your claim that freefall is now ‘expected’ but I do not agree with it.

You quote.

You do not understand.

Here are some considerations of the details.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4859066

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4859910

You can quote mine all you want.

And you can halt the conversation because you don't want to go one step beyond your excerpted, un-comprehended, mined quote.

But you don't get to do both of those & STILL look like you are interested in any adult discussion of the issues. Or interested in the truth.

At least three points long argued by proponents of the official story (the emergency generator fuel supply, debris damage being a significant factor and non-freefall of the building) have been thoroughly refuted.

NONE of these points were ever part of "the official NIST story".

Amateurs ONLY argued those points.

ALL of the professionals said exactly the same thing: Let the experts do their analysis & THEN we'll know what happened.

This exact same BS happens after every disaster. Every plane crash, shuttle destruction, etc. The newspapers are unwilling to wait for a competent answer. But no one on the inside, actually with facts in hand, will speak to them. Because correct answers take time.

So they have a bunch of pseudo-expert who are willing to say anything. The more absurdly outrageous the quote, the higher the chance that you'll see your name in print. And the bigger then chance the story will appear "above the fold". Everyone is happy. Except those who have the slightest interest in the truth.

The response to NIST’s admittances has invariably been along the lines of, “humph… yes… well of course that was never central to our argument anyway”. Sure.

They were not "central". They were not "peripheral". They were not a component of NIST's story.

Your misunderstanding of who speaks with authority does not change that one iota.

Despite adherents to the official story being proven wrong time and again, all it took was for NIST to claim that the entirety of the structure effectively relied on a single column, theorise that an “extraordinary event” never before seen must have occurred and create a simulation not even matching the actual collapse to convince them.

Proving "adherents to the official story wrong" is inconsequential. Lots of adherents argued incorrectly. Lots of adherents of NIST's engineers' explanations are secretaries, poets, etc. As well as virtually every engineer on the planet.

(Yeah, yeah. Spare me the 120 or so idiots over at AE911T. That IS the right number of mechanical & structural engineers. Software, chemical, environmental & sanitation engineers are all amateurs at building collapses, too. As are all the baby engineers of any flavor.)

Proving "the official story wrong" is a mountain to get over. Because the 1000 or so people that contributed to the NIST reports have a collective 25,000 or so years of professional experience in the exact fields in which they provided their assessments.

How many religious studies professors, islamic studies professors, communications arts professors, videography college drop-outs, radio shock jocks, etc. do you think out weighs the opinion of one professional, 40 year experienced structural engineer?

The correct answer is, "Don't be absurd. All of them in the world are irrelevant."

You may not like that answer. You may think that it is arrogant.

TS, Eliot.

Edit: You did not respond to a question from my last response to you - what do you make of the Israeli intelligence agents detained in New York on 9/11 in direct relation to the attacks and reported as having explosives detected in their van?

"... reported as having explosives ..." Ain't it nice when you folks, who disparage the MSM's accuracy, can leverage their false information so ... so ... incessantly. (8+ years now...) There were "reports" of all kinds of events that turned out to be false. Including this one.

It is utterly irrelevant to the question "who was responsible for 9/11?"

Does Israel spy on the US? Of course it does. Its existence depends, to a certain degree, on the decisions that are made here. Ergo, they have assets here to gather info so that they are not caught by surprise by some event that occurs here.

Does the US spy on Israel? Of course it does. Our involvement in world affairs, our economy, depends on what happens in the Middle East. Ergo, we have assets there to gather info so that we are not caught by surprise by some event that occurs there.

Now, rather than innuendo, why don't you state clearly how you interpret that event.

Tom

Edited by tfk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only video I've seen is the one from the service station showing about a one second shot of something a lot smaller than a 757 hitting the Pentagon. Wonder what the security video the people at the hotel were looking at when the FBI came in and took it?

KennyB

You're kidding, right?

Please share a url to this video.

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're kidding, right?

Please share a url to this video.

Tom

Everybody in the world has seen that video, including you. You don't really want me to send you that video, you just want to annoy me and play your little 'prove it' game. KB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody in the world has seen that video, including you. You don't really want me to send you that video, you just want to annoy me and play your little 'prove it' game. KB

No, I have seen the parking lot video.

I have seen a video from Citgo that allegedly showed the shadow of the plane flying over head.

I"ve seen the Doubletree video.

And that's it.

So please, pretty please with sugar on top, post the url to the video that shows the small object hitting the Pentagon. The one that "everyone in the world has seen".

Can't wait.

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So please, pretty please with sugar on top, post the url to the video that shows the small object hitting the Pentagon. The one that "everyone in the world has seen".

tfk...

What you have to understand about Kenny is that he doesn't believe that he has to prove anything... ever.

All he has to do is say that he believes it, or that he doesn't understand the proven, prosaic explanation that is backed by verifiable evidence and that it must be "part of the cover up of the REAL FACTS™" that he read about on some beyond the fringe conspiracy site.

Bottom line with Kenny here is that he has proven himself time and time again extremely ignorant of even the most elementary tenets of physics and how things work in the real world and has continually shown absolutely no desire to lift himself out of his self-imposed prison of ignorance.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something else to consider with respect to intercept; even after 9-11, here is an example of how long it can take to intercept an airliner.

Helios 522

0900 Scheduled departure

0907 Departs Larnaca International Airport

0911 Pilots report air conditioning problem

0912 Cabin Altitude Warning sounds at 12,040 feet (3,670 m)

0920 Last contact with Nicosia ATC; Altitude is 28,900 feet (8,809 m)

0923 Now at 34,000 feet (10,400 m); Probably on autopilot

0937 Enters Athens Flight Information Region

1007 No response to radio calls from Athens ATC

1020 Athens ATC calls Larnaca ATC; Gets report of air conditioning problem

1024 Hellenic Air Force (HAF) alerted to possible renegade aircraft

1045 Scheduled arrival in Athens

1047 HAF reassured that the problem seemed to have been solved

1055 HAF ordered to intercept by Chief of General Staff, Admiral Panagiotis Chinofotis

1105 Two F-16 fighters depart Nea Anchialos

1124 Located by F-16s over Aegean island of Kea

That's 1 hour 17 mins from failure to respond, and one hour from alert to intercept. 29 minutes from the F-16s launching to actual intercept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UDT = elite special-purpose force

I'm sure you know that, maybe i had the tittle wrong, and i know hes not a proffesional at the way buildings fall, thats not the point of why i referr to him. I was simply referring to him because he states he has first hand witnessed a Red Flag operation put on the table, as Kennedy denied it. I seriously doubt he would just make the **** up for no reason at all, he already had the show, it wasn't just to get on tv, he's a patriot, he questions government actions, not make things up.

His level of intelligence dosen't mean that he lies.

Dave Lindoff never went on record stateing that he first hand heard that all four boxes where found as has never mentioned it to any conspiracy theorists, but he did on this one show, and still has not went on record, and still has no ties to conspiracy theories, he says he don't know why they would hide it, and leaves it at that. So the likely hood of him just lieing for no pupose is once again slim to none.

It seems that ANYONE that wants to be skeptical of the offical story is all of a sudden an "Idiot and liar", i find that odd and a childish excuse. To be honest, if it were a "Red Flag" operation, the hole point would be to make it seem as it wern't true, and the level of deception that would be involved would certainly call for making sure every detail is explainable without invloving an inside job, and yes is very possible.

As to make a claim, i can't, and don't care to spend my life trying to prove it, why? Because if i did i would be just another conspiracy "idiot", and my voice would not be heard. Which would make it pointless, but i have seen enough seemingly honest reports to 99% know that more happened than the offical story reports, and i do 100% believe all black boxes were recovered.

With that said, i guess there's really not any point in discussing further, because i'm not going to waste my time for reasons i stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that ANYONE that wants to be skeptical of the offical story is all of a sudden an "Idiot and liar", i find that odd and a childish excuse.

Which of us said that? The problem is that, on the whole, the conspiracists are amateurs. If you needed surgery, would you trust an amateur surgeon? No? Then why do you think all these amateur structural engineers are to be trusted when it comes to working out why a building fell down?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which of us said that? The problem is that, on the whole, the conspiracists are amateurs. If you needed surgery, would you trust an amateur surgeon? No? Then why do you think all these amateur structural engineers are to be trusted when it comes to working out why a building fell down?

Didn't you in other words say the same for Ventura and Lindoff. I was not even talking about the buildings, i was talking strictly about the realness of Red flag operations and real off the record report of all black boxes found. You discredited both and referred to their intelligence and i guess insisting an award winning investagative journlist from time to time, just lies without reason, or just dosen't know what he's talking about. How could he not understand the simple words "Off the record we recovered all four boxes".

I am fully aware people like Alex Jones are full of dodo, and to make a good point, if i where a government which applied conspiracies as a tactic, i would purposely hire someone like alex to cause confusion incase anyone did get on my case, so many lies, how can you find the facts. Not to mention that a successful red flag operation would leave no traces of evidence, or atleast would be hard to prove. This in no way is any kind of proof, just a logical statement and vaild argument.

As answers, i don't know, i'm somewhat in the middle on this, i'm not an expert in anything but logic.

I just see no reason for these, and only these two people and there simple statements, to lie for no purpose other than to deceive americans into thinking there government is into dirt work. Honestly, would it be a first for government deception?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Havn't scoped the total thread; apologies if i missed anything here(?)

Contrary to what conspiracists claim, plenty of steel-framed buildings have collapsed due to fire, just google "warehouse fire collapse" and you'll find plenty. The usual conspiracist response to my pointing out this fact is an immediate goalpost shift to "what about tall buildings, then", as if the height of a building somehow altered the vulnerability of its steel to fire.

Just curious;

Where's the comparison in warehouse fire collapses much lower & larger in span (m2), lighter gauge steel framed with (zincalume/colorbond) tin-roofed to high-rise steel & solid concrete super structures?

Also (maybe wrong here) but according to this WTC remains the only high-rise super structure to 'completely collapse' by fire...(?)

I agree that WTC7 resembles a controlled demolition, particularly in the edited videos shown by the conspiracists. However, the full video sequence shows not only the absence of explosions at the start, but also the collapse of the penthouses a few seconds before the main collapse. This is nothing like any CD I've ever seen, and is the key indicator of the internal structure collapsing before the outer walls. The sequence of failure has now been modelled in detail by NIST, so while it is a very unusual way for a building to fall, it's not an inexplicable one.

Depending on what kind of 'editing' your talking about (to slow down footage to better analyze or duping the public, etc etc) working both ways for cts & &/or debunkers alike, 'government' debunkers if you like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the point that PROVES that it was a plane the size of a 757. Not an A3, cruise missile or any other nonsense.

I'll have the video start at 2:15 seconds. Stop it exactly at 2:19 seconds.

If you want to take measurements off of this video, all of these images need to be scaled to compensate for the fish-eye, wide angle lens & its barrel distortion.

Nonetheless, you can immediately see that the nose of the plane is poking out on one side of the parking lot gate box, while the tail is sticking up above the box in the sky. It is those few simultaneous bits of data, the nose & the tail, that prove that it was plane the size of the a 757. (Note: Look carefully at the skyline. The tail is there in one frame & gone in the next. There is zero doubt. None of the other alleged aircraft have a tail this big.)

First off to say that I know there is a plane somewhere in the security footage – the other evidence that I mentioned confirms its presence. But secondly the security footage, taken in isolation, does not appear conclusive evidence and I still maintain that it shows with certainty only ‘something’ impacting the Pentagon.

I am unconvinced that the nose of the plane is actually visible or that the tail is the confirmation we are looking for bearing in mind that missile variants also share this feature. In taking measurements, precise location of the ‘something’ must be known and as you say there are other factors that need to be compensated for, the poor resolution of the footage not making this work any easier.

Do you have a link to a full analysis that really leaves this issue in “zero doubt” as you claim? If so I would be interested to view the information and add it to my repertoire of evidence against ‘no planers’, though if not then I will have to leave it out and carry on with the stronger evidence that I already have.

While we are on the subject, do you have an opinion of the four Citgo station witnesses who all saw the plane approach on the north side? It is very difficult to claim they were all mistaken as their stories corroborate one another and there do not appear to be any known witnesses actually located at the Citgo who oppose the account. Of course they are outnumbered by witnesses in the general vicinity of the Pentagon who place the plane on the south side and so my general argument against the Citgo witnesses is that they must have seen something else – the pursuing C-130 perhaps. The problem with this is that according to most accounts the C-130 did not arrive on the scene until minutes after the impact. So, any advances on this?

Not "to an extent". Those are 757 parts.

I agree those are parts used in a 757 but, again in isolation, this is only useful to an extent in proving that such a plane impacted the building. The identifiable parts at the Pentagon were somewhat limited and Operation Northwoods pg.11 describes: -

c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachutes, etc., at approximately 15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart. The pilots returning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found.

A true skeptic would not so easily fall for a plan such as the above.

And suddenly, you take a U-turn, right back to Crazy-ville...

There is a small mountain of evidence that it WAS AA77. Including DNA of the passengers, and the FDR that was pulled out of the wreckage.

There is not one single piece of evidence that it was any plane other than AA77. I invite you to present your STRONGEST evidence that it was not AA77.

I’m beginning to wonder if you really are a skeptic or more of a government apologist. The skeptic would reach the base that a plane impacted the Pentagon and then seek to confirm its identity. Only the apologist would start from the conclusion that the plane was Flight 77 and ask for evidence that it was not.

There is no indisputable evidence that the plane was Flight 77 and neither is there hard evidence that it was any other. As I mentioned previously, the forensic analysis was not carried out on site and a Freedom of Information Act request has revealed that there is no available record of custody or process of DNA identification. Of the NTSB FDR reports, those of Flight 77 and Flight 93 are practically the only two in the last 20 years which do not detail the serial numbers confirming their identity.

How about you present your strongest evidence that the plane was Flight 77, I will explain why it is not conclusive and we can just agree on the fact that a plane impacted the Pentagon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(emphasis mine)

While the aircraft did not strike the ground first (or at least, it is not known conclusively that it did), it is rather naive to say that the aircraft was flown "perfectly" into the Pentagon, especially given the following documented evidence:

009-Pentagon.jpg

Generator on the lawn in front of the Pentagon was struck by the aircraft.

0010-Pentagon.jpg

Low retaining wall surrounding a ventilation system in front of the Pentagon shows obvious damage from being struck by the aircraft's engine pod (indicated by the arrow).

While neither of these are what can be correctly classified as a "ground strike", the fact that the low retaining wall is only approximately 1 - 2 feet above ground level indicates that the aircraft was not necessarily flown "perfectly".

Cz

Really? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All covered in excrutiating detail on other threads of this forum, try the search function.

Read my post , I said I each one of these has an "explanation" and I wasn't looking for you or anyone else to repeat them, try reading the posts you are responding to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Kenny, but once again you are completely wrong. Your "opinion" doesn't equal fact. And the facts show that it was indeed an aircraft - a Boeing 757-223 - that crashed into the Pentagon.

You weren't able to prove your "opinion" that no plane crashed into the Pentagon when you lamely tried to push that fantasy earlier this year, and you're not likely to get anywhere trying to peddle your particular brand of willful ignorance again here.

Cz

Out of the whole 9/11 debacle the only thing which CLEARLY has not been proven fact is the issue of what exactly hit the pentagon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q24- Thank you for your research and dedication to all of this. I do not know what happened on 9/11 but I do know that ignoring the facts, from either side of the argument, does no one any good. I have studied that day extensively and honestly I don't have the time, energy or memory to put out the reasoned arguments that you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Help me tailor my answers to your background.

How old?

What do you do?

Technical background?

I will state that I am not a pilot or construction professional so as not to mislead anyone but further than that is irrelevant.

IF you go over there & ask question like an adult, politely (not obsequiously) and with an open mind, you will find a huge number of people who are extraordinarily willing to provide you with guidance and information.

That is not my observation of JREF.

If someone goes over there with a snarky attitude, or are unwilling to do any work on their own, they will get treated like an insincere, petulant child. AS THEY SHOULD BE.

How ironic - that’s near identical to the line Balsamo came out with in my discussion with him. It shows that one group is as bad as the other, both so convinced of their own opposing arguments that if anyone doesn’t do the ‘work’ that specifically results in them towing the particular party line then they are derided for it. I say to hell with Pilots for Truth and JREF if that is their attitude.

You have a question about the appearance of the building as it descended.

No question, just an observation that the WTC7 simulation does not match reality.

What do you know about the limitations of simulations like this? What do you know about "chaotic behavior" and bifurcations in long sequences of events. And their impact on the models.

I’m not asking for perfection, just something that matches the fundamental reality.

You quote.

You do not understand.

Here are some considerations of the details.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4859066

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4859910

You can quote mine all you want.

And you can halt the conversation because you don't want to go one step beyond your excerpted, un-comprehended, mined quote.

But you don't get to do both of those & STILL look like you are interested in any adult discussion of the issues. Or interested in the truth.

You can try to divert from it but the fact is that NIST have admitted to a 2.25 second period of freefall. So just explain how 8 stories across the entire building including all of the structural steelwork near instantaneously performed as though they were not even there. The very idea that the buckling of a single column can seconds later lead to the entire building entering a symmetrical, freefall collapse is completely absurd. This is not the work of fire or natural progressive collapse but due to a planned demolition simultaneously removing a number of main support columns across the structure.

We all know the statement of the building owner, Larry Silverstein: -

“I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”

We also know the interpretation that “pull” was supposedly in reference to halting the fire fighting effort but there is also no denying that this is a demolition term for bringing down a building (whether by the use of cables is secondary to the overarching fact that it means to bring a building down). Now of course the firefighters did fall back from WTC7 and let’s listen to what they said as they did so: -

  • “It’s blowin’ boy”… “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.”
  • “The building is about to blow up, move it back.”
  • “Here we are walking back. There’s a building, about to blow up.”

Indra Singh, an EMT on the scene, later had this to say: -

“… all I can attest to is that by noon or one o’clock they told us we need to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or be brought down.”
[the interviewer asks who told her this and if the words “brought down” were actually used]
“The fire department. And they did use the words ‘we’re gonna have to bring it down’…”

Add to the above the pre-emptive news reports some 20 minutes before the collapse of WTC7 and we have a sound case of foreknowledge to the WTC7 collapse.

Now there are two lines of belief we can follow: -

  1. The building owner and firefighters used some peculiar terminology, the EMT misheard what she was told and clairvoyant powers allowed someone to foresee the “extraordinary event” that allegedly caused the collapse and pass this information to news reporters before it had even happened.
  2. More simply and fitting the evidence without excusing any of the facts, individuals on location had knowledge that WTC7 was to be deliberately brought down.

"... reported as having explosives ..." Ain't it nice when you folks, who disparage the MSM's accuracy, can leverage their false information so ... so ... incessantly. (8+ years now...) There were "reports" of all kinds of events that turned out to be false. Including this one.

Let’s not jump to conclusions now – I am well aware that the initial reports of the Israelis’ van being laden with explosives was found to be incorrect and retracted by media sources. Notwithstanding this, there is usually a spark of truth that ignites any false report and perhaps this is something that you have missed.

Please see this report in the New Jersey News, dated Sep. 12th, 2001: -

Five men detained as suspect conspirators

As can be seen, this article contains some specific details and rather than the breaking news of the day before, there had been time to reflect and gather information on events. What is described is that after the van was stopped, bomb-sniffing dogs reacted as if they had detected explosives. As a precaution, Route 3 was shut down in both directions and after 30 minutes the FBI ordered evacuation of a nearby motel. Packages in the van were x-rayed by the bomb squad although no explosives were actually found to be present. There is even a quote attributed to one of the motel guests: -

“First, they told us we could hang out in the lobby, but then they told us we had to leave,”
the traveler said.

At 10 p.m., the hotel guest said she could see at least two police officers searching through the van while a crowd of other officers kept their distance. Except for police vehicles and a tow truck, the service road beside Route 3 was empty, she said.

What seems to have happened is that the suspicion there was explosives present in the van led to initial media reports overstating the situation. Still, the details reported in the article above have not been disputed and appear factual, being specific and sourced.

Now back to the bomb-sniffing dogs that reacted as if they had detected explosives and appear to have triggered the scare. It is known that trained sniffing-dogs can detect a residual scent long after the physical source has been removed by human standards. Researching the accuracy of any particular sniffing-dog I found the consensus to be that it is somewhere from 60-95%. Further, the dogs are far more often found to be mistaken where detection of a substance is missed rather than reacting to something that isn’t actually there. Therefore it follows that there is at least a 60% possibility that explosives were recently transported in the van.

Even the issue of explosives is not the ultimate point. Here we have men recording and celebrating the attacks with shouts of joy and high-fives. Immediately upon their detainment, apparently before any accusations have been made, they begin protesting their innocence for the attacks. They are found to have connections with the Israeli intelligence service, even admitted to an extent by their own lawyer no less. The FBI had reason to believe the men were working under cover of a front company (the owner of which fled back to Israel before the FBI could complete their enquiries) and were tied to the attacks. In custody one of the men repeatedly failed a lie detector test.

After over two months of interrogation and as reported by ABC News “high-level negotiations between Israeli and U.S. government officials” the men were deported with the only reason being given that they were working illegally in the country in violation of their visas. Of course nobody but nobody believes this was their only wrongdoing and it is a fool of the highest order that accepts this blatant cover-up is in the publics’ best interest.

A case directly linked to 9/11 for which there are outstanding questions… acceptable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q24- Thank you for your research and dedication to all of this. I do not know what happened on 9/11 but I do know that ignoring the facts, from either side of the argument, does no one any good. I have studied that day extensively and honestly I don't have the time, energy or memory to put out the reasoned arguments that you do.

I’m glad that some of the information is of use.

And I do not honestly have the time or energy to put out these arguments either :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really?

Yes... really.

Do you have another plausible explanation for the damage seen in the images?

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Out of the whole 9/11 debacle the only thing which CLEARLY has not been proven fact is the issue of what exactly hit the pentagon.

So all the parts (landing gear, engine parts, etc.) from the site that have been conclusively shown to be from a Boeing 757 and fuselage pieces that clearly show American Airlines livery on them were what...? Fakes...?

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.