To those who believe the 911 official story

[Q24]

Interesting. The Commission report gives a pretty detailed timeline of events, and Mineta's account doesn't fit. I'd like to read some of the other key player testimony. There is no mention of Mineta in the shelter, but that doesn't mean anything. I have no idea what order he was talking about, unless it was an hour later.

Mineta states with certainty that he arrived at the PEOC at 9:20am. I agree that the 9/11 Commission left this vital testimony out of the final report – it didn’t get dubbed the ‘Omission’ Report by sceptics for nothing.

A lot of questions and missing details, not sure what the Mineta discrepency is about. The timing is way off.

Do you believe a new and independent investigation would be worthwhile to clear-up these issues, mrbusdriver?

Frankly, I'm not sure what orders those would be.

For want of any better explanation, the following events fit the evidence: -

The Vice President, Dick Cheney, was aware of the airliner approaching the Pentagon shortly before Norman Mineta’s arrival at 9:20am. During this time, the military had enquired to the Vice President about shootdown authority to which Cheney denied the request, ie an “order” at that time that no shootdown was to occur. The officer giving Cheney status updates on the incoming airliner and becoming increasingly concerned at its proximity asked, “Do the orders still stand?” Through this prevention of the military to act, Cheney ensured beyond doubt that the airliner reached its target. The 9/11 Commission, wanting to absolve the Vice President of any responsibility, adapted their timeline and deliberately omitted Minetta’s testimony.

Is the above plausible? If not, why not? Does anybody have a better explanation?

[mrbusdriver]

The Vice President, Dick Cheney, was aware of the airliner approaching the Pentagon shortly before Norman Mineta’s arrival at 9:20am. During this time, the military had enquired to the Vice President about shootdown authority to which Cheney denied the request, ie an “order” at that time that no shootdown was to occur. The officer giving Cheney status updates on the incoming airliner and becoming increasingly concerned at its proximity asked, “Do the orders still stand?” Through this prevention of the military to act, Cheney ensured beyond doubt that the airliner reached its target. The 9/11 Commission, wanting to absolve the Vice President of any responsibility, adapted their timeline and deliberately omitted Minetta’s testimony.

Is the above plausible? If not, why not? Does anybody have a better explanation?

I don't think the VP had the authority to give a shootdown order. In any case, there would be no order to give as peacetime ROE was still in effect. The President is the one that calls weapons free. Also, regardless of the ROE, there were no planes in the area to engage the AA77 inbound the Pentagon. Any engagement orders would be a moot point at that time. A hold fire would be as inapplicable as a cleared to engage call, noone hearing it was in a position to have it matter.

The inbound was being reported erroneously as the missing AA11, with a third, unknown flight, having hit the North WTC tower, such was the confused information coming from the FAA.

The only place where I can see the "orders still stand" situation is with the crashed UAL93's coasting symbology being sent from FAA via phone to the Secret Service in the shelter, with the 80 mile inbound calls. The VP confirmed the orders twice, once around 1000-1015 and the second time 1012-1018. He had already spoken to the POUS previously (~1003 after entering the shelter) to get the authorities. At 1018 he again spoke to the POUS to confirm the authority. The ghost track went away. I can see such "orders still stand" comments in this situation. The only discrepency is the time. Everything indicates that Cheney was swept off his chair and hustled to the shelter as AA77 was approaching the Pentagon, not well before that. The only account I've seen doesn't have the VP there at 9:20. Are there any other accounts or testimony supporting Mineta's timeline?

[mrbusdriver]

Q24,

I don't know if you've seen this site. I invite you to read, and listen to, this information. It's from the NEADS tapes of that morning, and presents a pretty good account of what was happening that morning at the "operator" level. No NCA,, no NMCC, just folks reacting to a wildly escalating situation.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feature.../08/norad200608

I have no reason to doubt this information at all, warts and all.

[Silmarillion]

Cheney is no ordinary Vice POTUS. He is, in effect, a co-POTUS, and this is not only obvious, it was declared by Cheney in a conversation he had with former Vice POTUS Dan Quayle (PBS Frontline: Cheney's Law). With regard to the shoot-down order, or whether Cheney had authority in crisis?

Amendment 25 to the U.S. Constitution:

Section. 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

If POTUS was incommunicado, under duress, or otherwise incapacitated, I suspect that Cheney and whichever Executive officers were available could pass POTUS powers to Cheney...

But I am no Constitutional scholar.

1st Edit: Cheney's Law Interview

Barton Gellman

The Washington Post

Dan Quayle went to see Dick Cheney, who he'd known for a long time, right around inauguration day in Bush's first term. He sort of went in, one vice president to another, to let him know how things were going to be. And he said, "You know, Dick, you're going to be doing a lot of traveling, going to a lot of funerals, lot of fundraisers. You're going to be doing the things that presidents don't want to do, and that your president doesn't want to do." And Cheney just looked at him with that little half-grin and raised his eyebrow and said, "I have a different understanding with the president." He didn't elaborate too much, and he doesn't tend to elaborate very often, but they talked a bit more about it. What Quayle told The Washington Post is that Cheney was going to be, in effect, a super-chief of staff.

I don't think the VP had the authority to give a shootdown order. In any case, there would be no order to give as peacetime ROE was still in effect. The President is the one that calls weapons free. Also, regardless of the ROE, there were no planes in the area to engage the AA77 inbound the Pentagon. Any engagement orders would be a moot point at that time. A hold fire would be as inapplicable as a cleared to engage call, noone hearing it was in a position to have it matter.

The inbound was being reported erroneously as the missing AA11, with a third, unknown flight, having hit the North WTC tower, such was the confused information coming from the FAA.

The only place where I can see the "orders still stand" situation is with the crashed UAL93's coasting symbology being sent from FAA via phone to the Secret Service in the shelter, with the 80 mile inbound calls. The VP confirmed the orders twice, once around 1000-1015 and the second time 1012-1018. He had already spoken to the POUS previously (~1003 after entering the shelter) to get the authorities. At 1018 he again spoke to the POUS to confirm the authority. The ghost track went away. I can see such "orders still stand" comments in this situation. The only discrepency is the time. Everything indicates that Cheney was swept off his chair and hustled to the shelter as AA77 was approaching the Pentagon, not well before that. The only account I've seen doesn't have the VP there at 9:20. Are there any other accounts or testimony supporting Mineta's timeline?

Edited May 7, 2008 by lmbeharry

[Silmarillion]

Cheney is no ordinary Vice POTUS. He is, in effect, a co-POTUS, and this is not only obvious, it was declared by Cheney in a conversation he had with former Vice POTUS Dan Quayle (PBS Frontline: Cheney's Law). With regard to the shoot-down order, or whether Cheney had authority in crisis?

Amendment 25 to the U.S. Constitution:

Section. 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

If POTUS was incommunicado, under duress, or otherwise incapacitated, I suspect that Cheney and whichever Executive officers were available could pass POTUS powers to Cheney...

But I am no Constitutional scholar.

1st Edit: Cheney's Law Interview

Barton Gellman

The Washington Post

Dan Quayle went to see Dick Cheney, who he'd known for a long time, right around inauguration day in Bush's first term. He sort of went in, one vice president to another, to let him know how things were going to be. And he said, "You know, Dick, you're going to be doing a lot of traveling, going to a lot of funerals, lot of fundraisers. You're going to be doing the things that presidents don't want to do, and that your president doesn't want to do." And Cheney just looked at him with that little half-grin and raised his eyebrow and said, "I have a different understanding with the president." He didn't elaborate too much, and he doesn't tend to elaborate very often, but they talked a bit more about it. What Quayle told The Washington Post is that Cheney was going to be, in effect, a super-chief of staff.

Ex Post: Here's a link to Cheney's Law

[turbonium]

I said aluminium oxide, which is a major product of thermite combustion. Aluminium on its own, like sulphur, is too common a building component to be significant.

You asked me "Did it also lack the aluminium, because I don't recall Jones finding aluminium oxide, either?" That's why I pointed out that aluminum was found.

Aluminum-oxide is released into the air as a whitish ash (smoke) when thermite burns. So most of it will blow away into the air. Should some of it settle down and contact the molten metal, it will just float on top of this molten material, and it won't bond with the iron, etc. And that's why Al203 won't be a component found within the solidified slag.

Same proportion of sulphur in the debris as in thermate? Does that mean the towers were made of solid thermate? Where does Jones get these ridiculous arguments from?

Your comments are ridiculous, since you refuse to look at the videos of Jones' presentation (that I linked for your benefit) which would have explained these points for you.

Try to understand what I'm saying instead of going off on irrelevant tangents. That NIST report was about what happened in the pre-collapse fires. The "anomaly" that you were trying to put forward in your post #459 "the molten metal", I took to refer to the reports of molten metal in the debris piles.

No. I cited NIST's FAQ, which is not the same thing as NIST's final report. The FAQ page discusses issues which came up after the final report was released. And the main point I was making was that NIST clearly stated that the fires could not melt the steel.

As far as I'm aware, no-one has actually produced any evidence of what sort of metal this was. Long-duration fires in the pile could easily melt metals such as aluminium or lead.

I've already told you that Jones' samples is evidence, as are the videos/photos and first-hand eyewitness accounts.

I've said I don't excuse them. I was just speculating on why they said what they did.

Well, it sure looks to me like you're trying to think up lame excuses for them.

Structural engineers have expertise in designing structures, they do not necessarily have expertise in fires.

So this inadequacy isn't relevant? The 'most qualified group' to investigate whether or not fires initiated the collapses....has no expertise in fires?? Come on, that's absurd.

A kerosene fire will burn as long as there is kerosene available, and that depends on how much was there to start with. If there is a lot present and the fire can only reach a small area of interface with the liquid, it can burn for a long time.

Even FEMA and NIST state that the jet fuel burned away within the first few minutes. Are you disagreeing with NIST on this point?

I asked for the source of a quote you attributed (twice) to NASA and you said "me".

I only "attributed" it to NASA once, when I first made it up as a joke. Not twice. The next time I noted it - replying to MID - was to point out that it was meant as a joke (tongue-in-cheek).

Squirm as much as you want, that is admitting you made it up.

The only one who should be "admitting" to deception is yourself, flyingswan. You are being deliberately dishonest, by continuing to ignore my clarification. As I've told you over and over - I needed to explain I made it up as a joke, because it had been misinterpreted. Indeed, you can "squirm as much as you want", but that is the absolute truth of the matter. Get over it, once and for all.

Whether or not it was a joke, and the lack of any obvious humour is not a point in your favour, is irrelevant to the fact of the "making up".

What nonsense! "Making up" something for a joke is entirely different than "making up" something to deliberately deceive others. The difference between the two is completely relevant.

It was a joke. A pro-hoax joke. Since I am pro-hoax, I found humor in it. You are seeing it from the other side, so it's not very surprising that you wouldn't see the humor in it. That's why I later went through the joke in detail, and even came up with an analogy - to try and make you understand it from my point-of-view.

But what have you offered to support your argument? Nothing.

You claim that it wasn't a joke, that it wasn't meant as a joke. You argue that I made it up to deceive everyone.

So - How would it benefit my pro-hoax argument to try and 'fool' people into thinking the quote was genuine? It wouldn't.

If it did, then you would certainly have come up with a reason or two it helps my case, by this point.

It's time you stop this BS argument, because you just look worse and worse by continuing on with it.

[merril]

Q24-

I get a few demerits for being a hypocrit (and chiding you again). But, here it is.

First of all, NIST will enlighten all, when their report on WTC 7 is issued (within the year). You might wait until then to form an opinion.

Here is mine. More common sense, no bull.

WTC 7 was randomly struck by falling debris. That same debris randomly ruined water mains. The building randomly caught on fire. When the emergency water supply in the upper floors was exhausted, that was the end. The structure was left to burn, because no water was available due to random events.

The area was evacuated by Chief Nigro, who replaced a randomly killed fellow firechief. Other working firemen were aware of the lost cause the building presented. It was said to be leaning, at one point.

[flyingswan]

There is no end of “smoking guns” that altogether make an overwhelming case for the inside job. That anyone may choose to make up excuses or be ignorant of the evidence does not mean it isn’t there.

As for the courts - in a world where power did not corrupt then no doubt with presentation of the full evidence a case would succeed. In reality the US Judiciary is not so perfect. Just a couple of examples: -

The

Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

shows how the President can pick and choose attorneys at a whim. The courts, the Supreme Court at least, are for the government more than for the people.

The

current Attorney General

, an Orthodox Jew hand picked by the President, made campaign contributions to Giuliani for president and Joe Lieberman for Senate as well as judging in the litigation between Larry Silverstein and several insurance companies arising from 9/11.

The Neocons in the US Administration are not going to sit idly by and allow their own court to sentence them.

If you have a smoking gun, why can't you convince more people of your case?

Citizens of many countries died in the 911 attacks, so why limit yourself to US courts? Surely, if you had any proper evidence, it could be taken to a court somewhere.

The Communist, Marinus van der Lubbe, in 1933 was found guilty by the German court of starting the Reichstag fire. In 1967 a West German court reduced van de Lubbe’s sentence for arson and treason to a prison term of eight years. In 1980 the same court lifted the sentence entirely, but the German federal court reversed this decision. And now, 75 years after the event, van der Lubbe’s conviction has been overturned by the German federal prosecutor under a 1998 law that allows pardons for people convicted of crimes under the Nazi regime. This complete reversal, not only in the court’s judgement but also seemingly in the public view, has taken 75 years to come about.

In regard to evidence of an inside job, the 9/11 attacks and Reichstag fire have much in common – pretexts which each have their “smoking guns” and yet are disputed. I would surmise the only reason anyone would proclaim one is possible, and the other not, is due to nothing more than the 68 years between events.

Oh dear me, I think this is an example of Godwin's Law in action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

[flyingswan]

I asked for details of your WTC7 “domino” collapse theory for no other reason than understanding and to enable a fair evaluation. It says a lot that you admittedly construe the lack of detail to be embarrassing. What you are effectively telling me is there is no plausible process whereby your theory can be fit to the witnessed collapse. The detail is absolutely necessary – just saying “column 79 failed due to heating, leading to progressive virtually symmetrical, near freefall, complete collapse” is nothing more than hand-waving.

I didn't say there was no plausible process. I have a plausible process, but I am not able to say exactly which of the many possible collapse sequences was the one that actually happened. This goes back to my car analogy. I may not be able to give an exact sequence of the way various components of the car fail structurally as it hits a tree, but that does not mean that a car which hits a tree will not fail structurally at all.

How can anyone disprove a half-theory that is unproven to begin with?

Now, now, you made a claim that my theory doesn't fit the evidence, so it is up to you to explain why you think that.

I have demonstrated that the delay between initial charges and the main building collapse is apparent in many other controlled demolitions: -

- 5 second delay

- 5 second delay

- 8 second delay

- 9 second delay.

In the

, the delay between initial charges causing the penthouse collapse and the main building collapse was approximately 7 seconds. This time delay fits in very well with the above controlled demolitions.

You show a lot of examples where the building is cut into separate free-standing segments before the segments are brought down, but you have no example of the top of a building being cut off from and fall down onto what is beneath it, nor have you come up with a reason why anyone would want to do this.

[flyingswan]

I asked for details of your WTC7 “domino” collapse theory for no other reason than understanding and to enable a fair evaluation. It says a lot that you admittedly construe the lack of detail to be embarrassing. What you are effectively telling me is there is no plausible process whereby your theory can be fit to the witnessed collapse. The detail is absolutely necessary – just saying “column 79 failed due to heating, leading to progressive virtually symmetrical, near freefall, complete collapse” is nothing more than hand-waving.

I didn't say there was no plausible process. I have a plausible process, but I am not able to say exactly which of the many possible collapse sequences was the one that actually happened. This goes back to my car analogy. I may not be able to give an exact sequence of the way various components of the car fail structurally as it hits a tree, but that does not mean that a car which hits a tree will not fail structurally at all.

How can anyone disprove a half-theory that is unproven to begin with?

Now, now, you made a claim that my theory doesn't fit the evidence, so it is up to you to explain why you think that.

I have demonstrated that the delay between initial charges and the main building collapse is apparent in many other controlled demolitions: -

- 5 second delay

- 5 second delay

- 8 second delay

- 9 second delay.

In the

, the delay between initial charges causing the penthouse collapse and the main building collapse was approximately 7 seconds. This time delay fits in very well with the above controlled demolitions.

You show a lot of examples where the building is cut into separate free-standing segments before the segments are brought down, but you have no example of the top of a building being cut off from and fall down onto what is beneath it, nor have you come up with a reason why anyone would want to do this.

[flyingswan]

I asked for details of your WTC7 “domino” collapse theory for no other reason than understanding and to enable a fair evaluation. It says a lot that you admittedly construe the lack of detail to be embarrassing. What you are effectively telling me is there is no plausible process whereby your theory can be fit to the witnessed collapse. The detail is absolutely necessary – just saying “column 79 failed due to heating, leading to progressive virtually symmetrical, near freefall, complete collapse” is nothing more than hand-waving.

I didn't say there was no plausible process. I have a plausible process, but I am not able to say exactly which of the many possible collapse sequences was the one that actually happened. This goes back to my car analogy. I may not be able to give an exact sequence of the way various components of the car fail structurally as it hits a tree, but that does not mean that a car which hits a tree will not fail structurally at all.

How can anyone disprove a half-theory that is unproven to begin with?

Now, now, you made a claim that my theory doesn't fit the evidence, so it is up to you to explain why you think that.

I have demonstrated that the delay between initial charges and the main building collapse is apparent in many other controlled demolitions: -

- 5 second delay

- 5 second delay

- 8 second delay

- 9 second delay.

In the

, the delay between initial charges causing the penthouse collapse and the main building collapse was approximately 7 seconds. This time delay fits in very well with the above controlled demolitions.

You show a lot of examples where the building is cut into separate free-standing segments before the segments are brought down, but you have no example of the top of a building being cut off from and fall down onto what is beneath it, nor have you come up with a reason why anyone would want to do this.

[flyingswan]

You asked me "Did it also lack the aluminium, because I don't recall Jones finding aluminium oxide, either?" That's why I pointed out that aluminum was found.

Aluminum-oxide is released into the air as a whitish ash (smoke) when thermite burns. So most of it will blow away into the air. Should some of it settle down and contact the molten metal, it will just float on top of this molten material, and it won't bond with the iron, etc. And that's why Al203 won't be a component found within the solidified slag.

Isn't Jones supposed to have examined dust samples? Where did he find his iron microspheres?

Your comments are ridiculous, since you refuse to look at the videos of Jones' presentation (that I linked for your benefit) which would have explained these points for you.

A video isn't a recognised way of presenting a technical paper. Too easy to flim-flam the audience if they can't check back and forth through the argument.

No. I cited NIST's FAQ, which is not the same thing as NIST's final report. The FAQ page discusses issues which came up after the final report was released. And the main point I was making was that NIST clearly stated that the fires could not melt the steel.

Without evidence that steel was actually melted, what does this matter?

I've already told you that Jones' samples is evidence, as are the videos/photos and first-hand eyewitness accounts.

Apart from the iron microspheres, which are a normal product of construction work, what evidence?

Well, it sure looks to me like you're trying to think up lame excuses for them.

Suit yourself. From your posting history, I find that the way things look to you have little connection with the way things are.

So this inadequacy isn't relevant? The 'most qualified group' to investigate whether or not fires initiated the collapses....has no expertise in fires?? Come on, that's absurd.

NIST has expertise in fire engineering, they also have structural engineers, so they have both areas of expertise needed.

http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/

Even FEMA and NIST state that the jet fuel burned away within the first few minutes. Are you disagreeing with NIST on this point?

No, but you seemed to be making a general rather than a 911-specific point, your mention of "seconds" being certainly nothing like 911. In general, fuel-fed fires can burn a long time given the right conditions, in the case of the towers it was only around ten minutes or so.

I only "attributed" it to NASA once, when I first made it up as a joke. Not twice. The next time I noted it - replying to MID - was to point out that it was meant as a joke (tongue-in-cheek).

If you mean your post #406, you were still not making it clear that you had made up the quote, only that your post #397 was "mostly tongue in cheek". You let it go for six days, until people started questioning other aspects of that post, before making this admission.

You still don't get it, do you? As the mod Waspie Dwarf said:

"You will have to be very careful in future Turbonium. You have effectively admitted to lying. How do you expect anyone to take anything you say on any subject seriously from now on?"

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...3834&st=409

Is there any reason I should take you seriously again? I certainly ceased to do so after that episode, and your Trieste thread didn't help your reputation at all.

[Q24]

First of all, NIST will enlighten all, when their report on WTC 7 is issued (within the year). You might wait until then to form an opinion.

I look forward to reading the final WTC7 report, merril.

I’m preparing myself for a preconceived conclusion ‘backed-up’ by building/fire computer simulations which are not supported, contradicted even in places, by photographic, witness or physical evidence, all followed by a vague description of progressive failure leading only up to the point of collapse initiation.

We will see how enlightening it is… or not, though I have a sneaking suspicion it will fuel rather than end the debate.

[Q24]

If you have a smoking gun, why can't you convince more people of your case?

Citizens of many countries died in the 911 attacks, so why limit yourself to US courts? Surely, if you had any proper evidence, it could be taken to a court somewhere.

The impression I get is that more people are becoming aware of the 9/11 false flag all the time. You only have to look at the growing number of people listed on sites like Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth to know that. I see people moving from the ‘official’ story to an alternative understanding but never the reverse. Getting people to look at the evidence in the first place is the main challenge.

What would be the purpose of making the 9/11 case in a foreign court? We already know that political figures in other countries severely doubt the ‘official’ story including, amongst others, Michael Meacher of the UK, Francesco Cossiga of Italy and Andreas von Bulow of Germany.

Oh dear me, I think this is an example of Godwin's Law in action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Read your link properly – Goodwin’s law “does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate,” and Goodwin himself has stated that valid comparisons can be made. Now, as we were discussing how knowledge and understanding of the 9/11 false flag may develop over time, the Reichstag fire is a completely relevant historical precedent.

[Q24]

I didn't say there was no plausible process. I have a plausible process, but I am not able to say exactly which of the many possible collapse sequences was the one that actually happened.

This is like trying to get blood out of a stone. Ok, out of the supposed many possible sequences, can you detail just your most plausible hypothetical process for WTC7?

This goes back to my car analogy. I may not be able to give an exact sequence of the way various components of the car fail structurally as it hits a tree, but that does not mean that a car which hits a tree will not fail structurally at all.

Now, now, you made a claim that my theory doesn't fit the evidence, so it is up to you to explain why you think that.

As I said, you currently do not have a theory – just hand-waving. I can demonstrate your method using the car analogy...

What if I said the damage above (which is the product of a car bomb) was actually caused by a crash? The car impacted a tree causing the damage seen to the front corner nearest the camera and further distorted the body. The engine then caught fire, spreading through the rest of the car and caused the fuel tank to explode. Ta-daa! That is exactly what you are doing with your WTC7 theory.

You show a lot of examples where the building is cut into separate free-standing segments before the segments are brought down, but you have no example of the top of a building being cut off from and fall down onto what is beneath it, nor have you come up with a reason why anyone would want to do this.

The reason for weakening the structure at a high level in a controlled demolition can be to ensure that nothing like

happens and that the building collapses completely. I believe the WTC7 penthouse failure was possibly a by-product of this initial weakening. In the

(the most similar of the structures to WTC7) the building does not fall in segments, but as one piece. Edited May 8, 2008 by Q24

[flyingswan]

The impression I get is that more people are becoming aware of the 9/11 false flag all the time. You only have to look at the growing number of people listed on sites like Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth to know that. I see people moving from the ‘official’ story to an alternative understanding but never the reverse. Getting people to look at the evidence in the first place is the main challenge.

What would be the purpose of making the 9/11 case in a foreign court? We already know that political figures in other countries severely doubt the ‘official’ story including, amongst others, Michael Meacher of the UK, Francesco Cossiga of Italy and Andreas von Bulow of Germany.

If you think that less than a tenth of one percent of the architects and engineers is a significant number, dream on.

I mentioned a non-US court because you implied that the US government would unduly influence a US court. The fact that you seem very unwilling to try any court anywhere looks like a lack of confidence in your evidence.

Read your link properly – Goodwin’s law “does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate,” and Goodwin himself has stated that valid comparisons can be made. Now, as we were discussing how knowledge and understanding of the 9/11 false flag may develop over time, the Reichstag fire is a completely relevant historical precedent.

You are comparing the US government to the Nazis, perhaps you could start a new thread to justify this viewpoint.

My personal opinion is that the evidence of who started the Reichstag fire is far from clear-cut, and the fine old Scottish verdict of "not proven" would have been appropriate.

[flyingswan]

This is like trying to get blood out of a stone. Ok, out of the supposed many possible sequences, can you detail just your most plausible hypothetical process for WTC7?

OK, column 79 gives way. Load redistribution causes first columns 76 and 80, then more columns to the south and west to fail, so that a large part of the internal structure falls. The upper floor structures are not strong enough to pull the upper walls out of line. Falling debris then reaches the reinforced floors 5 to 7 which pull the outer walls out of vertical at that level, bringing down the outer structure.

Now I've given my sequence, where's your charge location and timing data?

As I said, you currently do not have a theory – just hand-waving. I can demonstrate your method using the car analogy...

What if I said the damage above (which is the product of a car bomb) was actually caused by a crash? The car impacted a tree causing the damage seen to the front corner nearest the camera and further distorted the body. The engine then caught fire, spreading through the rest of the car and caused the fuel tank to explode. Ta-daa! That is exactly what you are doing with your WTC7 theory.

That's not my car, that's your car. Your car has evidence of damage from explosives, which is what you wished you had for WTC.

My car has the front pushed back a metre but little damage to the rear.

The reason for weakening the structure at a high level in a controlled demolition can be to ensure that nothing like

happens and that the building collapses completely. I believe the WTC7 penthouse failure was possibly a by-product of this initial weakening. In the

(the most similar of the structures to WTC7) the building does not fall in segments, but as one piece.

As one piece, quite. No sign of the top moving at all before the main charges fire. You still lack anything like WTC7.

[Q24]

If you think that less than a tenth of one percent of the architects and engineers is a significant number, dream on.

The 360+ members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are significant enough to frighten you into making unfounded and slanderous accusations about their credentials. Certainly, as we have seen, the number is more significant than the handful of independent construction professionals who actually support the ‘official’ story. This is before adding the hundreds more technical professionals, current and former government employees and a large percentage of the public who doubt the ‘official’ story.

I mentioned a non-US court because you implied that the US government would unduly influence a US court. The fact that you seem very unwilling to try any court anywhere looks like a lack of confidence in your evidence.

I asked – what would be the purpose of making the 9/11 case in a foreign court?

You are comparing the US government to the Nazis, perhaps you could start a new thread to justify this viewpoint.

My personal opinion is that the evidence of who started the Reichstag fire is far from clear-cut, and the fine old Scottish verdict of "not proven" would have been appropriate.

That we happen to be dealing with ‘the Nazis’ in this example is neither here nor there. The observation is that clarity and acceptance of a false flag event appears to increase over time. And so the same will be true of 9/11.

[Q24]

OK, column 79 gives way. Load redistribution causes first columns 76 and 80, then more columns to the south and west to fail, so that a large part of the internal structure falls. The upper floor structures are not strong enough to pull the upper walls out of line. Falling debris then reaches the reinforced floors 5 to 7 which pull the outer walls out of vertical at that level, bringing down the outer structure.

Well, at least you are trying at last but unfortunately are still frantically hand-waving rather than being precise. I have a few questions: -

Can you define the “more columns” you mention?

How long approximately are you assuming between the failure of each column?

How did this “large part of the structure” detach itself from the external columns?

How did falling debris “pull the outer walls out of vertical” and only at the lower floors?

Which walls were these?

What happened to the internal columns 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 and 72?

What happened to the large number of perimeter columns on the West of the building?

How did the West façade begin its collapse at precisely the same time as the East façade?

If you can answer those just so that you have a theory in place, I will then be able to show how it is wrong.

Now I've given my sequence, where's your charge location and timing data?

The whole reason for asking for your process in detail is because the characteristics of the collapse do not appear to be ‘natural’, ie virtually symmetrical, near freefall – this needs explaining through your theory.

How is it necessary to provide a full description of a controlled demolition setup when you have said yourself the final visible WTC7 collapse does look like a controlled demolition? Even with the Towers, when I previously asked you what a controlled demolition beginning from the impact floors ‘should’ look like, you could not point out where there should be an observed physical difference from that witnessed.

The only physical characteristic of the WTC7 collapse you have suggested does not fit with a controlled demolition is the penthouse failure, and I have given good reason for that already. What I am asking is, what other observable collapse features don’t fit with a controlled demolition that should need an explanation?

That's not my car, that's your car. Your car has evidence of damage from explosives, which is what you wished you had for WTC.

My car has the front pushed back a metre but little damage to the rear.

Ain’t my car… I just found it on the ‘net… what evidence of explosives?

As one piece, quite. No sign of the top moving at all before the main charges fire. You still lack anything like WTC7.

Ah, moving the goalposts I see. First you complain the structures in the examples I give collapse in segments and then you complain they don’t. I have suggested the possibility that initial high level charges to weaken WTC7 inadvertently caused the penthouse collapse, but what you are asking for is a carbon copy example. There will be no example like this because what I am suggesting is that the penthouse collapse was a by-product of these initial charges, not a design. What makes you think that all controlled demolitions should perform exactly the same way?

[Q24]

The only place where I can see the "orders still stand" situation is with the crashed UAL93's coasting symbology being sent from FAA via phone to the Secret Service in the shelter, with the 80 mile inbound calls. The VP confirmed the orders twice, once around 1000-1015 and the second time 1012-1018. He had already spoken to the POUS previously (~1003 after entering the shelter) to get the authorities. At 1018 he again spoke to the POUS to confirm the authority. The ghost track went away. I can see such "orders still stand" comments in this situation. The only discrepency is the time. Everything indicates that Cheney was swept off his chair and hustled to the shelter as AA77 was approaching the Pentagon, not well before that. The only account I've seen doesn't have the VP there at 9:20. Are there any other accounts or testimony supporting Mineta's timeline?

There have been accounts from former US government employee Richard Clarke and White House photographer David Bohrer that indirectly support Mineta’s testimony (see ‘Other Reports Supporting Cheney’s Early Arrival’).

Also, Mineta says he first learned of the “order” at around 09:25am or shortly after and hears, “The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out”… the Commission report states, “At 9:29, the autopilot on American 77 was disengaged; the aircraft was at 7,000 feet and approximately 38 miles west of the Pentagon”… thereby corroborating Mineta’s timeline.

The main evidence though is the transcript of Mineta’s testimony itself. He states his arrival time of 9:20am, that Dick Cheney is already there and that Flight 77 impacts the Pentagon whilst they are at the PEOC. The only way his account of the “orders still stand” could be in reference to the phantom Flight 93 trajectory, would be to somehow assume Mineta completely ‘lost’ an hour in his timeline somewhere or in fact lied – neither of which are plausible when viewing his testimony

Mineta has since been asked about the discrepancy between his account and that of the Commission Report –

. When presented with the Commission’s timeline, Mineta says he could possibly have been out on his timing but also that the Vice President was there before him and further says, “9:58? Oh no no no, I don’t know how that comes about.”

Somebody is lying… and there is no reason to believe it’s Mineta.

Q24,

I don't know if you've seen this site. I invite you to read, and listen to, this information. It's from the NEADS tapes of that morning, and presents a pretty good account of what was happening that morning at the "operator" level. No NCA,, no NMCC, just folks reacting to a wildly escalating situation.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feature.../08/norad200608

I have no reason to doubt this information at all, warts and all.

I have no reason to doubt the NEADS tapes either, mrbusdriver, and indeed the Vanity Fair article is very well written. As you pointed out, this is far from the full picture as there were multiple chains of command on the day, but still there are some areas that stand out: -

During the time between becoming aware of the hijackings and Flight 175 impacting WTC2, there are four separate references made by the controllers to a training exercise: -

• POWELL: Is this real-world or exercise?
• NASYPANY: Think we put the exercise on the hold. What do you think?
• FOX: I've never seen so much real-world stuff happen during an exercise.
• —I think this is a damn input, to be honest

It is apparent from the article that this exercise, which included a hijacking scenario, was to begin in precisely the timeframe that the real hijackings were taking place. Now I’m not saying this exercise hindered the NEADS controllers, as it turned out, but it’s coincidental to say the least.

Another point of note is that sometime before 9:20am, Nasypany, the NEADS commander, begins discussing with his section heads and weapons techs the possibility of shootdown authorisation. This would fit with the “orders still stand” explanation I gave previously where authorisation may have been sought and denied from Cheney in the PEOC prior to Mineta’s 9:20am arrival.

A major disappointment now - it appears that if the fighters out of Langley had followed NEADS request and flown straight to Washington DC, they had an extremely good chance of arriving at the Pentagon before Flight 77. The frustration of the NEADS controllers that the fighters end up flying in the wrong direction is quite apparent: -

NAVY A.T.C.: You've got [the fighters] moving east in airspace. Now you want 'em to go to Baltimore?

HUCKABONE: Yes, sir. We're not gonna take 'em in Whiskey 386 [military training airspace over the ocean].

NAVY A.T.C.: O.K., once he goes to Baltimore, what are we supposed to do?

HUCKABONE: Have him contact us on auxiliary frequency 2-3-4 decimal 6. Instead of taking handoffs to us and us handing 'em back, just tell Center they've got to go to Baltimore.

NAVY A.T.C.: All right, man. Stand by. We'll get back to you.

CITINO: What do you mean, "We'll get back to you"? Just do it!

HUCKABONE: I'm gonna choke that guy!

CITINO: Be very professional, Huck.

The Vanity Fair article states, “According to the 9/11 commission, the Langley pilots were never briefed by anyone at their base about why they were being scrambled, so, despite having been given the order from NEADS to fly to Washington, the pilots ended up following their normal training flight plan out to sea—a flight plan dating from the Cold War.”

The United States has been under attack for nearly an hour, NEADS request fighters over Washington because there is a hijacked airliner incoming and someone.. someway.. somehow.. ‘forgets’ to give the pilots their co-ordinates?! What. The. Hell. And all the while, Cheney, the Neocon who required a “new Pearl Harbor”, sits in his operations center being updated on the airliner approach as his “orders”, that were unusual enough in the situation for an officer to ask confirmation of, “still stand”.

[mrbusdriver]

I do not know the procedures used in scrambling the Langley fighters that morning. It appears that, lacking specific instructions, and confusion in the "090/60" instructions in the order, it was an honest foul up. I don't know what info is sent to the fighters in the order, or how it's coordinated...my experience is dated with slightly more de-centralized procedures.

The Langley birds were wheels up at 0930. The Pentagon was struck at 0938. Eight minutes is not enough time for them to have gotten there to intercept the AA77.

Again, there would have been no need for "hold fire" orders. These are a given regardless of what's going on, unless a weapons free ROE had been previously declared. It hadn't. Without authenticated shootdown orders (as it was that morning), the pilots would not be launching on civil airliners on their own. The "stand down" was simply peacetime ROE in force at the time, despite the activities leading up to that moment.

So the idea of re-iterating hold fire orders is redundant, that's what they were already flying under, strictly adhered to unless specifically instructed otherwise from the NCA. Not that any planes were, or could have been, in position to stop AA77 from hitting the Pentagon. Even straight line LFI-DCA after takeoff.

Finally, they declared AFIO, which is a last ditch, emergency deal which basically puts aircraft separation (military/civil) in the hands of the pilots and military controllers. I have never heard of it being used before, especially in the crowded east coast flyways. This is not a preferred way of doing things, and further evidence of the defenses being ill prepared for quickly intercepting targets inside CONUS airspace.

In toto, it makes no sense to say they held fire on the Pentagon flight. First, noone was, or could be in position for it to matter. And the ROE in force was "ID type and tail", as it has been all the time for decades previously. Maybe some staffer was getting an itchy trigger finger and was hoping for shootdown ROE . But either way, it wouldn't have mattered.

[frenat]

For all we know they wanted to evacuate Cheney to another location, he said no, and when asked again, "the orders still stand". Seems just as reasonable.

[flyingswan]

The 360+ members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are significant enough to frighten you into making unfounded and slanderous accusations about their credentials. Certainly, as we have seen, the number is more significant than the handful of independent construction professionals who actually support the ‘official’ story. This is before adding the hundreds more technical professionals, current and former government employees and a large percentage of the public who doubt the ‘official’ story.

As "independent" in your definition appears to mean someone who hasn't taken part in any actual investigation, you obviously bias the numbers to your side. However, if you look at the comments posted on the AE911T website by their members, it appears that all most of them can do is parrot one or other of the common conspiracist claims, including the obviously incorrect ones like "no steel-framed building has ever collapsed through fire", which hardly leads one to believe that they have actually studied the collapse in any detail. By barring from the numerical comparison the people who have studied the collapse, in particular the large NIST team, but including a lot of people from AE911T marginally qualified in the key areas of fire and structural engineering, you just show your bias.

I asked – what would be the purpose of making the 9/11 case in a foreign court?

To state the bleeding obvious, I said if you had any evidence, why not test it in court, you said US courts were government controlled, I said try a non-US one. The purpose would be to test how good your evidence is. Your lack of enthusiasm for the idea suggests to me a corresponding lack of faith in your evidence.

That we happen to be dealing with ‘the Nazis’ in this example is neither here nor there. The observation is that clarity and acceptance of a false flag event appears to increase over time. And so the same will be true of 9/11.

I don't see that the clarity of the Reichstag fire events has increased. We still don't know who started it. The Nazi courts were obviously biased in one direction, and the post-war court reversal of the decision corrects this. There was only circumstantial evidence against either Van der Lubbe or the Nazis as the guilty party.

Edited May 9, 2008 by flyingswan

[flyingswan]

Well, at least you are trying at last but unfortunately are still frantically hand-waving rather than being precise. I have a few questions: -

Can you define the “more columns” you mention?

How long approximately are you assuming between the failure of each column?

How did this “large part of the structure” detach itself from the external columns?

How did falling debris “pull the outer walls out of vertical” and only at the lower floors?

Which walls were these?

What happened to the internal columns 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 and 72?

What happened to the large number of perimeter columns on the West of the building?

How did the West façade begin its collapse at precisely the same time as the East façade?

If you can answer those just so that you have a theory in place, I will then be able to show how it is wrong.

A lot of this is obvious from my post. "More columns" are the ones to the south and west of 76 and 80, the internal structure "detaches" because the beams break (probably at the fastenings), the stronger floors 5 to 7 didn't break away from the outer structure but instead distorted after being themselves distorted by falling debris, "outer walls" is shorthand for the outer structural elements at floors 5 to 7.

Timing depends on which of the possible progressive collapse mechanisms occurs - load redistribution is fast, damage from falling elements a lot slower - and both would have occurred. I would be guessing if I said exactly which of the columns failed and which didn't, but I don't see how this affects the validity of my argument. I could give a list, but I couldn't justify it and you couldn't disprove it. The symmetry of the collapse was due to the final collapse initiation factor being an internal distortion of the strong floors, which are attached to the outer structure all round.

I do not feel that I need to answer any of this when you refuse to answer my counter-question, see below.

The whole reason for asking for your process in detail is because the characteristics of the collapse do not appear to be ‘natural’, ie virtually symmetrical, near freefall – this needs explaining through your theory.

How is it necessary to provide a full description of a controlled demolition setup when you have said yourself the final visible WTC7 collapse does look like a controlled demolition? Even with the Towers, when I previously asked you what a controlled demolition beginning from the impact floors ‘should’ look like, you could not point out where there should be an observed physical difference from that witnessed.

The only physical characteristic of the WTC7 collapse you have suggested does not fit with a controlled demolition is the penthouse failure, and I have given good reason for that already. What I am asking is, what other observable collapse features don’t fit with a controlled demolition that should need an explanation?

The features of the collapse that your explanation doesn't even attempt to address are:

Penthouse collapse method and timing, reason for high-level charges and time delay?

CD set-up surviving damage and fire, any previous example or a CD expert saying it could be done?

CD set-up of occupied building, more than just your usual "security and maintenance staff involved".

Absence of physical evidence of CD, in spite of Jones examining material.

Not your usual frantic hand-waving on these aspects, either, but evidence.

Ain’t my car… I just found it on the ‘net… what evidence of explosives?

A car-bomb is going to show physical evidence of explosives, residues and shrapnel holes.

Ah, moving the goalposts I see. First you complain the structures in the examples I give collapse in segments and then you complain they don’t. I have suggested the possibility that initial high level charges to weaken WTC7 inadvertently caused the penthouse collapse, but what you are asking for is a carbon copy example. There will be no example like this because what I am suggesting is that the penthouse collapse was a by-product of these initial charges, not a design. What makes you think that all controlled demolitions should perform exactly the same way?

No, this is what I've been asking for all along - any previous CD that has anything like the WTC7 penthouse collapse. All you have shown is examples of a building being cut horizontally before the main charges go, not one case of a vertical cut with the top of the building dropping seconds before the rest. It doesn't matter if the separated segments fall in the same direction or not, none of them show the top falling onto the lower part seconds before the main charges.

I'm not claiming that all CDs are the same, I'm claiming that none are like WTC7.

Edited May 9, 2008 by flyingswan

[--Mandalore--]

possible you saw planes , one thing is sure , you didn't saw large commercial airliner , 767 to be precise , hitting those buildings , because these were fakes .

their trajectory are fakes , their shapes are fakes , their sounds are fakes.

now if you mean you were in NY that day (that's possible) and that you saw the planes ON TV , (thats very likely , regardless of being in NY or not ) , that's something else.

SO who are you to tell me what I saw? Also I wasn't aware that you had experience in CGI field, or were an expert on commercial airliners. I know what I saw, two large commercial airliners hitting the twin towers.

Tarheelsfan