911: Professional experts says it was staged

[Stundie]

Yes, it is a numbers game. If an insignificant number of people believe something, what does it matter.

As I said before, I can probably find 1,500 people who believe I can blow poodles out of my ass.

Wouldn't it be better suited to finding 1500 Architects and Engineers who believe the official story. Guys like you keep tell us there's millions of them, so it shouldn't take too long to get them to sign a petition.

As for those who believe it, I would argue that if they're not in that 1,500, they do agree with the findings.

Of course you would argue that, because it's a logical fallacy that you believe gives credence to your position.

At least every architect I've spoken with about it have no issues at all with the official version of events.

How many architects have you spoke too? Would they care to be named considering that by your logic, if they have not signed the petition, they must agree with the official story.

I tell you what, get the architects you've spoke to and get them to sign a petition saying they believe the official story over those toofy twoofin twoofers at A&E9/11 Truth.

I'm sure if you asked nicely, you could include some of the names from this petition.

http://www.nothermite.epetitions.net/signatures.php?petition_id=1898

All those millions of Architect and Engineer out there, should get to 1500 in much less time than those twoofin toofers did at A&E9/11 Truth.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Stundie

[Scott G]

I'm sure if you asked nicely, you could include some of the names from this petition.

http://www.nothermit...etition_id=1898

All those millions of Architect and Engineer out there, should get to 1500 in much less time than those twoofin toofers did at A&E9/11 Truth.

Lol :-). Gotta love that little list too. Here's a sampling of the names on the list..

45 MikeHunt BsEE 50

46 RichardGage AIA 30 47 FrankLegge PhD Chemistry 100+ years 48 DavidChandler High School Physics 3 49 HeywoodJabloume BEE, PhD, DDs 43 50 JustinKeogh B.S. in Pentagon Studies, Shillington University 5 51 Sir BonerWackov PhD-enginerring (self-taught) fifteen minutes 52 ChrisSarns BS, social mvmt infiltration, Shillington University 7 53 I. HandlitDaly PhD Super-cool engineering 14 give or take prison time 54 KeithBeachy Don't remember Stroke Victim, Can no longer count 55 ReheatI-dunt-know-**** Excessive Drinking/Beligerent Drunk Alcoholic going on 30+ years

Mike Hunt.. of Porky fame perhaps?

I Handlit Daly (If you've seen the Porky clip on Mike Hunt, I think you'll get where that name is coming from :-p)

And such professions.. some don't remember them, others .. excessive drinking, laugh :-).

I'm sure that Frank Legge (who allegedly has 100+ years experience here), Richard Gage (the one that founded AE911truth) and David Chandler (also a member of AE911truth) would be rather surprised to see their names up on this list. The list is a wash, and so is this notion that the "millions" of architects and engineers out there who haven't yet signed up to AE911truth's petition support the official story by default. The other thing to know is that architects frequently aren't the most savvy in regards to how much loads a building can bear, but even so, I'm still interested in knowing how many architects Rafterman has spoken to and what, precisely, they've told him. "Nothing to see here folks?" perhaps? "Trust us, we know what we're talking about?". Seriously, let's start talking about the evidence that AE911truth has on their site instead of that the "silent majority" of architects and engineers fully support the official story. Heck, Richard Gage, the -founder- of AE911truth initially believed the official story. He realized he was mistaken when he listened to a radio show from one of the first luminaries in the 9/11 research field, David Ray Griffin, explained in layman's terms why the collapse of the Twin Towers couldn't have been due to the planes and the ensuing fires. So while it's certainly great that AE911truth has gotten 1500+ architects and engineers who have signed a petition asking for a new 9/11 investigation, the bottom line is that what's needed here is more people trying to reason through the arguments instead of hand waving about how "few" architects and engineers have signed up so far.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Scott G

[booNyzarC]

See booN, it's ok not to be knowledgeable as long as you can admit it.

Indeed.

[+susieice]

The NIST didn't use that value, I seem to think it was between 9000-10000 gallons.

A quick wiki check...

Flight 175 crashed into the southern facade of South Tower of the World Trade Center (Tower 2) at 9:03:02, traveling at approximately 586 mph (943 km/h)[20] and striking between floors 77 and 85 with approximately 10,000 U.S. gallons (8,300 imp gal; 38,000 L) of jet fuel on board

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175

The aircraft, traveling at about 404 knots (465 mph; 748 km/h) and carrying about 10,000 U.S. gallons (8,300 imp gal; 38,000 L) of jet fuel, hit between the 93rd and 99th floors of the North Tower.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11

And the size of the fuel is in correct proportion to the WTC, based on the figures from the NIST.

I know I'm not knowledgable on engineering and technical subjects, which is why I adore MID so much. I do know the amount of fuel that was being carried by the planes is why cross-continental flights with a full payload were chosen in the first place instead of a couple flights from Newark to Pittsburg. Same in Washington DC. And Flight 93.

If you were just going to bring them down with explosives a Cessna or two would have worked.

Edited September 14, 2011 by susieice

[mrbusdriver]

Are you saying that the U.S. could have been attacked by any outside airforce that day. What if the Russians decided to fly bombers that day. Are you saying that when transponders are disabled that doesn`t raise a red flag. Are you saying that planes flying around for an hour with disabled transponders didn`t make one go hmmm.

What was the timeline from the first plane being confirmed hijacked due to onboard phone calles to the last plane crashing. Even though the transponders on 4 planes going off course was not reported. They were tracked on radar no matter there transponders or was it that the entire east coast of the United states lost radar.

The idea of a "surprise" all out attack by the USSR on the US is a myth. Posturing forces for such an attack requires a lot of planning, communication, and coordination, as well as a lot of force mobilizing. There would be political precursors. This doesn't happen in this day and age without notice. That's what intelligence is about.

The FAA did take notice of the aircraft. That they were off course, and went silent on their transponders. There were a couple of widely spaces suspicious transmissions. Mind you, these events happened in different centers at different times, and they weren't known at the times between the different ATC agencies. This is where the "fog of war" came in. There was no clear "big picture". Add to that the procedural snafus of the scrambled fighters, the lack of a "picture" by NORAD, and you end up with a system inadequately prepared for the events that morning.

There were tracking issues on the aircraft by the FAA as well...some tracking went off as the aircraft went off of raw radar coverage and "coasted", while the plane had gone to another course. The FAA depends heavily on transponders.

I see nothing "incredible" about the confused response that morning. Frustrating as hell for those involved, undoubtably, but nothing that isn't explainable, given the system's limitations.

[mrbusdriver]

Anyone can give a put down line. Let's get down to specifics; -why- do you feel that Michael Ruppert is "certainly no expert in the air defense business"?

They were not "simultaneous hijackings" as he claimed, the situation unfolded over time and space. The various centers working the aircraft were not aware they were hijackings, they had individual aircraft that went NORDO and deviated from their courses. They went through their procedures. Tracking was lost on some tracks. Would it be proper to assume that they would be viewed to be suicide missions at that time at each Center?

Meanwhile, Mr Ruppert expects a perfect C3 response from NORAD against a nebulous situation. NORAD was not postured against this situation, and if he knew anthing about NORAD or air defense, he would recognize this. Our alert force was minimal, and certainly not expecting an internal threat by civil airliners. NORAD/FAA interfaces were not designed for this scenario. There were no ROE for such a rapidly unfolding situation. The scramble to the East out of Langley is understandable...scrambling to the West would be unusual, and hazardous (considering the civil traffic corridors), under any circumstances. Plus, I doubt there's a LOA for it.

And he got the Payne Stewart thing all wrong. It was a training mission that was diverted on ATC request that intercepted the Lear.

His notion of a massive, instantaneous NORAD response belies his ignorance of how NORAD operated on that day. Our air defense alert force was symbolic at best. They weren't in the business of intercepting, ID'ing, determining intent, and quickly dispatching civil airliners anywhere over CONUS airspace. He should know that.

[The Silver Thong]

The idea of a "surprise" all out attack by the USSR on the US is a myth. Posturing forces for such an attack requires a lot of planning, communication, and coordination, as well as a lot of force mobilizing. There would be political precursors. This doesn't happen in this day and age without notice. That's what intelligence is about.

The FAA did take notice of the aircraft. That they were off course, and went silent on their transponders. There were a couple of widely spaces suspicious transmissions. Mind you, these events happened in different centers at different times, and they weren't known at the times between the different ATC agencies. This is where the "fog of war" came in. There was no clear "big picture". Add to that the procedural snafus of the scrambled fighters, the lack of a "picture" by NORAD, and you end up with a system inadequately prepared for the events that morning.

There were tracking issues on the aircraft by the FAA as well...some tracking went off as the aircraft went off of raw radar coverage and "coasted", while the plane had gone to another course. The FAA depends heavily on transponders.

I see nothing "incredible" about the confused response that morning. Frustrating as hell for those involved, undoubtably, but nothing that isn't explainable, given the system's limitations.

Four planes suspicious transmissions then you say ]The FAA did take notice of the aircraft. That they were off course, and went silent on their transponders

Then this

Add to that the procedural snafus of the scrambled fighters, the lack of a "picture" by NORAD, and you end up with a system inadequately prepared for the events that morning.

Just that morning.....

The FAA depends heavily on transponders.

I guess they don`t.

I see nothing "incredible" about the confused response that morning. Frustrating

Ya very frustrating and thanks for pointing all that out. A massive complete failure and all on the same day this confusion happened.

I am not saying this was a Bush job but I will go on record, the official story is bogus on many asspects.

[The Silver Thong]

Not necessarily. There are so many variables that cannot be accounted for in the design to make the statement "this building is built to withstand airplane collisions" virtually meaningless.

And what happened makes your statement meaningless. One building falling, sure people could by that. Two, you know that the odds of those two buildings falling in the exact same way is astronomical. Add in building 7 falling in the same manor and the odds go up even further. A bad analogy would be the same person winning a 100 million dollar lottery 3 times all in the same day on the same ticket.

[aquatus1]

All three buildings fell in the same way because skyscrapers can only fall in that way. 100 skyscrapers would also fall in a manner that would be incorrectly classified as explosive demolition.

Similarly, all three fell because all three experienced unprecedented fire damage. The twin towers had several floors simultaneously go up, throwing load balancing out the window. WTC7 had an actually diesel-fed fire working continuously.

The lottery analogy fails because it assumes that the circumstances are random. They are obviously not. The two towers experienced the exact same scenario, and both reacted in the exact same manner, as would be expected. WTC7 experienced a situation that has occurred before (a continuously fueled fire), and like all devices not designed specifically for high-temperature, continuously-fed fires (i.e. ovens/kilns), it eventually succumbed to the fire-damage.

[The Silver Thong]

All three buildings fell in the same way because skyscrapers can only fall in that way. 100 skyscrapers would also fall in a manner that would be incorrectly classified as explosive demolition.

Similarly, all three fell because all three experienced unprecedented fire damage. The twin towers had several floors simultaneously go up, throwing load balancing out the window. WTC7 had an actually diesel-fed fire working continuously.

The lottery analogy fails because it assumes that the circumstances are random. They are obviously not. The two towers experienced the exact same scenario, and both reacted in the exact same manner, as would be expected. WTC7 experienced a situation that has occurred before (a continuously fueled fire), and like all devices not designed specifically for high-temperature, continuously-fed fires (i.e. ovens/kilns), it eventually succumbed to the fire-damage.

If one side of a structure was more damgaed then the other side of said structure, would it not seem that the more damaged side of that structure would fail first. Meaning not a complete colapse on a foot print but a toppel from the weakend side. I know the weight would bring down the whole thing but I can`t see it with out the topple effect.

Don`t get me wrong I have no expertise but it is far more then the collapse that makes me think there is nothing more to know about what really happened. It looked to perfect. The two buildings were hit by two planes however the damage was not exact as the second building hit fell first.

What was contained in wt7 we can tell that building was not built like any other highrise. It contained some of America`s most important financial documents and was built to be a bunker. It was fortified. So no, it was not like a regular building as far as I know.

Edited September 14, 2011 by The Silver Thong

[aquatus1]

If one side of a structure was more damgaed then the other side of said structure, would it not seem that the more damaged side of that structure would fail first. Meaning not a complete colapse on a foot print but a toppel from the weakend side. I know the weight would bring down the whole thing but I can`t see it with out the topple effect.

Because you are (quite reasonably) thinking about the many demolitions you have seen where the building just kind of slumps, or topples over, and everyone groans at the failure. The key is to understand the difference between a regular building and a skyscraper. A skyscraper (rule of thumb is greater than 25 stories) does not have the strength to weight ration of a regular building. You can actually pick up a regular building and move it around (well...people specially trained with the right equipment can). A skyscraper will tear itself apart under it's own weight if it exceeds its limits (I can expand on that, but I have to run to a class now. If you want more, I'll be happy to explain. It is pretty interesting stuff).

Don`t get me wrong I have no expertise but it is far more then the collapse that makes me think there is nothing more to know about what really happened. It looked to perfect. The two buildings were hit by two planes however the damage was not exact as the second building hit fell first.

Right, because it was hit lower. That means that there was more building above the weak point, which translates as more weigh above the weak point. It makes sense that it fell first (additionally, there is another interesting tidbit here about the toppling you mentioned earlier that I can explain later).

What was contained in wt7 we can tell that building was not built like any other highrise. It contained some of America`s most important financial documents and was built to be a bunker. It was fortified. So no, it was not like a regular building as far as I know.

Oh, there were many other feature to WTC7 that made it unique. Being fortified was just one of the common ones.

Sorry, gotta run, be back later!

[Stundie]

All three buildings fell in the same way because skyscrapers can only fall in that way.

How many skyscrapers have you seen fall for you to qualify your statement that skyscrapers can only fall in that way??

And all 3 buildings didn't collapse in the same way, WTC 1 & 2 failed at the points of impact, collapsing downward, throwing out and scattering debris everywhere. WTC7 didn't scatter debris everywhere, it fell straight down symmetrically in to its own footprint.

So that alone chucks a spanner in your statement above.

100 skyscrapers would also fall in a manner that would be incorrectly classified as explosive demolition.

Skyscrapers tend not to fall, so how can it be incorrectly classified as a demolition, when you have no skyscraper falling to use as a comparator.

Maybe if you looked at building failures, you'll find they fail in a variety of ways.

Similarly, all three fell because all three experienced unprecedented fire damage.

Other buildings have suffer bigger fire and still survived much longer than an hour or so. Even if we assume it damaged every support in between the floors it hit, it would still equate to less than 5% damage to the entire structure.

And in the case of WTC7, no plane hit it.

The twin towers had several floors simultaneously go up, throwing load balancing out the window.

Most of the load on each floor was supported by the core columns.

WTC7 had an actually diesel-fed fire working continuously.

The NIST said that this didn't contribute to the collapse of the WTC7.

I think your debunking software needs updating with the NIST reports for WTC7.

The lottery analogy fails because it assumes that the circumstances are random. They are obviously not. The two towers experienced the exact same scenario, and both reacted in the exact same manner, as would be expected.

And the damage it receives will be random too, seeing as both WTC were hit at differing positions, angle of attack and even things like the banking of the plane, will effect the damage it receives.

WTC7 experienced a situation that has occurred before (a continuously fueled fire), and like all devices not designed specifically for high-temperature, continuously-fed fires (i.e. ovens/kilns), it eventually succumbed to the fire-damage.

Care to point out this situation for me and the lurkers??

[Stundie]

I know I'm not knowledgable on engineering and technical subjects, which is why I adore MID so much.

Hi susieice,

Don't worry, I'm not knowledgeable in engineering and technical subjects either.

I do know the amount of fuel that was being carried by the planes is why cross-continental flights with a full payload were chosen in the first place instead of a couple flights from Newark to Pittsburg. Same in Washington DC. And Flight 93.

The NIST state that the planes weren't fully fueled.

If they specifically wanted a plane with lots of fuel, I'm sure they would have picked an international flight which would probably have more fuel in the tank.

If you were just going to bring them down with explosives a Cessna or two would have worked.

The WTC withstood the planes impacts, so a Cessna isn't going to cause more damage. They needed the biggest plane to cause the shock and awe factor needed for the nation, so they could get approval to ransack Afghanistan and Iraq.

A B-25 hit the empire state building back in the 40's and the building was back open for business a few days afterwards, no threat of a collapse there.

Cheers

Stundie

Edited September 14, 2011 by Stundie

[Rafterman]

Hi susieice,

A B-25 hit the empire state building back in the 40's and the building was back open for business a few days afterwards, no threat of a collapse there.

Cheers

Stundie

Apples and oranges. The B-25 Mitchell was a medium bomber and smaller than a modern day F15 Eagle. The Empire State Building is also constructed much differently than the WTC.

It was because of the B-25 hit that the WTC was designed to take a hit from a 707 - but not one flying at the speeds seen on 9/11. The concern was that it would be hit by a plane on approach to one of the local airports.

[Rafterman]

Wouldn't it be better suited to finding 1500 Architects and Engineers who believe the official story. Guys like you keep tell us there's millions of them, so it shouldn't take too long to get them to sign a petition.

Of course you would argue that, because it's a logical fallacy that you believe gives credence to your position.

How many architects have you spoke too? Would they care to be named considering that by your logic, if they have not signed the petition, they must agree with the official story.

I tell you what, get the architects you've spoke to and get them to sign a petition saying they believe the official story over those toofy twoofin twoofers at A&E9/11 Truth.

I'm sure if you asked nicely, you could include some of the names from this petition.

http://www.nothermite.epetitions.net/signatures.php?petition_id=1898

All those millions of Architect and Engineer out there, should get to 1500 in much less time than those twoofin toofers did at A&E9/11 Truth.

I would think that if the conspiracy were so obvious, that this crew of nutjobs would be able to find quite a bit more support for their theories than the statistically insignificant group that they have now. If there were 15,000 or 150,000 signing that petition, I might have to give their views some credence.

As for how many architects I've spoken too - well, I've spend the better part of the last decade working for the top 2 architecture schools in the world. Do you have that kind of access to architects on a daily basis?

Not to mention, I was standing in the office of one of the most prominent architects in the world WATCHING the towers get hit and come down from about a mile away. Within 10 minutes of the towers being hit, every architect in the room said they would be coming down and none of them mentioned the need for explosives or thermite or whatever.

[Scott G]

Rafterman, The people who you so revile (all 1,500+ of them) are verified Architects and Engineers. Who the hell are you? Quit wasting our time with your hate speech.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Scott G

[Scott G]

As for how many architects I've spoken too - well, I've spend the better part of the last decade working for the top 2 architecture schools in the world. Do you have that kind of access to architects on a daily basis?

I don't, no. But having "access" to architects is not the same as knowing what would bring the Twin Towers down, especially at the speed in which they came down. Any one of us has the access of the work of AE911Truth. Have you taken advantage of that, or are you too busy reviling them?

Not to mention, I was standing in the office of one of the most prominent architects in the world WATCHING the towers get hit and come down from about a mile away. Within 10 minutes of the towers being hit, every architect in the room said they would be coming down and none of them mentioned the need for explosives or thermite or whatever.

I find this alleged observation to be suspicious, particularly since no steel framed buildings have collapsed before or since when not aided with controlled demolitions. If you had a recording of the conversation, it would be one thing, but I have a feeling is that all you have is your memory of the event; and memories can get distorted over time.

[Cryptozological Mascot]

Interesting that NIST claimed that there was no evidence of explosives, yet had failed to actually test for them!

[Scott G]

Interesting that NIST claimed that there was no evidence of explosives, yet had failed to actually test for them!

Yep. Some people seem to have missed the point that they never actually looked for explosive residues, laugh :-p.

[Dredimus]

I found this to be an interesting read... Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed

[Scott G]

I found this to be an interesting read... Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed

The author of that article shows no sign of either being an engineer or an architect; it simply says it's a fire chief's assessment. I've heard the argument that he's making before; the idea that the Twin Towers were rather weak structurally. Nothing could be further from the truth. The site 9/11 Research goes into great depth as to the strength of the towers; they had actually designed the buildings to withstand the impact of jets. The only way that those towers could have come down was through the use of explosives. Feel free to read this article with the evidence:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

[Corp]

Rafterman, The people who you so revile (all 1,500+ of them) are verified Architects and Engineers. Who the hell are you? Quit wasting our time with your hate speech.

How is disagreement hate speech? Or are you refering to another post? Because you seem to be taking his comments very personally.

[Scott G]

How is disagreement hate speech?

Calling people "nut jobs" is definitely hate speech.

[Little Fish]

Calling people "nut jobs" is definitely hate speech.

yes it is, but people like rafterman have to look for reasons to ignore what is being said, rather than look at what is being said. calling people "nut jobs" just shows the weakness of his argument.

http://www.youtube.com/user/WhatsReallyGoingOnUS

all the above videos of the recent hearings are valuable,

i would recommend chandler's and harrits presentation for those who pretend and those that choose to ignore the evidence.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Little Fish

[Corp]

Calling people "nut jobs" is definitely hate speech.

Not really. It's an insult but it's not hate speech.