9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom :: View topic - Were explosives in the twin towers for years?

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

Were explosives in the twin towers for years?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> General

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Pete J
Minor Poster

Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Posts: 57
Location: Scotland

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:40 pm Post subject: what is evidence

Jay Ref wrote:

What evidence? What part of Loose Change, Who Killed John O'Neil, In Plane Sight, etc..etc.. rises to the level of "evidence"? Tell me. I want to know! I'd really like to see it!

Much of what you decide is 'evidence' depends on your original point of view. For example, I expect that you are satisfied that 9/11 has been properly investigated and don't suspect an 'inside job' so you don't go looking for evidence for it - moreover you've managed to reconcile every anomelous observation which is brought to your attention with your original point of view. This has nothing to do with considering 'evidence' - it's just expressing a highly subjective viewpoint. So called 'evidence' is something which has to be considered from both (/all) possible viewpoints since it may support more than one. The overall conclusions are cumulative.

I didn't come to my point of view about 9/11 soleley because of 'irrefutable evidence' - I also observed how events unfolded in the subsequent years, in particular the fact that the US government capitalised as never before on a single event in a way that the alleged terrorist organisations just didn't. I also don't think that governments operate particularly with a great deal of integrity anyway. I also had questions of my own which I couldn't reconcile based on my background in Aeronautical Engineering and experience as a flying instructor - including why so little of the aeronautical records of that day have escaped into the public domain. The actual crashes themselves are the only ones I'm aware of which have not been publicly investigated. I also don't think that buildings are designed to collapse symmetrically - I think they're designed to collapse ASYMETRICALLY because it's the loads, not the failures, which are designed to be re-distributed. (I accept I may be wrong on this but as I understand, the bits that remain intact are designed to remain intact as long as possible - that means asymmetry).

Given that I have come to this point of view, hopefully you can see why I consider the fact that NIST ommited the controlled demolition hypothises from their deliberations as 'evidence' of a political decision, not a scientific one.

Also, why I the see the fact that the 9/11 commission failed to persue (for example) the testimony of Norman Minneta when he cited Cheney's aid reporting that '50 Sir, it’s 50 miles out. Sir, it’s 40 miles out..... do the orders still stand?’ as 'evidence' of them deliberately not being thorough.

Also, why I see politicians telling me to prepare for 'wars lasting many years' and that we must make 'comprimises' in our democratic freedoms while they benefit both materially and strategically (in terms of advancing known agendas to which they subscribed previously) as 'evidence' of a conflict of interest on their part.

This list goes on for pages and pages - they are my own observations and questions and did not come from listening to "crackpots, conmen, anarchists, neo-Nazis, and every other malcontent under the sun" (contrary to your assertion).

You've made many points in your posts regarding 'heat', steel beams, buckling steel in the Madrid fire etc. You also, (I think - sorry, couldn't find the quote) you make a point in one of your posts that the 'simplest' explanation is usually the right one.

I would put to you that NIST have fallen over themselves trying to explain the tower collapses NOT in terms of controlled demolition, when in fact this is the hypothises which is the most obvious given that it isn't unprecedented, works across different building designs (so explains WTC-7) and also explains how the 47 steel central columns were 'snipped'. It's not their job to rule out this hypothises because it's 'unlikely' any more than it's a forensic scientists job to rule out a DNA sample because the owner had an alabie.

I don't expect you to consider these points as 'evidence' that there are problems with the official account of 9/11 because you will no doubt intreprate them according to you own view, however equally don't expect me to suddenly forget about them just because I find myself in a minority at the moment. Many people are waking up and asking questions - rightly so because the more that do, the more we might get governments that actually represent them instead of patronising them.

xxThe_Dice_manxx
Minor Poster

Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 42
Location: Northern Ireland

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:40 pm Post subject:

Greetings Would Mr.Gravy and co just state why you are here and what you want to achieve please. Not interested in what you have posted just answer the questions. _________________ MAD BAD AND DANGEROUS TO KNOW

Gravy
Minor Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 65

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:36 pm Post subject:

kbo234 wrote:

Jay Ref wrote:

I saw the Pentagon on 9/11 from about 100 yards away from the crash site. I saw the wreckage and there was plenty.

How come the news reports and photos taken at the time don't show any significant wreckage? Well, none that I've seen anyway. It beggars belief that such evidence existed but with all the OTHER evidence that has reached the public domain this evidence somehow didn't make it.

You profess to know enough about this subject to say that no 757 hit the Pentagon, yet you havent even looked at the photos of the wreckage?

That, sir, beggars belief.

And how about the dozens of eyewitnesses to the crash? All lying?
http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html
http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoud.../witnesses.htm

Notice that many of those witnesses specifically mention seeing a huge American Airlines jet hit the Pentagon.

How about the account of the C-130 pilot who saw both the flight 77 attack and the aftermath of flight 93? Lying?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVRkAkC8n4&search=Shanksville

And how about the hundreds of first responders and investigators who were on the scene the first day? All lying?

the Pentagon security staff,
the DOD Honor Guard
the Pentagon Medical Unit,
the Pentagon 3-person Crash Response Team
the Pentagon Defense Protective Service,
Four U.S. Army Chaplains
One Catholic Priest (Stephen McGraw)
the Arlington County Fire Department,
the Arlington County Sheriff's Department,
Arlington County Emergency Medical Services
the Arlington, VA Police Department,
Fairfax County Fire & Rescue,
Montgomery County Fire & Rescue,
Alexandria, VA Fire & Rescue
District of Columbia Fire & Rescue
the Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit
the Military District of Washington Search & Rescue Team
the Fort Myer Fire Department,
the Arlington County SWAT Team,
the Virginia State Police,
the FBI's Evidence Recovery Teams,
the National Transportation Safety Board Investigators
American Airlines representatives
the HHS National Medical Response Team,
the FBI Hazmat Team,
the EPA Hazmat Team,
the FEMA Incident Support Team,
the FEMA Emergency Response Team,
the FEMA Disaster Field Office.
the FEMA Virginia-1, Virginia-2, Maryland-1 and Tennessee-1 Task Forces
the US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach, Fairfax County and Montgomery County,
the National Naval Medical Center CCRF
Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams,
the Virginia Department of Emergency Management
the U.S. Army 54th Quartermaster Company Mortuary Staff
the U.S. Army 311th Quartermaster Company Mortuary Staff
the U.S. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
the American Red Cross,
the United States Secret Service,
the C-130H crew

Have you attempted to contact any of the over 8,000 people who were on the scene after the crash?

If not, why?

How are you coming along with those photos? Documents with numerous Pentagon crash debris photos have been linked here several times. Let me know if you need help.

Jay Ref
Moderate Poster

Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:49 pm Post subject: Re: what is evidence

Pete J wrote:

Jay Ref wrote:

What evidence? What part of Loose Change, Who Killed John O'Neil, In Plane Sight, etc..etc.. rises to the level of "evidence"? Tell me. I want to know! I'd really like to see it!

Much of what you decide is 'evidence' depends on your original point of view.

Stop right there! You need go no further. This is the crux of the CT problem in a nutshell. You seem like a nice reasonable guy Pete...and I don't mean to jump on you...but the above sentence is at the core of your logical problem. Real evidence does not need help from anyone's POV. (unless of course expert opinions are needed--if so consult real experts)

Here's evidence: 2+2=4.

Now you can take that equation and work it out for yourself. You don't need my help. You can do so and see for yourself that 2+2 indeed comes out to 4! That is what we call "empirical evidence" meaning that we need take no one's word for it. It is what it is. For more difficult equations and situations we have experts. People who actually know what they're about. They are structural engineers, aeronautical engineers,...people who can be trusted to give accurate opinions...people who are not in any way tied to an agenda.

9/11 is not subjective. We have loads of evidence that backs up the OS. Now I'm quite sure the OS has errors and omissions within it...but nothing big enough to overturn the stated conclusion. You and other CTers may nitpick about this or that detail...and you may even be right from time to time...but you're not going to prove a massive conspiracy unless you have evidence that proves a massive conspiracy. 2+2 may equal 6 in some deluded mind...but that's why we have peer review. It keeps all the experts and researchers honest.

You may in fact want to ask why Steven Jones won't submit his paper on the WTC collapse to perr review? I personally think he's afraid his theory just won't add up....and everyone will find out!

-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber

"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense

Last edited by Jay Ref on Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:51 pm; edited 1 time in total

xxThe_Dice_manxx
Minor Poster

Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 42
Location: Northern Ireland

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:51 pm Post subject:

Greetings Would Mr.Gravy and co just state why you are here and what you want to achieve please. Not interested in what you have posted just answer the questions. _________________ MAD BAD AND DANGEROUS TO KNOW

Jay Ref
Moderate Poster

Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:54 pm Post subject:

xxThe_Dice_manxx wrote:

Greetings

Would Mr.Gravy and co just state why you are here and what you want to achieve please.

Not interested in what you have posted just answer the questions.

Just here asking for evidence of the "inside job". Haven't seen any yet...

-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber

"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense

Gravy
Minor Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 65

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 10:11 pm Post subject:

blackcat wrote:

Gravy wrote:

blackcat wrote:

Fact 1

Cheney announces he cannot account for $2.3 Trillion missing from the Pentagon budget over previous 4 years. This on 8/112001. Easily checked as CBS covered the story.

False.

Quote:

Fact 2

The area of the Pentagon which was hit housed the bookkeeping and accounting department of the Pentagon and most killed there were bookkeepers and accountants. Easily checked - look up the list of those killed that day.

False.
Someone needs to do their homework before declaring something a "fact."

Those things are FACTS and simply saying they are false does not make them false. I have done my homework - you on the other hand are lying. You know these are facts you * evil shill.

You are incorrect, both about the FACTS, and about me being an evil shill. You'd save yourself embarrassment by doing your homework as I suggested.

Gravy
Minor Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 65

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 10:14 pm Post subject:

xxThe_Dice_manxx wrote:

Greetings

Would Mr.Gravy and co just state why you are here and what you want to achieve please.

Not interested in what you have posted just answer the questions.

I believe Chipmunk responded as he did because we've already explained why we're here in other posts. How about you? Why are you here and what do you want to achieve?

xxThe_Dice_manxx
Minor Poster

Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 42
Location: Northern Ireland

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 10:15 pm Post subject:

Greetings Ok you've asked and you say you have not found any now move along nothing to see here. How about the thermate that S.Jones has found on the steel from WTC? But it does not matter no matter how much evidence there is you will never be satisfied and frankly I do not care what you think and I'm sure the truth movement does not either. _________________ MAD BAD AND DANGEROUS TO KNOW

Justin
9/11 Truth Organiser

Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 500
Location: Cumbria / Yorkshire Dales

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 10:34 pm Post subject:

To Gravy, Jay Ref, Chipmunk Stew Can you chaps explain to me why we have not seen any footage of the alleged 757 flying into the Pentagon apart from those released blurred time frames? Can you? With all those dozens of cameras protecting the second most secure building in the US next to the White House, many with high resolution capability to check out minute detail, how come? And what about the automatic missile defence system that protects the Pentagon and the White House? Why did it not do its job on that fateful day and protect the immediate airspace as it is designed to do? Eh! Military SOPs on 9/11 were either stood down just for that day, or ignored. I'm a former British Army Officer and I tell you the whole thing stinks. Until you can answer the above, give your poor fingers a rest. All we are asking for is a new, independent inquiry into the events of 9/11 so all this can be analysed by the international community without fear or prejudice. The Kean Commission was flawed and compromised as proved by David Ray Griffin. Do you support such a new inquiry or are you happy with the Kean Commission as well?

Pete J
Minor Poster

Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Posts: 57
Location: Scotland

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 10:40 pm Post subject: Re: what is evidence

Jay Ref wrote:

For more difficult equations and situations we have experts. People who actually know what they're about. They are structural engineers, aeronautical engineers,...people who can be trusted to give accurate opinions...people who are not in any way tied to an agenda.-z

I basically agree with your point Jay Ref - i.e. if people are going to submit evidence in support of their claims it should be as unambigious and rigerous as possible. We just seem to make opposite interpratations as to how this applies to 9/11. i.e I am applying this principle to the actual official investigative process and you are applying it to individuals on chat forums. This seems the wrong way round to me.

Jay Ref wrote:

We have loads of evidence that backs up the OS-z

I certainly don't think I could agree with this statement. The investigations (the technical ones certainly - I don't know a lot about how the 'hijackers' were identified) were not my idea of 'transparency', 'thouroughness' or 'technical rigour'. They were more like an attempt at 'how many important aspect of these events can we ignore'). Sorry I can't be very specific at this time of night (I know you like specifics) but off the top of my head, ignoring controlled demolition as a collapse mechanism, ignoring the implications of Norman Minneta's testimony, ignoring the 'Tony Schaffer' saga, ignoring the (apparent) air defence 'stand down', ignoring the fact that there were excercises to simulate airliner attacks that day when Condi Rice stated that the US had 'never anticipated such attacks' all spring to mind for a start.

As far as the tower collapses go, I also don't beleive that the 47 steel columns can simply be 'compressed' like that in 9 seconds - albeit with an enormous dymanic load - at least I'm not convinced because I think there would be a measurable time penalty to account for conservation of momentum, mv1=mv2 (thats my 2+2=4 by the way Smile

)

Concerning openness and transparency, this is my idea of openness and thoroughness:

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/sites/aaib/publications/formal_reports/no_2_90_ 503158.cfm

Here's what you get on the 9/11 crashes:

(Summary Page)
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/Response2.asp?spage=1&x_page_size=10&sql=Y&p1 =8%2F11%2F2001&p2=9%2E12%2E2001&p3=&p4=&p5=&p6=&p7=&p8=&p9=&p10=&p11=& p12=&p13=&p14=&p15=&p16=ev%5Fdate&p17=Desc&p18=&p19=&p20=&p21=&p22=&p2 3=&p24=

(Detail)
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020123X00104&key=1

You seem like a reasonable guy as well (when your not engaged in heavy in flame wars with other members on this site Smile

). I also have some automatic 'cameraderie' with you since we are both pilots and I'm sure I'd rather be having a beer with you in a club bar chatting about aviation experiences.

Hopefully we'll be able to respect our mutual point of view without wholeheartedly trashing each others right to exist as seems to be happening in many places right now Smile

kbo234
Validated Poster

Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 10:41 pm Post subject:

Justin wrote:

......or are you happy with the Kean Commission as well?

I think you'll find they're very, very, very happy with it Justin.

Last edited by kbo234 on Mon Jul 24, 2006 10:46 pm; edited 1 time in total

Justin
9/11 Truth Organiser

Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 500
Location: Cumbria / Yorkshire Dales

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 10:43 pm Post subject:

In addition to my questions above, how do you react to this 2 star general (retd.) and what he has to say about the Pentagon? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2VoUN-7RVU&search=%22alex%20jones%22

blackcat
Validated Poster

Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 10:59 pm Post subject:

Gravy wrote:

blackcat wrote:

Gravy wrote:

blackcat wrote:

Fact 1

Cheney announces he cannot account for $2.3 Trillion missing from the Pentagon budget over previous 4 years. This on 8/112001. Easily checked as CBS covered the story.

False.

Quote:

False.
Someone needs to do their homework before declaring something a "fact."

Those things are FACTS and simply saying they are false does not make them false. I have done my homework - you on the other hand are lying. You know these are facts you * evil shill.

You are incorrect, both about the FACTS, and about me being an evil shill. You'd save yourself embarrassment by doing your homework as I suggested.

Go do some "homework" yourself you evil b******. You need plenty of "homework" to lie about those facts I posted. They are a matter of record and your lies will not cover them up shill. * like you are beyond embarrassment which is why you will lie interminably to protect the murderers of 9/11 you wish to protect. * you.

Gravy
Minor Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 65

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 11:37 pm Post subject:

Justin wrote:

To Gravy, Jay Ref, Chipmunk Stew

Can you chaps explain to me why we have not seen any footage of the alleged 757 flying into the Pentagon apart from those released blurred time frames? Can you? With all those dozens of cameras protecting the second most secure building in the US next to the White House, many with high resolution capability to check out minute detail, how come?

Justin, that's been covered here by several people. Your understanding of Pentagon security is incorrect.

Quote:

And what about the automatic missile defence system that protects the Pentagon and the White House? Why did it not do its job on that fateful day and protect the immediate airspace as it is designed to do? Eh!

"Automatic missile defense system?" Surely you jest. PLEASE tell me you're kidding.

Quote:

Military SOPs on 9/11 were either stood down just for that day, or ignored. I'm a former British Army Officer and I tell you the whole thing stinks. Until you can answer the above, give your poor fingers a rest.

Been there, done that. If you actually read our posts, you'll gain knowledge about 9/11. You may have noticed that I don't take statements such as "I tell you the whole thing stinks" as evidence. Opinions are not evidence. Questions are not evidence. It's important to keep that in mind.

Quote:

All we are asking for is a new, independent inquiry into the events of 9/11 so all this can be analysed by the international community without fear or prejudice. The Kean Commission was flawed and compromised as proved by David Ray Griffin. Do you support such a new inquiry or are you happy with the Kean Commission as well?

David Ray Griffin's work is absurdly bad. You may want to read my critique of 911truth.org's literature, which is based mainly on Griffin's work. http://tinyurl.com/hevbg

I'd be glad to support a new investigation should evidence arise that shows the 9/11 Commission got it wrong.

Gravy
Minor Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 65

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 11:38 pm Post subject:

blackcat wrote:

Gravy wrote:

blackcat wrote:

Gravy wrote:

blackcat wrote:

Fact 1

Cheney announces he cannot account for $2.3 Trillion missing from the Pentagon budget over previous 4 years. This on 8/112001. Easily checked as CBS covered the story.

False.

Quote:

False.
Someone needs to do their homework before declaring something a "fact."

Those things are FACTS and simply saying they are false does not make them false. I have done my homework - you on the other hand are lying. You know these are facts you * evil shill.

You are incorrect, both about the FACTS, and about me being an evil shill. You'd save yourself embarrassment by doing your homework as I suggested.

Go do some "homework" yourself you evil *. You need plenty of "homework" to lie about those facts I posted. They are a matter of record and your lies will not cover them up shill. * like you are beyond embarrassment which is why you will lie interminably to protect the murderers of 9/11 you wish to protect. * you.

You are incorrect for the third time. Please check your sources.

brian
Validated Poster

Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 611
Location: Scotland

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 11:47 pm Post subject:

blackcat, if its any help he is simply being pedantic here. Rumsfeld not Cheney made the statement about the trillions.

Gravy
Minor Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 65

Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:08 am Post subject: Re: what is evidence

I'd like to respond to a few things here, Pete J.

Pete J wrote:

...but off the top of my head, ignoring controlled demolition as a collapse mechanism,

NIST didn't ignore it. They said they found no evidence to support it.

Quote:

ignoring the implications of Norman Minneta's testimony,

Mineta's timeline, which is supported only by his memory, is contradicted by multiple cross-referenced sources.

Quote:

ignoring the 'Tony Schaffer' saga,

Able Danger is interesting, and I wonder when, if ever, we'll know the full truth about it. Some of the recollections of the people involved are very hazy.

Quote:

ignoring the (apparent) air defence 'stand down',

I've looked into this issue extensively, and have found no evidence of a "stand down."

Quote:

ignoring the fact that there were excercises to simulate airliner attacks that day when Condi Rice stated that the US had 'never anticipated such attacks' all spring to mind for a start.

If you can provide evidence of such exercises, I'll buy you all the beer in Britain. This is one of the many statements that gets repeated ad nauseum by CTs, yet no one presents evidence to back it up. I have not seen a shred of evidence to support the claim that exercises simulating hijackings took place on 9/11, and the dozens of CTs I've questioned about it haven't produced anything.

Quote:

As far as the tower collapses go, I also don't beleive that the 47 steel columns can simply be 'compressed' like that in 9 seconds

I don't know what you mean by the columns being "compressed" Certainly a small amount of compression happened, but once columns exceed their design loads, they buckle and snap. You also have to consider the internal lateral and torque forces on the columns, not just vertical forces. That's why simplified models of the tower collapses don't tell the whole story.

Quote:

- albeit with an enormous dymanic load - at least I'm not convinced because I think there would be a measurable time penalty to account for conservation of momentum, mv1=mv2 (thats my 2+2=4 by the way Smile

)

Frank Greening (a chemist by trade, not a structural engineer) has done some interesting work on this topic and others related to the WTC He does not agree with all of NIST's methods or conclusions. I don't point to him as an expert, and his papers aren't peer-reviewed, but he seems to be a knowledgeable amateur who does change his conclusions as new information appears. You can find his papers here: http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html

Regarding the FBI's handling of the aircraft crash investigations, that's the law in the U.S. when the crash is suspected to be due to criminal activity. The NTSB was involved in the investigations, but the FBI was the lead.

Gravy
Minor Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 65

Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:17 am Post subject:

xxThe_Dice_manxx wrote:

Greetings

Ok you've asked and you say you have not found any now move along nothing to see here.

How about the thermate that S.Jones has found on the steel from WTC?

But it does not matter no matter how much evidence there is you will never be satisfied and frankly I do not care what you think and I'm sure the truth movement does not either.

You need to examine that thermate claim more carefully. Jones did not find thermate. He found some sulfur on steel, and nothing could be less surprising. This was discussed at length on this forum in the past few days, either in this thread or in the Jon Ronson thread.

I'm not concerned that you care what I think. I'm concerned that you examine the facts, that you think critically, and that you come to the point where your hypotheses are supported by logic and evidence.

xxThe_Dice_manxx
Minor Poster

Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 42
Location: Northern Ireland

Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:26 am Post subject:

Greetings Are you people still here? If you still haven't found any evidence you're not likely too so why do you stay here wasting our time? Living in Northern Ireland I've seen enough of government orchestrated terrorism to recognise it for myself.So your not going to convince me of anything to the contrary and I doubt you will with anyone else who wants the truth. So kindly be on your way and stop wasting our time please. _________________ MAD BAD AND DANGEROUS TO KNOW

Dog
Minor Poster

Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 90
Location: Terra Firma

Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 6:49 am Post subject:

Gravy wrote:

blackcat wrote:

Gravy wrote:

blackcat wrote:

Gravy wrote:

blackcat wrote:

Fact 1

Cheney announces he cannot account for $2.3 Trillion missing from the Pentagon budget over previous 4 years. This on 8/112001. Easily checked as CBS covered the story.

False.

Quote:

False.
Someone needs to do their homework before declaring something a "fact."

Those things are FACTS and simply saying they are false does not make them false. I have done my homework - you on the other hand are lying. You know these are facts you * evil shill.

You are incorrect, both about the FACTS, and about me being an evil shill. You'd save yourself embarrassment by doing your homework as I suggested.

You are incorrect for the third time. Please check your sources.

Just wanted to see how many "he said-she said-I said-you said" posts can be joined up.

Mesmerising. Razz

Uma
Minor Poster

Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 87

Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 6:57 am Post subject:

Dog wrote:

Gravy wrote:

blackcat wrote:

Gravy wrote:

blackcat wrote:

Gravy wrote:

blackcat wrote:

Fact 1

Cheney announces he cannot account for $2.3 Trillion missing from the Pentagon budget over previous 4 years. This on 8/112001. Easily checked as CBS covered the story.

False.

Quote:

False.
Someone needs to do their homework before declaring something a "fact."

Those things are FACTS and simply saying they are false does not make them false. I have done my homework - you on the other hand are lying. You know these are facts you * evil shill.

You are incorrect, both about the FACTS, and about me being an evil shill. You'd save yourself embarrassment by doing your homework as I suggested.

You are incorrect for the third time. Please check your sources.

Just wanted to see how many "he said-she said-I said-you said" posts can be joined up.

Mesmerising. Razz

_________________
loving you...

Justin
9/11 Truth Organiser

Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 500
Location: Cumbria / Yorkshire Dales

Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:45 am Post subject:

Quote:

Justin wrote:
To Gravy, Jay Ref, Chipmunk Stew

Can you chaps explain to me why we have not seen any footage of the alleged 757 flying into the Pentagon apart from those released blurred time frames? Can you? With all those dozens of cameras protecting the second most secure building in the US next to the White House, many with high resolution capability to check out minute detail, how come?

Justin, that's been covered here by several people. Your understanding of Pentagon security is incorrect.

Quote:
And what about the automatic missile defence system that protects the Pentagon and the White House? Why did it not do its job on that fateful day and protect the immediate airspace as it is designed to do? Eh!

"Automatic missile defense system?" Surely you jest. PLEASE tell me you're kidding.

Quote:
Military SOPs on 9/11 were either stood down just for that day, or ignored. I'm a former British Army Officer and I tell you the whole thing stinks. Until you can answer the above, give your poor fingers a rest.

Been there, done that. If you actually read our posts, you'll gain knowledge about 9/11. You may have noticed that I don't take statements such as "I tell you the whole thing stinks" as evidence. Opinions are not evidence. Questions are not evidence. It's important to keep that in mind.

Gravy, please enlighten us as to what air defences the Pentagon actually has to shoot down hostile aircraft - you obviously know so much about it. And are you telling me they do not have high resolution security cameras to pick up minute detail of possible threats to the Pentagon and its activites there? I used to be involved in the guarding of nuclear power stations and other high risk Key Points in the UK during internal security/counter insurgency exercises - I KNOW, repeat KNOW what sort of cameras and high tech equipment can be used to guard very important installations - and that was nearly twenty years ago. So come on, tell us how the Pentagon is protected. And by the way, rather than refer me back to previous posts, why not extend to me the courtesy of actually answering my questions?

Last edited by Justin on Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:00 pm; edited 2 times in total

Justin
9/11 Truth Organiser

Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 500
Location: Cumbria / Yorkshire Dales

Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:51 am Post subject:

By the way Gravy, Jay Ref and Chipmunk Stew - did any of you chaps serve in the Armed Forces? If you did, then you would know that to become a Two Star General (Major-General, commanding a Division usually) you have to jump through a lot of hoops to get there. They don't just pick anybody - not even in the US Army.

So come on chaps - answer this please:

Quote:

In addition to my questions above, how do you react to this 2 star general (retd.) and what he has to say about the Pentagon?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2VoUN-7RVU&search=%22alex%20jones%22

_________________
Connect to Infinite Consciousness - enjoy the ride!

Pete J
Minor Poster

Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Posts: 57
Location: Scotland

Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:58 am Post subject: observations

Gravy wrote:

Pete J wrote:

...but off the top of my head, ignoring controlled demolition as a collapse mechanism,

NIST didn't ignore it. They said they found no evidence to support it.

Gravy, as you serious ? The observable collapse data support very little else. Maybe you mean they found no 'traces' of explosives in the debris which is possible. Despite this there is general agreement that existed 'hotspots' in the debris which reached extreme temperatures not accountable for by the building fires or molten aluminium from the planes. You've attempted to account for these in another thread in terms of 'heat' but as I pointed out in reply, 'heat' is a wholly different physical property from 'temperature'. (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=2761&start=17). Temperature is not associated with the scale of the burning but the chemistry, whereas heat ('energy') is. This is why Jones has proposed that the hotspots are the result of Thermite derivative reactions because the chemistry of such a reaction easily accounts for the extreme temeratures.

NIST will have been aware of this which is why it's plausable to assume that the decision not to acknowledge that the collapse data correspond (amongst other hypothises) to a controlled demolition is political, not technical.

Gravy wrote:

Mineta's timeline, which is supported only by his memory, is contradicted by multiple cross-referenced sources.

If you are a 9/11 commissioner and you hear a testimony like this, presumably the logical next question is 'what were the orders being referred to'. I realised Mineta may not have had the answer but they should have persued it with others. Just because his 'timeline' is contradicted doesn't mean he's lying under oath.

Gravy wrote:

Quote:

ignoring the (apparent) air defence 'stand down',

I've looked into this issue extensively, and have found no evidence of a "stand down."

Well, this may be so and I acknowledge that you might have not found evidence of a 'stand down'. However it's normal procedure for air defence to intercept Airliners which go off course within 10-20 minutes of them doing so. Any planners of a 9/11 type scenario would have known, that under normal circumstances, there was an extremely small chance of the planes reaching their targets when they have to travel such a large distance from the hijack points. Despite this they still planned on such an unlikely scenario. Guess what ? - they weren't intercepted ! This is why I used the word 'apparent' in front of the phrase 'stand down' in my last post.

Gravy wrote:

Quote:

ignoring the fact that there were excercises to simulate airliner attacks that day when Condi Rice stated that the US had 'never anticipated such attacks' all spring to mind for a start.

The excerises I am refering to are these:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_games_in_progress_on_September_ 11,_2001
Also these: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

Condi said she didn't 'know about them'. It doesn't really matter, NORAD certainly did.

Gravy wrote:

Quote:

As far as the tower collapses go, I also don't beleive that the 47 steel columns can simply be 'compressed' like that in 9 seconds

This is stretching things a bit don't you think ? They will 'buckle and snap' in all kinds of different directions and at different rates. The energy required to do so is huge. There is also something called '2nd moment of area' which is why the cross section of a beam is often in the shape of an 'I'. What you're suggesting is that 47 beams 'buckled and snapped' simultaneously on each of 90 floors. Thats (47 * 90) = 4230 bucklings and snappings, mostly on floors where the there was no load bearing deficiency due to heat. Even if this was true, the energy 'footprint' of this phenomenon would be apparent as a loss of momentum in the collapse. It is not.

Gravy wrote:

Frank Greening (a chemist by trade, not a structural engineer) has done some interesting work on this topic

Yes he has. I've read this paper http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf and I think it is a good illustration of how the collapse can be modelled. I've no reason to doubt his calculations and he addresses exactly the issue I expressed above, however look at the conclusions he draws:

1] the time for (Tc) - based purely on kinematics (effectively independent floors suspended in thin air - no core columns although their mass is accounted for in the mass of the floor in the model) - are 12.6s and 11.5s respectively for WTC-1 and 2

2] the revised times for (Tc) after including the effects of energy required to buckle beams and pulverise conrete increases by only 0.2 and 0.1s respectively !

Even we take the purely theoretical time from case [1] above we are already at the observed collapsed time and more ! Furthermore, for the additional 'energy' factoring, Greening's analysis relies on a value of 'E1' derived by Bazant and Zhou in this paper http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf written 1 day after the collapse and presented 2 days after it. Greening points out that even though the value for 'E' may be out by a factor of 2, the model is relatively insensitive to errors in 'E1' up until about 'E1=2.2' (see his graph in 'Figure 2'). This is where it all goes wrong with these analyses in my opinion.

- try this experiment (in our heads at least Smile

). Hold a matchstick vertically against a carpeted floor with your index finger on the end. Push down on it as hard as possible while keeping it vertical until it breaks. Now pick it up, hold an end in each end and 'snap' it. The different in 'energy' required in each case is several orders of magnitude more than 2, it's more like 10-50 (guessing). This means that any inaccurate assumptions in Bazant and Zhou's paper have the potential to send Greening's value for 'Impact Energy' off the scale in terms of his 'Figure 2' graph. 24 hours is not a lot of time to have you paper 'peer reviewed' and since then this paper has become written into the 'woodwork' of history just like all the other accounts that the media were quickly fed at the time.

(See G1/2 below)

A more plausable scenario (at least as far as removing the resistance from the beams is concerned) is that thermate explosives cut each of the beams "cleanly" at a 45 degree angle, allowing them to slide off each other and facilitate a 'clean' collapse. (See also here - Jones discussion on collapse times in video [jump to 18 mins] http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2006/07/9-11-hero-physics-profess or-steven.html).

All these analyses, every single one of them, need to be re-done taking into account the possibility that explosives were used to take down the buildings for them to have some credibility.

Gravy wrote:

Regarding the FBI's handling of the aircraft crash investigations, that's the law in the U.S. when the crash is suspected to be due to criminal activity. The NTSB was involved in the investigations, but the FBI was the lead.

Yes, that's a handy law, isn't it. Whenever there's a matter of the greatest public interest the case gets taken out of the public's hands Smile

. I'm reminded of how this arrangement worked to effectively in the 70's when the NTSB were trying to make the Federal Authorities aware that the cargo doors on DC-10s had a faulty latch mechanism that could cause them to blow off in mid air. DC-10's were dropping out of the sky a couple of times a year since 1973 but it took 6-7 years before they had this problem acknkwledged and did something about it, even though they knew exactly what the problem was. I'm sure at that time folks in the public were saying 'it can't be true - somebody on the inside would have said something by now' when confronted by this apparent 'conspiracy theory'.

grapg_02.jpg

Description:

Whereas if he's being honest about the scope for error in Bazant and Zhou's initial assumptions, the graph should may like this:

Filesize:

30.56 KB

Viewed:

133 Time(s)

graph_01.jpg

Description:

<G1> Greening's analysis looks like this:

Filesize:

37.58 KB

Viewed:

138 Time(s)

Pete J
Minor Poster

Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Posts: 57
Location: Scotland

Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:07 pm Post subject: broken link

Sorry, here are the broken links again: Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_games_in_progress_on_September_11%2C_ 2001 Thread Citation: http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=2761&start=17

Jay Ref
Moderate Poster

Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511

Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:46 pm Post subject:

Justin wrote:

Quote:

Justin,
The Pentagon has live security 24 x 7. The only places the Pentagon needs cams are at access points. These cameras are aimed at the controlled access point, not the building which again, has LIVE security at all times.

Now I used to work at the Pentagon in room 5A910 which is the big combined services communications control area on the 5th floor A ring. Since you KNOW that the Pentagon has hi-res cameras scouring every square inch perhaps you could offer us some proof of their existence? In the meantime and in the absence of such proof it would be wise to consult someone whos actually worked in the place...me.

...and believe him when he says:
"There are no sooper sekrit hi-res security cams covering every inch of the Pentagon!" There are no batteries of missiles protecting the place!! The Pentagon is NOT under restricted airspace!!

Life is not like a James Bond movie!

It's NOT! SHEESH!

-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber

"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense

chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:54 pm Post subject:

Jay Ref wrote:

There are no batteries of missiles protecting the place!!

Ah, but there were missile batteries on September 11...(2002)

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/10/ar911.air.defense/

IronSnot
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 595
Location: Australia

Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:59 pm Post subject:

Jay Ref wrote:

Now I used to work at the Pentagon in room 5A910 which is the big combined services communications control area on the 5th floor A ring. Since you KNOW that the Pentagon has hi-res cameras scouring every square inch perhaps you could offer us some proof of their existence? In the meantime and in the absence of such proof it would be wise to consult someone whos actually worked in the place...me.

When? Early 80s?

Dontcha fink it might have changed a little?

Jay Ref
Moderate Poster

Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511

Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:23 pm Post subject:

Justin wrote:

Quote:

In addition to my questions above, how do you react to this 2 star general (retd.) and what he has to say about the Pentagon?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2VoUN-7RVU&search=%22alex%20jones%22

So you have 1 Two Star General? A disgruntled 2 star general? Great. Here's the CT scorecard then:

Number of structual engineers who posit bombs in the towers - 0
Number of engineering classes taken by those who do posit bombs in the towers - 0
Number of demolition experts who posit bombs in the towers - 0
Number of seismologists who posit bombs in the towers - 0
Number of materials specialists who posit bombs in the towers - 0
Number of engineering conferences held to discuss bombs in the towers - 0
Number of eyewitnesses who believe a missile hit the pentagon - 0
Number of NORAD people who say they stood down 9/11 - 0
Number of NORAD people who say they were confused by war games on 9/11 - 0
Number of people who admit to being part of the secret government plan - 0
Number of documents revealing the secret plan - 0
Number of commercial pilots who support the conspiracy theory - 0

but hey....
Number of disgruntled 2 star generals - 1 !!!

_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber

"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense

Display posts from previous:

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> General	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
Page 7 of 9

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum