Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:31 pm Post subject: why no planes is important
Copyright:Gerard Holmgren. Aug 14 2006. This material may be freely reproduced as long as it is not for commercial purposes. Please cite the authors name, the date, the web address where you found it, and the copyright notice.
WHY IT MATTERS THAT THERE WERE NO PLANE CRASHES ON SEPT 11. Page 1 of 2.
This is a transcript of a speech which I gave (by telephone from Sydney) to the TV Fakery Conference in New York on August 13 2006.
Hello, I’m Gerard Holmgren and the topic for my talk is an often raised question—why does it matter that there were no planes?
I have 6 points in response to this question.
The first is what I call “the mirror”.
Imagine yourself listening to a speech by a mainstream peace activist who says something like
“The hijackers who flew those planes into the buildings were fanatics and George Bush is a fanatic. We need to be rid of the fanatics on both sides. A violent response is not the answer to this problem.”
Afterwards you say to them
“That’s fair enough in so far as it goes, but what you need to realize is that there weren't any crazy Arabs flying those planes. The Govt did the whole thing itself.”
And they say
“You’re nuts”.
So you start giving them some evidence—to which they have no answer, and as they start to see that they can’t refute your evidence, then they shift ground and say
“Well, why does it matter, anyway ? We already have more than enough evidence to show that US foreign policy is both unjust and a total failure and the cause of the problem.”
To which you reply
“I’ve just demonstrated solid evidence that the Govt planned and carried out the attacks itself and you say that it doesn't matter ? And that people don’t need to know this ? Indeed that they should *not* be made aware of this ?”
They respond
“Look. It’s hard enough to get people to oppose Govt policy without hitting them with these wild conspiracy theories about the Govt murdering thousands of its own people. Even if you’re right, people will never believe you. It only discredits the peace movement. And it doesn't matter, because we can already show them that a violent response only makes the problem worse.”
To which you reply
“So you still believe in crazy Arabs flying the planes?”
And they answer
“I’m saying that it doesn't matter who flew the planes. We need to be rid of the fanatics on both sides. The hijackers who flew the planes were fanatics. Bush is a fanatic. A violent response will not solve the problem.”
This is a classic fruit loop.
Do you feel frustrated with conversations like this ?
If so, and if you are someone who asserts that it doesn't matter whether there were any planes—then take a look in the mirror, because in the previous conversation, the person with whom you were arguing was yourself.
2.
Point two is the question of truth. This word is used ad-nauseam in relation to the debate over Sept 11. Crashing planes are at the core of the official story.
If you are saying that it doesn't matter whether or not the plane story is true, then you are saying that the truth doesn't matter.
If you believe that some other kind of agenda is more important than the truth, then say so up front and openly argue the philosophical position that truth does not matter.
But if so, then do not call yourself the “truth movement” and do not keep talking about exposing the truth of Sept 11. This is double think.
Either finding and exposing the truth—wherever it leads—is your mission or it isn’t. One or the other.
3.
My third point is that bad founding assumptions lead to bad conclusions no matter how careful the subsequent chain of research and logic. And bad conclusions lead to bad decisions.
The previously mentioned speech by the mainstream peace activist is an example. If their founding assumption had been correct—that Arab fanatics flew planes into buildings, then everything in their speech would have been perfectly reasonable. Instead, they were talking destructive and misleading babble, working directly against the cause which they claimed to support.
This destructive effect was due entirely to a false assumption being at the root of their entire position. This basic principle applies to everyone involved in public debate of any sort. As long as your founding assumption is wrong then you’ll finish up talking up rubbish, no matter how well researched, thought out and how well intended the subsequent steps may be.
There is enough danger of false assumptions due to genuine mistakes and due to difficulty obtaining accurate information without deliberately manufacturing them through a conscious policy of building one’s entire case on what one knows to be a false assumption.
4.
It’s sometimes asserted that we have all the evidence we need to show that it was an inside job. I’ve already demonstrated the problem with such an approach, by means of the argument with the peace activist. But there is a further problem with such an approach.
An inside job by who ? The Govt ? That’s only part of the story. The TV fakery on the Sth tower hit proves that the media was just as big a player as the Govt.
Govts come and go, but if the media which was a major player in organizing the psy-op remains in power, then nothing has changed. Hanging out a few patsies who have outlived their usefulness -like Bush and Silverstein—may satisfy a primitive thirst for revenge but it leaves fully intact the criminal infrastructure which organized the deception. In fact it strengthens it by giving the misleading appearance that the truth has been exposed and that justice has been done, while actually leaving the high level perpetrators fully in control and ready to move on to the next chapter of their deception.
If the media gets away with showing us a cartoon and passing it off as news in such brazen fashion, and then gets Govt patsies to take the fall, do you think they’ll only do it once ? And with continuing improvements in digital technology, the next one will be harder to pick if people have not been made aware that this sort of thing is happening
Also, this is strongly relevant to my previous point—that bad information leads to bad decisions. There is an obsession within the movement with trying to use the mainstream media as the vehicle to tell the so called -truth about the event.
If it were the case that the Govt had organized the whole thing, and that the media had been simply swept along by the tide, not knowing how to deal with the situation, and fallen into line because it simply didn’t have the courage or the knowledge to resist the situation, then exposure of the truth through the mainstream media might be a plausible aim.
But the knowledge that the media was a full and willing partner in organizing the entire deception, should make it obvious that disclosure of the full truth through that same media an absurd and impractical aim. If they allow limited amounts of truth to leak into the media, this is only because it is part of their plan to continue the deception and move it forward to the next chapter.
Selective truth can be as deceptive as lies.
The media might hang out the Govt , but it wont hang out itself, and this means that it will never facilitate disclosure of the full truth.
It’s like knowing that the police are running the local drug gangs and yet still going to them with information, expecting them to genuinely act on it, and then cheering because eventually they bust one of the gangs, when in actual fact, they’ve done it only to make people think that they’re doing something, and all it represents is a change in alliances within the trade, and a change in the details of how they’re going to keep running the trade.
If you can get something into the media without actually lying, then fine. But the moment you start making deals with them and calling that truth, then you become as bad as, if not worse than the Republicrats.
5.
Point five goes well beyond the implications of Sept 11 as a specific issue.
Sept 11 is not only a major driver of world policy and community attitudes, it’s iconic images are a major driver of the fundamental psyche and world view of the whole planet. Iconic images in people’s minds—things like a mushroom cloud, a Nazi rally, a starving African child, the moon landing—form a very important part of people’s views in the area where fact meets mythology.
There can be little doubt that the image of cartoon 175 approaching the Sth tower has already become one of the top iconic images of the last 100 years. And that if unchallenged, then it will continue to heavily influence the psyche of much of the world for many years to come—perhaps several generations.
There will be widely differing responses to it, both emotionally and in terms of political and social responses. There will be furious arguments over what it really means, why it happened, who did it, how various people should have responded and whether it could happen again.
All of this analysis and emotional response over a cartoon. A delusion.
This means an entire world gripped by mass delusion. An entire world where even the most intelligent analysts and compassionate activists are effectively insane. This relates strongly to my previous point that bad assumptions and bad information lead to bad decisions. If a cartoon is allowed to become one of the most iconic images driving people’s world view— thinking that the cartoon is real—then everyone will be making a lot of bad decisions. *No-one* will be able to make intelligent analysis or good decisions about almost anything, not matter how well intended or otherwise intelligent they may be.
For the manipulators, having the entire world worrying and arguing over the meaning of a cartoon as if it were real means mass delusion, which means that mass mind control, however and wherever they choose becomes easier than ever.
6.
The final point is if we are to look at each single piece of evidence on Sept 11, purely from the point of view of how well it covers the events of the day, then the TV fakery is *the* most important thing.
Why ? Because it proves many other points of evidence as well as itself.
For example, demolition proves demolition, but does not prove stand down, or hijacker ID fakery. They remain as completely independent arguments.
By contrast, TV fakery solves all three questions in one hit. It proves demolition—no more arguments about jet fuel fires, no more arguments about whether there were any Arabs on the planes, and it solves the mystery of why we haven't found the stand down order and why no one in the Air Force has come forward—it’s because there wasn’t any stand down order, because there didn’t need to be, because there weren't any hijacked planes.
Every other piece of evidence, while useful in proving one specific point and in demonstrating in a general sense that we have been lied to, leaves many significant loose ends.
Let me give you an example. The demolition by itself enables the whole hijacker myth to stand. A criminal group within the business community simply knew what was going to happen and decided to take advantage of the situation by using it as a cover to demolish the buildings and then criminal elements within the govt covered up for them retrospectively.
So then we need to add the stand down evidence to show that the Govt was also actively complicit in allowing to happen. While that research is excellent in so far as it goes, in showing that the official story is impossible to believe, it creates as many problems as it solves. It leaves us with a vague and embarrassing silence on trying to be specific about the exact mechanism of how such an order would have been issued, distributed enforced, and then covered up from top to bottom.
That would require a coordinated conspiracy of a far greater magnitude and risk than the TV fakery , which could have been done by a relatively small group of people.
Secondly it leaves us with a real headache in terms of logically extrapolating from the stand down situation. Put yourself in the position of the hijackers. What kind of idiot would plan to crash two planes into the towers, and then expect to be able to attack the pentagon 3/4 of an hour later and then expect to be able to attack the White House another 1/2 hour after that ?
The hijackers were seriously so stupid that never even considered the question of likely response from the air force ? They made an incredibly stupid plan which had no hope whatsoever of succeeding, but by an amazing coincidence the Govt had found out about it, and decided to let it happen ?
Not very plausible really. So to get around this, you have to conclude that the hijackers actually knew that the air force was going to be stood down for them.
Which means that hijackers and the Govt were actually working together. In which case why would Islamic fanatics commit suicide to help the US govt ? Which means that they weren’t Islamic fanatics. They were USG agents.
In which case, is it normal for top USG operatives to do suicide missions ?
So you try to solve this problem by considering remote controlled planes.
Which then creates the problem of why electronically hijack real flights with crew who might be able to ruin the plot, rather than use decoy drones ? Which then leads you on to substitute drones to try to solve that problem. Etc, etc.
As long as there are planes in the story, then each layer which is peeled back creates as many new problems as it solves.
This of course, is inevitable with any story if its central core is fiction. The most efficient way to bust a fictitious story is to go straight for its fictitious core, rather than keep chasing the tangential lies which were spin offs to try to cover the main lie.
As soon as you realize that there weren't any planes, then every significant loose end is tied up. The only remaining loose ends are things which are as a result of simply lacking enough specific enough information, such ,as who of the alleged passengers is a real dead person and how did they actually die ?
And although they are unsolved details they do not actually inconsistent with any of the answers which have been found, unlike the problems we saw earlier in the stand down story.
They are merely finer details , waiting to mopped up.
As long as planes remain in the story, it’s like slamming cupboard doors. You close one , and another swings open, and leaves the so called truth with almost as many holes as the official story.
Leaving planes in the story condemns opponents of the official story to a constant game of chasing ones own tail in a futile effort to tie up the loose ends.
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1025 Location: SW London
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:05 pm Post subject:
A very good explanation of why 'no planes' would be a good way to find the guilty and the appeal of the theory in exposing 9/11. It just lacks one major thing, EVIDENCE. I would be happy to embrace this theory if any strong scientific or physical evidence is shown but nothing I have seen yet comes close. _________________ "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:17 pm Post subject:
There are so many things wrong with that argument - wrong assumptions, wrong conclusions and wrong-headed just about everything, I'm not even going to enumerate how wrong it all is.
It's all been said before, yet just like a 'critic' argument, it raises it's uncomprehending hydra-head yet again.
Though Holmgren is right about one thing - NPT/NBB is a classic self-contained fruit-loop.[/i]
. It just lacks one major thing, EVIDENCE. I would be happy to embrace this theory if any strong scientific or physical evidence is shown but nothing I have seen yet comes close.
This is a contradicition in terms. Sorry. There is evidence, it's just that you don't agree with the conclusions drawn from it.
You have said this many times over too. Yet no one has fully explained the evidence pointed out without resorting to breaking the laws of physics (e.g. a faster travel speed leads to slower combustion). _________________ Andrew
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:27 pm Post subject:
Andrew Johnson wrote:
andyb wrote:
. It just lacks one major thing, EVIDENCE. I would be happy to embrace this theory if any strong scientific or physical evidence is shown but nothing I have seen yet comes close.
This is a contradicition in terms. Sorry. There is evidence, it's just that you don't agree with the conclusions drawn from it.
You have said this many times over too. Yet no one has fully explained the evidence pointed out without resorting to breaking the laws of physics (e.g. a faster travel speed leads to slower combustion).
Surely Andrew you can comprehend a cloud of low flashpoint fuel not exploding until enough air is available to the mixture, i.e. when it gets outside the confines of the building.
It's not petrol - it's heavy jetfuel we're talking about.
There are so many things wrong with that argument - wrong assumptions, wrong conclusions and wrong-headed just about everything, I'm not even going to enumerate how wrong it all is.
It's all been said before, yet just like a 'critic' argument, it raises it's uncomprehending hydra-head yet again.
Though Holmgren is right about one thing - NPT/NBB is a classic self-contained fruit-loop.[/i]
It's no good just slagging things off Chek - if you disagree with what Holgren is saying then do so point by point - or butt out of the thread.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 6:09 pm Post subject:
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
chek wrote:
There are so many things wrong with that argument - wrong assumptions, wrong conclusions and wrong-headed just about everything, I'm not even going to enumerate how wrong it all is.
It's all been said before, yet just like a 'critic' argument, it raises it's uncomprehending hydra-head yet again.
Though Holmgren is right about one thing - NPT/NBB is a classic self-contained fruit-loop.[/i]
It's no good just slagging things off Chek - if you disagree with what Holgren is saying then do so point by point - or butt out of the thread.
I have no intention of repeating things already said in response to such arguments only for you to ignore them in your usual style TTWSU3.
If I thought for one moment you might actually engage with any point seriously, I just might; but going by your past form, I think it highly unlikely you would. Your NPT baby's too precious to you to be contaminated by doubt.
And telling someone to butt out on a public thread is just silly....
Surely Andrew you can comprehend a cloud of low flashpoint fuel not exploding until enough air is available to the mixture, i.e. when it gets outside the confines of the building.
It's not petrol - it's heavy jetfuel we're talking about.
I can't comprehend that no, sorry. Nice try. It was the lift shafts which were hermetically sealed not the whole building. In any case, when the metal of the plane struck the building at speed, fuel lines would break open and ignite - I've mentioned this before, but like those who deny CD, they deny this type of evidence too. I already posted the other plane and petrol bomb videos and, the arguments made against this evidence are as follows:
1) The other plane was different
2) The other plane's wing struck the ground or an electrical cable so it's not a fair comparison
3) The faster speed of the plane somehow increases the delay in combustion.
4) The petrol bomb is a different scenario.
All of these arguments gloss over the basic fact:
AIR + SPARK/FLAME + FUEL = COMBUSTION (I would say in under 1 millisecond, certainly less than 1/50 of a second) Yet on the WTC 2nd impact videos we can count maybe 5 or more frames before the fireball explodes out.
NTSC framerate is, I think, 30 fps. Each frame is 1/30 second, hence 5 frames would be 1/6 of second. I think this is a pretty conservative estimate too.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 6:48 pm Post subject:
Andrew Johnson wrote:
chek wrote:
Surely Andrew you can comprehend a cloud of low flashpoint fuel not exploding until enough air is available to the mixture, i.e. when it gets outside the confines of the building.
It's not petrol - it's heavy jetfuel we're talking about.
I can't comprehend that no, sorry. Nice try. It was the lift shafts which were hermetically sealed not the whole building. In any case, when the metal of the plane struck the building at speed, fuel lines would break open and ignite - I've mentioned this before, but like those who deny CD, they deny this type of evidence too. I already posted the other plane and petrol bomb videos and, the arguments made against this evidence are as follows:
1) The other plane was different
2) The other plane's wing struck the ground or an electrical cable so it's not a fair comparison
3) The faster speed of the plane somehow increases the delay in combustion.
4) The petrol bomb is a different scenario.
All of these arguments gloss over the basic fact:
AIR + SPARK/FLAME + FUEL = COMBUSTION (I would say in under 1 millisecond, certainly less than 1/50 of a second) Yet on the WTC 2nd impact videos we can count maybe 5 or more frames before the fireball explodes out.
NTSC framerate is, I think, 30 fps. Each frame is 1/30 second, hence 5 frames would be 1/6 of second. I think this is a pretty conservative estimate too.
Talk all you like.
Some combustion - yes agreed.
Total instant combustion of an over-rich fuel cloud travelling at over 400mph in a confined space - no, that's highly unlikely and at least arguable without input from a combustion physicist - until the fuel/air ratio optimises some more outside the building.
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1025 Location: SW London
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:00 pm Post subject:
Andrew Johnson wrote:
andyb wrote:
. It just lacks one major thing, EVIDENCE. I would be happy to embrace this theory if any strong scientific or physical evidence is shown but nothing I have seen yet comes close.
This is a contradicition in terms. Sorry. There is evidence, it's just that you don't agree with the conclusions drawn from it.
You have said this many times over too. Yet no one has fully explained the evidence pointed out without resorting to breaking the laws of physics (e.g. a faster travel speed leads to slower combustion).
Well, not being a scientist, and having watched the videos countless times to try and see if I would agree with this theory, it looks like a plane hitting a building to me and then a fireball. If this does break the laws of physics then why has no NPT advocate gone and proved this without any shadow of a doubt if it is that obvious. Standard statements like 'knife through butter', flight paths do not hold up to any sort analysis. I have absolutely no problem with people researching this but the majority who spread this theory don't seem to have any scientific or video knowledge, hence all the scepticism. Why not pool your reseources together and do some proper research into it and come back and let us know the results. As I said if you can do that I will happily push the theory. _________________ "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King
Well, not being a scientist, and having watched the videos countless times to try and see if I would agree with this theory, it looks like a plane hitting a building to me and then a fireball. If this does break the laws of physics then why has no NPT advocate gone and proved this without any shadow of a doubt if it is that obvious. Standard statements like 'knife through butter', flight paths do not hold up to any sort analysis. I have absolutely no problem with people researching this but the majority who spread this theory don't seem to have any scientific or video knowledge, hence all the scepticism. Why not pool your reseources together and do some proper research into it and come back and let us know the results. As I said if you can do that I will happily push the theory.
These are good points. I don't know why people haven't focused on the "delayed fireball". It may be because they haven't noticed it. I only noticed it when watching the Loose Change DVD menu - and that was about 2 or 3 months ago when I first noticed it.
The delayed fireball is, I have repeated several times, only 1 aspect of the evidence. At least 2 professors - Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood (the former primarily) have researched and written about the other evidence, as has materials scientist Rick Rajter
(proper research and pooling of resources - I don't class myself as a "real" researcher, merely someone who can engage in 'informed debate'). These results have been published. Fetzer and Jones initially refused to accept them for Journal of 9/11 Studies. The rest is, as they say, now (recent) history.
The area of research, like 9/11 truth research as a whole, is too controversial for most people to tackle - they're worried about losing face (a) with their peers then (b) with other members of the 9/11 Truth community.
In my view, with reactions like those posted on these threads, it is easy to see why (b) can discourage people. _________________ Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Last edited by Andrew Johnson on Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:47 pm; edited 2 times in total
Joined: 27 Jul 2005 Posts: 881 Location: Woking, Surrey, UK
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:33 pm Post subject:
Andy,
Have a look at the Webfairy vid again! Airliners do not react like that. If they hit steel and concrete buildings, things fall off, parts collapse and fall down into the street below. There was no cause and effect. What we saw, or thought we saw, was a "plane" hitting a building like a knife slicing into butter. It sure didn't look right to me. Honest!
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1025 Location: SW London
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:41 pm Post subject:
^ I've looked at web fairy countless times and still don't see anything out of the ordinary. The planes were travelling at high speed and the WTC was built like a mesh. The planes would have been pushed through by it's velocity. If it was a reinforced concrete structure then I would think differently. _________________ "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King
Some combustion - yes agreed.
Total instant combustion of an over-rich fuel cloud travelling at over 400mph in a confined space - no, that's highly unlikely and at least arguable without input from a combustion physicist - until the fuel/air ratio optimises some more outside the building.
Well, if you can find a "combustion physicist" (I have no idea if such a discipline exists) then you can e-mail him. The argument you posted is essentially unchanged. The fuel is in the wings and fuselage - which would break open on the moment of impact (not when the plane was inside the building)
Have a look at this telling picture:
Figure 6: A lot of aluminum encounters a little bit of steel.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:46 pm Post subject:
It would appear that a generic problem with the no-planer fraternity is that they've never investigated the construction method used in the Twin Towers.
After all, they were 'ghost planes' (wtf?) why would they ever need to?
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:54 pm Post subject:
Andrew Johnson wrote:
chek wrote:
Some combustion - yes agreed.
Total instant combustion of an over-rich fuel cloud travelling at over 400mph in a confined space - no, that's highly unlikely and at least arguable without input from a combustion physicist - until the fuel/air ratio optimises some more outside the building.
Well, if you can find a "combustion physicist" (I have no idea if such a discipline exists) then you can e-mail him. The argument you posted is essentially unchanged. The fuel is in the wings and fuselage - which would break open on the moment of impact (not when the plane was inside the building)
Have a look at this telling picture:
Figure 6: A lot of aluminum encounters a little bit of steel.
I'm not sure what your pictures are intending to illustrate, but getting back to the fuel issue, it would escape the ruptured tanks and continue with its imparted momentum across 208ft of floorspace at 400-500 mph - somewhere in the region of 700ft/sec.
Combustion takes time, and there are specialists who deal in it - it's a major research area in all types of internal combustion engine technology.
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:30 pm Post subject: Fuel
There are areas of NPT that I can "understand" in terms of my being able to see reasons why the general public people might be suspicious; however the fuel argument is one where I cannot even possibly comprehend why ANYONE thinks the fuel explosions are wrong.
The fuel tanks arent going to rupture until they have HIT the building, having HIT they then START burning.
As Chek points out at the speeds encountered the flame front would actually need to be instant.
Fuel doesnt burn instantly; even in a combustion chamber; perfectly atomised and with the perfect ratio of air/fuel. Hence the reason your car has a variable timing ignition system. The fuel in a cars combustion chamber is ignited BEFORE the ideal combustion point to give it time to propgate. This advance increases with engine revolutions. This is called ignition advance; of course if fuel burned instantly then it would render an entire industry defunct tomorrow......the fact it hasnt is rather telling.
Dont make me embarrass NPT again by producing another mathematical proof that NPT is scientific bunkum. Just like I did with the beam stress analysis and plane impacts. Drop it now and save some face.....thats my advice.
Or the facts will make you look very silly indeed if you insist on it; its really up to you.
C. _________________ The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:42 pm Post subject: Re: Fuel
Snowygrouch wrote:
There are areas of NPT that I can "understand" in terms of my being able to see reasons why the general public people might be suspicious; however the fuel argument is one where I cannot even possibly comprehend why ANYONE thinks the fuel explosions are wrong.
The fuel tanks arent going to rupture until they have HIT the building, having HIT they then START burning.
As Chek points out at the speeds encountered the flame front would actually need to be instant.
Fuel doesnt burn instantly; even in a combustion chamber; perfectly atomised and with the perfect ratio of air/fuel. Hence the reason your car has a variable timing ignition system. The fuel in a cars combustion chamber is ignited BEFORE the ideal combustion point to give it time to propgate. This advance increases with engine revolutions. This is called ignition advance; of course if fuel burned instantly then it would render an entire industry defunct tomorrow......the fact it hasnt is rather telling.
Dont make me embarrass NPT again by producing another mathematical proof that NPT is scientific bunkum. Just like I did with the beam stress analysis and plane impacts. Drop it now and save some face.....thats my advice.
Or the facts will make you look very silly indeed if you insist on it; its really up to you.
C.
Ok Snowy - lets have you mathematical equation that explains why the slow motion footage shows the plane entering the building with the freeze frame showing it has completely entered with the entrance wound healed up after it.
No excuses about film quality and no waffle please
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1025 Location: SW London
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:57 pm Post subject:
what do you mean no arguments of film quality. FFS, the quality of the vids on webfairy is atrocious. The compression of the files creats overlay, this has been explained to you before!! _________________ "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King
what do you mean no arguments of film quality. FFS, the quality of the vids on webfairy is atrocious. The compression of the files creats overlay, this has been explained to you before!!
On september 11th 2001 - a beautiful clear day - the best technology money can buy and not one clear image ---tut----tut----tut
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:22 pm Post subject: Re: Fuel
Snowygrouch wrote:
There are areas of NPT that I can "understand" in terms of my being able to see reasons why the general public people might be suspicious; however the fuel argument is one where I cannot even possibly comprehend why ANYONE thinks the fuel explosions are wrong.
The fuel tanks arent going to rupture until they have HIT the building, having HIT they then START burning.
As Chek points out at the speeds encountered the flame front would actually need to be instant.
Fuel doesnt burn instantly; even in a combustion chamber; perfectly atomised and with the perfect ratio of air/fuel. Hence the reason your car has a variable timing ignition system. The fuel in a cars combustion chamber is ignited BEFORE the ideal combustion point to give it time to propgate. This advance increases with engine revolutions. This is called ignition advance; of course if fuel burned instantly then it would render an entire industry defunct tomorrow......the fact it hasnt is rather telling.
Dont make me embarrass NPT again by producing another mathematical proof that NPT is scientific bunkum. Just like I did with the beam stress analysis and plane impacts. Drop it now and save some face.....thats my advice.
Or the facts will make you look very silly indeed if you insist on it; its really up to you.
C.
Ok Snowy - so how does a petrol bomb explodes on impact when it is ignited? Chek is incorrect on this aspect of the analysis - as are you. Your analysis is somewhat deeper, but not correct:
In the controlled environment of an internal combustion engine, the combusion is different - it has to be - else your engine would blow apart. The ratio of fuel vapour to air is fairly tightly controlled, as you alluded to. Spark plugs fire in sequence - the spark causes the combustion (at least in a petrol engine, in a diesel engine the combustion is caused by the rise in temperature of the compressed mixture, due to Boyle's law - PV=RT)
You are therefore comparing controlled combusion (using a distributor and spark plugs) to uncontrolled combustion (explosion) at the point of impact.
The engine scenario bears no comparison to the wings being ruputured at the point of impact. If what you said above was correct, then why did the bomber wing ignite as soon as it hit the ground on the other video I posted?
I would advise you against using words like "silly" - they are emotive and detract from logical analysis, as I have tried to present above.
This is basic science, basic evidence. If you are in a particular mindset (i.e. that the media didn't lie and weren't especially complicit) then an over-complicated answer may not be the correct one. It's the same type of analysis which structural engineers apply in supporting the OCT about the collapse of the WTC - this is very much how I see it as I have mentioned before. _________________ Andrew
TTWSU3 Please explain why the person who made this NPT advertisement claimed that the two clips overlaid in this image are "perfectly aligned".
When in fact, perfect alignment means that both planes are in the same position...
Well, if I may interject here, I wasn't happy with this overlay evidence - it didn't seem conclusive to me - I need to study it more closely really.
I think there is a segment in that clip where the overlay is closer (you seem to have picked out a section where it's not well aligned). But even on the "better" part I find it a little weak.
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:00 am Post subject: Re: Fuel
Snowygrouch wrote:
As Chek points out at the speeds encountered the flame front would actually need to be instant.
Fuel doesnt burn instantly
I'm with you and Chek here, it doesn't burn instantly, and it depends on the fuel. Highly volatile petrol and less volatile kerosene behave very differently.
At a trivial level, I've put white spirit on a 'gone out' bonfire, clearly seen fumes rising from residual heat, tossed in a match (from a decent distance) and witnesed the flames taking a noticeable time (half a sec? maybe more) to start and rise even 5'. Not the 1/50th sec Andrew speculates. And that's just a diddy bonfire where the fumes are well mixed with plenty of air. Inside WTC1+2 would be much less fire-friendly, if that's not insensitive _________________ So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
Joined: 23 Dec 2005 Posts: 500 Location: South London
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:07 am Post subject:
Back to the beginning.
Quote:
An Interview with Gerard Holmgren
by David West, June 27, 2005
DW: Hello Gerard, thank you for agreeing to an email interview.
I know that many people, including myself, have read much information and disinformation about the aircraft/no-aircraft used on 11th September 2001, and it is quite confusing.
You appear to have a clear-cut picture, and are prepared to debate your opinion, so it is very kind of you to provide answers to some simple questions.
Q1. — Is it true that the official account of events on 11th September 2001 claims that four planes crashed, one into the North Tower of the World Trade Centre, one into the South Tower, one into the Pentagon, and one into a field in Pennsylvania?
Yes.
North Tower
Q2. — What was the flight number of the plane which reportedly hit the North Tower?
American Airlines Flight 11 from Logan to LA.
Q3. — What did you discover about flight AA11 regarding which aeroplane was used, and what happened to it? Please give references to your source material.
According to official flight logs, no such flight existed on Sept 11, 2001.
The Bureau of Transportation logs every domestic flight ever scheduled from a US airport, conducted by a carrier accounting for more than 1% of domestic air traffic. All scheduled flights, whether actually completed or not must by law be reported to this database, unless the flight is cancelled more than 7 days prior to the departure date.
1. No such flight was ever scheduled
2. Such a flight was scheduled but was cancelled more than 7 days prior to the departure date.
3. If such a flight was scheduled and not cancelled more than 7 days prior, then the database has been illegally manipulated or tampered with in some way, which of course raises new questions.
In summary, the situation is that *according to official records* no such flight ever took place.
It should be noted that after this information was discovered and published as an article, the BT almost immediately shut down its data base, and when it put it back up it had moved it to a different URL without leaving a forwarding address at the old URL (the one which was given in the published article), strongly indicating consciousness of guilt. Ten months later they doctored the database to try to include the flights, although the doctored data, while now claiming that the flight was scheduled, still has it as never departing.
Thus all the evidence points to options 1 or 2, although option 3 is still a theoretical possibility.
Q4. — Has any aircraft wreckage, or black box been found at the purported crash site?
Nothing which can be identified as from an aircraft.
Q5. — Are there any official records of passengers boarding the flight?
If so, they have never been released. However, many media outlets did publish lists which purported to be official lists, but which were proven on close examination to be fabrications.
So while one can never 100% rule out the theoretical possibility that the flight existed and the theoretical possibility that somewhere there are official passenger lists, the fact that the media published fake lists and passed them off as official, leads any reasonable person to the conclusion that no such official lists exist.
Q6. — Are any recorded passengers known to be missing, or have had death certificates issued?
To my knowledge there is no official documentation, but it's certainly possible that such documentation exists. Through local enquiries I have confirmed from personal contacts that at least one person listed by the media as being on that flight is definitely missing and that his family believes that he was on the flight.
While I have seen little to prove the missing/dead status of those allegedly on the flight, I have also seen nothing to disprove it. There is a hole in that area of my knowledge of the subject.
Q7. — Is there any video or other evidence that a commercial passenger airliner hit the north tower?
No. the video shows clearly that the object was not a large passenger jet, nor a conventional plane of any type.
Exactly what it is, is difficult to tell but it appears to be some kind of highly advanced secret technology.
Q11. — So your research indicates that aeroplane N612UA, which was allocated to flight UA175, which is purported to have hit the South Tower is, according to official FAA records, a valid registration today?
Yes.
Q12. — Is there any aircraft wreckage or video or other evidence that a commercial passenger aircraft hit the south tower?
No wreckage.
The videos which purport to show such a crash have been exposed as fakes.
The live shot (which did not actually show the plane hitting the building, but passing behind it, giving the illusion that it has impacted the hidden face) appears to have been animated in real time with this technology:
Lying with Pixels, by Ivan Imato, MIT's Technology review, July/August 2000.
And the footage shown retrospectively which appeared to show the strike directly has been animated with flight simulator. See the two links above for video analysis.
Pentagon
Q13. — Regarding flight AA77, which purportedly hit the Pentagon, what is known of this aircraft?
The answer is the same as for AA11. Not scheduled according to the BTS records.
So far we appear to have established that no commercial aircraft hit either the North or the South Tower of the World Trade Centre, and that the aircraft which is purported to have hit the Pentagon was not even scheduled to fly.
Q14. — At the scene of the Pentagon incident was there any evidence at all which indicated that a commercial aircraft was involved?
No. In fact the damage to the building shows that its impossible for an aircraft of any significant size to have been involved.
Pennsylvania
Q15. — What information is available regarding flight UA93, which is purported to have crashed in Pennsylvania?
It was flown by tail number N591UA. The plane is still valid in the FAA aircraft registry. The scene where it is alleged to have crashed shows no evidence of any aircraft wreckage.
It therefore appears that considerable evidence exists to demonstrate that none of the four aircraft mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report actually crashed as stated.
Additionally, there appears to be a total lack of evidence to support the Kean Commission's claim.
Q16. Is this summary correct?
Yes.
Q17. Do you have anything further to add, before we offer this interview for debate?
There's plenty more which could be added on the subject of Sept 11 generally.
Comment by Peter Meyer: When Gerard Holmgren first announced his discovery that there was no record in the BTS online database of AA11 and AA77 departing on September 11, 2001, I checked if what he claimed was true, and I found that it was. Accordingly I (as well as Gerard) saved the relevant web pages. They are available for download both from Gerard's website (as stated above) and from this Serendipity website. I discussed this matter in my article Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11 (published March 14, 2005), and I reproduce this section below:
As regards the planes, we must first note that the terms "AA 77", "UA 93", etc., do not denote planes, they denote flights. The statement "AA 77 hit the Pentagon" really means "the plane which departed (assuming it did) from Dulles Airport at 08:10 on 9/11 bound for Los Angeles hit the Pentagon."
The official story posits four planes, associated with four flight numbers, namely, AA 11, AA 77, UA 175 and UA 93. But we have no physical evidence of the existence of any of those four planes. According to the official story, the planes which departed as AA 11 and UA 175 completely disappeared as a result of the collapse of the Twin Towers, the plane which departed as AA 77 completely disappeared when it hit the Pentagon, and the plane which departed as UA 93 completely disappeared when it hit the ground at Shanksville. All four Boeing jets, big 757s and 767s, completely disappeared, with not one single piece of metal which can be proven to have come from any of those planes. Isn't this a bit odd?
So no physical evidence. But how about evidence from records of those flights? Records concerning domestic flights within the US are maintained online by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. When 9/11 researcher Gerard Holmgren checked those records he discovered that flights AA 11 and AA 77 were not scheduled to fly on 9/11. He published his discovery on 2003-11-13 and it was confirmed by others, including the author of this article (who saved the BTS web pages). Late in 2004 as Holmgren reports, BTS doctored their database so that now when one tries to confirm the original observation one reaches a web page (local copy here) stating:
On September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight #11 and #77 and United Airlines #93 and #175 were hijacked by terrorists. Therefore, these flights are not included in the on-time summary statistics.
But there were originally records confirming that UA 93 and UA 175 departed (see the BTS web pages), so apparently these flights did exist. BTS removed those records to conceal the fact that there were never any records for AA 11 and AA 77.
If flights AA 11 and AA 77 never existed, then there are only two planes, not four, to be accounted for. Investigators who have checked the tail numbers for the planes which departed as UA 93 and UA 175 on 9/11 (namely N591UA and N612UA respectively) believe that these planes are still in service. If so, and if AA 11 and AA 77 never existed, then the number of Boeing 757s and 767s destroyed on 9/11 was not four, as the US government maintains, but rather zero.
Note added by Peter Meyer, 2005-06-29:
For those few who need it spelled out, the significance of Gerard Holmgren's discoveries in the BTS database is as follows: The Bush administration declared on 9/11 that the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were hit by Boeing 757 and 767 jetliners which had been hijacked by Arab terrorists. On the basis of this assertion it implemented a (previously-prepared) plan for an attack on Afghanistan (to remove the Taleban and install a US-friendly government in Kabul), and it rushed through (previously-prepared) legislation restricting civil rights to the extent that the US Constitution was violated and every person subject to US jurisdiction became a potential terrorist until proven otherwise.
If Flights AA 11 and AA 77 never flew on the morning of 9/11 then they could not have been hijacked, and so could not have been hijacked by Arab terrorists. If Flight UA 175 was not destroyed on 9/11 then it did not crash into the South Tower and so whatever caused the South Tower explosion was not a jet flying under the control of Arab terrorists — though it may have been a (previously-prepared) napalm-loaded jet flying under remote control.
Thus if the records in the BTS database are to believed (and we have no reason to question the original records) then the claim made by the Bush Administration that 19 Arab terrorists (named within two days by the FBI) hijacked four Boeing jetliners on 9/11 is not only false, it must have been concocted as a deliberate attempt to deceive the people of the United States and the rest of the world, a deception intended to justify the ensuing US wars of aggression. Clearly whoever was responsible for the deception (no doubt the same people responsible for the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks) must be removed from office, indicted, tried, convicted and punished appropriately. This is necessary if the U.S.A. is ever again to recover any degree of respect by the rest of the world.
The only way to identify the perpetrators is a commission of inquiry made up (in contrast to the Kean Commission) of people with experience in forensic investigation who are independent of, and not subject to influence by, those perps. Since 9/11 must have been carried out, at least in part, by elements within the US government, this excludes from service on such a commission anyone in Congress or the Justice Department who cannot prove beforehand that they will look at all the evidence, listen to all arguments, and follow that evidence and argument to wherever it leads, even if it leads to the highest levels of the US government. Until that happens the profound suspicion will remain that the US government is led by psychopathic thugs and murderers.
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:24 am Post subject: Re: Fuel
Ignatz wrote:
At a trivial level, I've put white spirit on a 'gone out' bonfire, clearly seen fumes rising from residual heat, tossed in a match (from a decent distance) and witnesed the flames taking a noticeable time (half a sec? maybe more) to start and rise even 5'. Not the 1/50th sec Andrew speculates. And that's just a diddy bonfire where the fumes are well mixed with plenty of air. Inside WTC1+2 would be much less fire-friendly, if that's not insensitive
You support the OCT - though your last response was polite, please adhere to our requested policy of posting in CC and linking to a non-CC thread or your posts will either be moved or deleted. You are seemingly trying to muddy the discussion for the uninitiated - because you support the OCT and so CD is rejected by you, so this line of discussion must surely also be rejected by you.
[Note to gentle readers - some people here are unwilling to reveal their identity or their real reason for posting here. I'm not unwilling to reveal my identity. Please make sure your "bogometer" is fully operational before reading these anonymous poster's posts, if they won't give clues about themelves and are offended by you asking. This is a campaign based on revealing the truth, not keeping secrets or playing word games or psychological tricks and chicanery.]
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:45 am Post subject: Fuel
Okey dokey,
Give me about a week and I`ll post the calcs. Too buisy with end of term coursework to do it now.
My combustion chamber comparison is actually VERY generously in your favour. Chamber shape has been refined for 100 years to get the fuel to burn as FAST AS POSSIBLE.
Also diesel (and other heavy oil type fuels) burn much slower than petrol does, thats why Diesel engines dont rev as high as petrol ones do. Simply because it runs out of time to burn at a certain number of engine revs.
Hence why you dont see any race diesel engines (apart from in long distance endurace races like Le Mans where the fuel efficiency tips the balance) Anyway I digress.
Basically I`ll try to do some calcs for kerosene burning in open air at atmospheric pressure. Then we'll see what flame front speeds we come up with. Perhaps I`ll be proved wrong? Who knows.......
(doubt it though
Cheerio
C. _________________ The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:19 am Post subject: Re: Fuel
Snowygrouch wrote:
Also diesel (and other heavy oil type fuels) burn much slower than petrol does, thats why Diesel engines dont rev as high as petrol ones do. Simply because it runs out of time to burn at a certain number of engine revs.
C.
Being a non-engineer I always wondered about that.
I've read that diesel was higher in energy than petrol, and that diesel engines ran at a higher compression, so it was hard to see why 'perfomance' was lower. You've explained it. Cheers. _________________ So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:43 am Post subject: Combustion
Off topic now but Diesel fuel contains less energy than petrol. Its just a FAR far more efficient process, the compression ignition cycle gets out alot more of the potential energy than the spark ignition cycle (mostly because of the considerably higher pressures).
Anyway thats not going to solve 9/11 for us so I`ll shut the hell up.
C. _________________ The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:49 am Post subject: Re: Combustion
Snowygrouch wrote:
Off topic now but Diesel fuel contains less energy than petrol. Its just a FAR far more efficient process, the compression ignition cycle gets out alot more of the potential energy than the spark ignition cycle (mostly because of the considerably higher pressures).
C.
Thanks for the info - I only know the principles of operation of the Internal Combustion engine, not all the details.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, my speciality is Software Engineering, but I do remember and understand most of the concepts up to 1st year degree level Physics. _________________ Andrew
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
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
