[$tinkle]

Well for one the air force was ordered to stand down and not send over any jets

why do you keep believing this unprovable lie? seriously. it's unfounded. prove otherwise or stfu about this piffle

As well you are saying that WASHINGTON DC, you know the place were the federal government does not have the technology to spot a low flying passenger plane going strait for the CAPITOL.

are you saying it should be trivial for one or more highjacked aircraft destined to hit any one of nearly 100 gov't bldgs (yes, that's an accurate number) would have its work cut out for it?

Oh and lets not forget all of those images of the radar screens we saw on TV of the planes turning around, the FAA knew right away that those planes were going off course, I find it hard to believe that this the only case in recent history were the FAA did not report something like that happening.

from the 9/11 commission report re: flight 77

At 8:54, the aircraft deviated from its assigned course, turning south. Two minutes later the transponder was turned off and even primary radar contact with the aircraft was lost. The Indianapolis Air Traffic Control Center repeatedly tried and failed to contact the aircraft.

 

[Stray_cat]

this thread needs more barbiturates.

 

[$tinkle]

mmike's u2b contributions are priceless.

sadly, i must spread (someone help a brother out?)

 

[MMike]

mmike's u2b contributions are priceless.

sadly, i must spread (someone help a brother out?)

You just outted yourself....(re: comments from last rep I got from you!)

 

[dan-o]

7 years to determine that FIRE caused the collapse. 7 years to learn that a relatively low temperature fire could cause a symmetrical collapse due to thermal expansion.

That is 7 years that has gone by where a fire in any other large span building could have caused a similar collapse.

Then again, such a collapse has never occurred before, and hasn't happened since...

Did the NYFD even try to fight the WTC7 fire? IIRC, they were too busy dying elsewhere to put up much of a fight. What were they trying to hide.......

 

[ire]

I can confirm that all fighters were not in the air on 9/11, Klamath Falls F15s were on the ground that day....and I saw it with my own eyes. I was working at my Dads aviation department the morning 9/11 hit and I can confirm the chaos with the FAA. When the first plane hit, there was a lot of confusion on what happened and our department (which is a large business aviation department) was getting conflicting reports. We were watching the TV when the second plane hit, and we all knew it wasn't an accident. Not long after that the FAA ordered all planes to the ground...it basically hit the fan at that point. The department has flight tracking software that shows all planes in the air, and it was interesting to see the sky clear out.

 

[3D.]

Our government would never lie to us about the details of such a tragic event… and it would be absolutely impossible for NORAD to be able to track something that took 45 minutes to hit it’s target.

 

[MikeD]

I may not be and expert but I have seen a couple films with experts who are calling it a controlled demo. I know about the the dust blowing out the sides of buildings, but that still doesn't explain how all 3 buildings collapsed at freefall. I also don't see how 2 buildings can fall at strait down into them selfs that have huge holes in 1 side, I may be no expert but i find it hard to believe that a building like that could collapse so perfectly with so much more damage one one side compared to the others

Right, so you don't know a ****ing thing.

You need to look at more of the facts, there was a whole bunch of shiesty ass **** going down that day, explain to me why EVERY SINGLE plane in the air force was out doing a training mission while the attacks happen. The government has previsions set up to take down rouge aircraft that pose a threat, ESPECIALLY in DC there is an airfoce base in incredibly close proximity. In every other case of a plane doing something totally erratic the airforce was sent up to check things out and make sure everything was under control, this would (or should) be especially true in the DC area.


Oh and another thing I find kind of funny is a couple of the so called "high jackers" appeared on al jazeera on multiple occasions.

And when confronted with that cold, hard fact, you change the subject.

 

[bohorec]

Our government would never lie to us about the details of such a tragic event… and it would be absolutely impossible for NORAD to be able to track something that took 45 minutes to hit it’s target.

Right! We all know that Saddam was directly responsible for the 9/11. Further more, the rumour is spreading that Hussein Osama was also behind the plot!

For all tinfoil-hat carrying retards out there: governments chosen by god never lie!

 

[LeKyle]

For all tinfoil-hat carrying retards out there: governments chosen by god never lie!

That is hands-down the most ridiculous, ignorant, blind-sighted statement I've ever read in my life.

And that's saying something.

 

[CRoss]

Conspiracy theorists will never be convinced. No matter whats facts and proof you give them they will not believe it. The government being to blame for this is the only thing they will believe. Therefore the only things they will believe are facts that backup this delusional thinking. It has nothing to do with finding out what happened that morning. All they care about is finding a way to blame the government.

The first rule of investigating something like this is having a blank mind as to what happened. Then let all the facts tell you what happened. If you go in thinking the government is to blame of course you are going to look for the things the government could have done or not done to explain things.

 

[$tinkle]

The first rule of investigating something like this is having a blank mind as to what happened. Then let all the facts tell you what happened. If you go in thinking the government is to blame of course you are going to look for the things the government could have done or not done to explain things.

i anticipate others would view my biggest failing wrt to gov't is that i trust it too much. yes, it's rife w/ corruption & lacking appropriate oversight, but i see it as vacationing in an asian country: your life is safe, but you'll be cleaned out of everything in your pockets.

 

[MTBracer]

Umm, just wondering something here. What would happen if the conspiracy nuts DID find out the gov't did it? I mean, what are they going to do? Would they get some special award? lol...i mean really. What's the point in proving the gov't did do it? just to say you figured it out? i don't get it...

 

[$tinkle]

Umm, just wondering something here. What would happen if the conspiracy nuts DID find out the gov't did it?

field court marshall, & summarily shot in the dense (north)woods from the grassy knoll

 

[MTBracer]

field court marshall, & summarily shot in the dense (north)woods from the grassy knoll

Yeah, i was gonna ask if said person would just mysteriously "disappear" at some point....

 

[CRoss]

Do you realize that if the government was responsible how many people would know and have to keep silent. The chances of keeping that many people quiet are slim.

 

[sanjuro]

Did the NYFD even try to fight the WTC7 fire? IIRC, they were too busy dying elsewhere to put up much of a fight. What were they trying to hide.......

NYFD are part of the conspiracy!

 

[OrthoPT]

Hey, where is Chang? The US government must have gotten him before he came forth with the proof!

 

[rockwool]

This settles it! (NOT!)

Does this report mean that 9/11 no longer is an "open investigation" and that therefore all information is available to the public?

 

[RenegadeRick]

Do you realize that if the government was responsible how many people would know and have to keep silent. The chances of keeping that many people quiet are slim.

Do you realize that this does not constitute evidence in any way? Just because something is improbable, does not make it impossible.

Take for example this one day, the only day in history when a steel framed building collapsed due to fire, except, get this, not only one building collapsed, but three do instead, but the media will only discuss two of them for 7 years until a report surfaces claiming something very ordinary did something really extraordinary, but just on that one day.

That's not evidence either.

 

[RenegadeRick]

... and it would be absolutely impossible for NORAD to be able to track something that took 45 minutes to hit it’s target.

This is also something that is a fact, but is not evidence. Yes, the plane that hit the Pentagon was known hijacked for 40+ minutes and it was not stopped. Yes, that could be simple incompetence. The claims typically are that the right people did not know that this plane was hijacked and that there was a lot of traffic, and that for some reason this plane could not be tracked on radar.

What I don't understand with these explanations is at this point in the timeline, was there still a lot of air traffic? Hadn't the FAA already ordered all planes to land? How many were still airborne? Just curious.

What I really don't get was how even with the transponder turned off, how the plane could not be tracked with radar. It isn't as if a enemy aircraft would use a transponder to help us locate them in an invasion. Sure, it's Sunday morning quarterbacking here, but it seems pretty simple to me. If you have 100 planes in the air and only one has it's transponder turned off, that is the one to check out.

I know it's kinda late in a lengthy post for most of you s to still be paying attention, but what IS evidence in this matter is Norman Mineta's testimony that the plane was being tracked as it approached the Pentagon and his testimony that alludes to a stand down having been ordered, and Cheney's personal knowledge of same. For some reason, this testimony never made it into the 9-11 commission report. Weird.

 

[RenegadeRick]

The first rule of investigating something like this is having a blank mind as to what happened. Then let all the facts tell you what happened. If you go in thinking the government is to blame of course you are going to look for the things the government could have done or not done to explain things.

Exactly. Just like the 9-11 commission did. The 9-11 commission was objective and impartial. They began with no preconceived notion as to what happened.

We know this because the families and the Jersey girls never expressed objections as to who the commission members were. Absolutely nobody resigned from the commission saying that the investigation was a farce. That's just crazy talk to suggest otherwise.

 

[CRoss]

So you truly think the government and Osama collaborated on this?

 

[RenegadeRick]

So you truly think the government and Osama collaborated on this?

Dunno. Osama said he didn't do it. So did the FBI.

 

[CRoss]

The FBI has not said he did not do it. They just do not have the needed evidence to convict him in court.

 

[RenegadeRick]

The FBI has not said he did not do it. They just do not have the needed evidence to convict him in court.

Aren't you getting ahead of things here? Don't they need to indict him first?

So they don't have enough to indict, much less convict, eh? Sure is a good thing that they had enough evidence to start a trillion dollar war and kill thousands of people over it.

While we are at it, isn't it the job of a Jury to decide whether or not to convict? Funk it. Never mind. What difference do these minor judicial process details make anyhow?



Back to the topic at hand. The fearless patriot George Washington has been hard at work covering the latest "science" coming out of NIST.

WTC 7 Solved: It was Ivins!
NIST: "Then a Miracle Occurs" :huh:
Debunking NIST's Conclusions about WTC7

Thankfully, NIST has put forth a recommendation to ensure all of our safety.
Government Urges Return to Stone Age

 

[$tinkle]

...and kill hundreds of thousands of people over it.

stop it.
it's been poo-poohed over & again.

 

[RenegadeRick]

stop it.
it's been poo-poohed over & again.

Edited for your satisfaction.

Now how about addressing any of the numerous points I've made in the last several posts?

How about addressing the evaporated steel found at WTC7?

A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.

Then again, maybe you wouldn't want to do that. After all, isn't it official policy to ignore evidence that fails to support the predefined conclusion?

 

[$tinkle]

so some subset of engineers of the grander set of engineers explained some specific things, but not all. does this mean some things cannot be explained by anything other than what has been not-so-rigorously put forth by conspiracy theorists?

again, the structure offered up by your bolded quote is "absence of evidence is evidence of absence"

 

[ohio]

What I don't understand with these explanations is at this point in the timeline, was there still a lot of air traffic? Hadn't the FAA already ordered all planes to land? How many were still airborne? Just curious.

How many 40 minute flights can you think of? How many runways do you think there are? How easy do you think it is for all the on-hand ATCs to fit those planes into an entirely new landing pattern. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there is no way every in-process flight in the country was on the ground 40 minutes after the orders were given, AND the ATC system was at breaking point just to manage that.

 

[RenegadeRick]

How many 40 minute flights can you think of? How many runways do you think there are? How easy do you think it is for all the on-hand ATCs to fit those planes into an entirely new landing pattern. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there is no way every in-process flight in the country was on the ground 40 minutes after the orders were given, AND the ATC system was at breaking point just to manage that.

You are likely correct. I too doubt that every plane would have been landed. I also doubt it would be easy to identify the planes that they had not had contact with. The system is designed to deal with planes that the controllers are in contact with, not the other way around. Again, this is just a curiosity of mine, not a statement or claim of any kind...I just wondered how difficult was it really. My assumption is that it was incredibly so.

 

[RenegadeRick]

so some subset of engineers of the grander set of engineers explained some specific things, but not all. does this mean some things cannot be explained by anything other than what has been not-so-rigorously put forth by conspiracy theorists?

When you have evidence of melted and evaporated steel in a low temperature fire and an absence of the conditions necessary to produce the same, some explanation is required.

again, the structure offered up by your bolded quote is "absence of evidence is evidence of absence"

And since this question has been posed over and over again and NIST still does not address it, in my opinion it really does appear to be evidence of absence.

 

[stinkyboy]

Yes, the plane that hit the Pentagon was known hijacked for 40+ minutes and it was not stopped. Yes, that could be simple incompetence. The claims typically are that the

 

[$tinkle]

(i can't believe i'm actually putting forth the effort to do this)

as we all know, when steel is below the melting point, it still isn't absolutely rigid. to find "pools" of formerly molten (and now annealed) steel months after the initial fire is not alarming, and certainly isn't indicative of the temperature. also, evaporation was not absolute, but in some portion yet to be disclosed in this thread & some cursory googling, which also concludes nothing (yet).

and what's with all the business trying to compare this fire to conventional ones? i don't see any value in this.

from the journal of colloid & interface science, we see a rather vigorous explation of The Effect of an Alcohol Resistant Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AR-AFFF) on the Evaporation, Boiling, and Collision Dynamics of a Water Droplet on a Heated Solid Surface. i cite this slightly related paper as an example of proper research & experimentation, not as defense.

i have seen only bluster & incomplete conclusions from those who purport to have "debunked NIST". do you have available something else which in excruciating details truly does debunk NIST?

 

[RenegadeRick]

(i can't believe i'm actually putting forth the effort to do this)

Thanks... just so I can cherry pick your post. I appreciate it.

as we all know, when steel is below the melting point, it still isn't absolutely rigid. to find "pools" of formerly molten (and now annealed) steel months after the initial fire is not alarming, and certainly isn't indicative of the temperature. also, evaporation was not absolute, but in some portion yet to be disclosed in this thread & some cursory googling, which also concludes nothing (yet).

Months is a vague term. How many months later? Anyhow....

Molten steel was found in the debris of all three buildings, sometime during the first month after 9-11. Not formerly molten steel. Actual currently molten steel.

Take a look here.

Here is one of the most interesting photos from the article:

The core column shown above the firefighter was discovered after the collapse. The angled cut occurs in exactly the manner that shaped charges slice through steel beams to control the way they fall. Notice the hardened once liquid metal.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Thank you for poisoning the well.

 

[$tinkle]

The core column shown above the firefighter was discovered after the collapse. The angled cut occurs in exactly the manner that shaped charges slice through steel beams to control the way they fall. Notice the hardened once liquid metal.

from globalsecurity.org

Shaped charge is indeed an extraordinary phenomenon that is beyond the scale of normal physics, which explains why its fundamental theoretical mechanism is by no means fully understood.

especially when used to try (unsuccessfully) to attest (vice explain) what formed this angle of the beam. shaped charges are used in very different circumstances, and every instance i've seen has them directed in exactly one vector, not 4 segments of competing vectors. do that make sense?

 

[RenegadeRick]

f...every instance i've seen has them directed in exactly one vector, not 4 segments of competing vectors. do that make sense?

nope. I see only one angle (vector) in that photo.

more importantly, I see hardened previously molten steel dripping from what appears to be a cut.
Probably 'shopped.

 

[jimmydean]

Can't you take this topic to paranoidmonkey.com?

 

[$tinkle]

Can't you take this topic to paranoidmonkey.com?

that's a web surfing anonymizer, not a truth detector

RR: it looks like you & i differ fundamentally on the interpretation of the construction, use, & effectiveness of shaped charges.