Reader comments
Tad Walch: 9/11 theorist not curtailing his research
419 comments | Read story
Dr. Doom | 7:57 p.m. May 5, 2008
Logician, you asked about the picture of Edna Cintron. What is the time stamp
on those photos? (hint, see the NIST report) what time did the fires reach that
part of the building? (hint, see the NIST report) What time did the building
actually collapse? (hint, see the NIST report)
Dr. Doom | 8:02 p.m. May 5, 2008
No to Tyranny wrote: - - -"Furthermore, the city of NY passed new building
laws and codes, one of which required the asbestos removal from the Towers,
which was going to cost more than the buildings were worth."- - - -
You know that you are insane if you believe that, don't you?
There is no law that requires abatement just for the sake of abatement.
Do you even know where the asbestos was? It was only in the building is very specific locations.
Even if an asbestos removal project cost as much as 50 million dollars, the buildings were worth billions.
You know that you are insane if you believe that, don't you?
There is no law that requires abatement just for the sake of abatement.
Do you even know where the asbestos was? It was only in the building is very specific locations.
Even if an asbestos removal project cost as much as 50 million dollars, the buildings were worth billions.
Logician | 8:22 p.m. May 5, 2008
Dr. Doom, I am well aware of the contents of an office. During my long lifetime,
I have created much of it. I am also aware that such materials will never burn
at steel melting temperatures. They would find it stifling to burn whilst
covered by huge amounts of pulverized concrete, denying oxygen.
Thermite burns without need of added oxygen. You must better explain those elevated temperatures over such a long time.
Thermite burns without need of added oxygen. You must better explain those elevated temperatures over such a long time.
Comments continue below
Logician | 8:33 p.m. May 5, 2008
Dr. Doom, those people were standing in the gaps made by the intruding planes.
The fires began at those levels, due to burning kerosene. Those people survived
during those fires. They managed to reach those gaps long after those fires.
They didn't appear burnt. How did they survive those fires? There was
obviously sufficient oxygen for their survival.
We see those unfortunate people with our own eyes, so why your 'red herrings'?
We see those unfortunate people with our own eyes, so why your 'red herrings'?
Shame Shame Shame | 8:59 p.m. May 5, 2008
Shame to Dr Doom and all the others on here knowingly spreading disinfo to
protect the true killers. How does it feel, to be evil? Is it a kick? Is the pay
good?
Falco98 | 8:58 p.m. May 5, 2008
Tony Szamboti wrote:
"The 12 floors above the 98th floor collapse initiation in WTC1 weighed 69 million pounds and the cross section of each column at that level was 15.6 sq. inches. Divide 69 million by 72 and you get 958,333 pounds on each column which gives a stress of 61,432 psi. This is less than the yield stress on the column and the effective length of these columns would not allow buckling below yield."
Excellent job of proving that the buildings did not collapse from the airplane impact alone. Funny thing is, we all knew this already because we saw it on TV. What we also know is that the sagging floor trusses weakened by the sustained office-debris fires in the buildings pulled the supports inwards, thus facilitating the global collapse you seem to think didn't happen.
"The 12 floors above the 98th floor collapse initiation in WTC1 weighed 69 million pounds and the cross section of each column at that level was 15.6 sq. inches. Divide 69 million by 72 and you get 958,333 pounds on each column which gives a stress of 61,432 psi. This is less than the yield stress on the column and the effective length of these columns would not allow buckling below yield."
Excellent job of proving that the buildings did not collapse from the airplane impact alone. Funny thing is, we all knew this already because we saw it on TV. What we also know is that the sagging floor trusses weakened by the sustained office-debris fires in the buildings pulled the supports inwards, thus facilitating the global collapse you seem to think didn't happen.
Falco98 | 9:03 p.m. May 5, 2008
"Logician" wrote:
"Bush sat motionless, for another 20 minutes. His minders remained in another room, obviously not at all concerned for his safety. Simply because they all knew the plan, which did NOT include a plane crashing into that school."
Yes, because otherwise it is clear that the plan would have been to crash 2 planes into the WTC towers, 2 of the most easily recognizable landmarks in the country, one into the Pentagon, one of the largest buildings constructed by man and the heart of military command in the nation's capitol, and one final plane into... some un-named elementary school in *florida*, as elementary schools are notorious for being huge in size and easy to locate by sight from the air by amateur pilots.
brilliant.
"Bush sat motionless, for another 20 minutes. His minders remained in another room, obviously not at all concerned for his safety. Simply because they all knew the plan, which did NOT include a plane crashing into that school."
Yes, because otherwise it is clear that the plan would have been to crash 2 planes into the WTC towers, 2 of the most easily recognizable landmarks in the country, one into the Pentagon, one of the largest buildings constructed by man and the heart of military command in the nation's capitol, and one final plane into... some un-named elementary school in *florida*, as elementary schools are notorious for being huge in size and easy to locate by sight from the air by amateur pilots.
brilliant.
AAron H. | 9:17 p.m. May 5, 2008
>>In fact, the fires reached only 1,000 degrees >>Celsius. Steel
melts at 1,500 degrees Celsius.
Wow... what a blatant example of bias and dishonesty. Steel loses 90% of its structural strength at 1000C. Yet Jones is leading us to think that NIST claims that it has to have melted in order to induce collapse. Why does a physics professor seem so reluctant to tell the WHOLE TRUTH about the physical properties of steel? Do we need to waterboard him to get it out of him?
I have no idea how "Brother" Jones manages to keep his temple reccomend.
Wow... what a blatant example of bias and dishonesty. Steel loses 90% of its structural strength at 1000C. Yet Jones is leading us to think that NIST claims that it has to have melted in order to induce collapse. Why does a physics professor seem so reluctant to tell the WHOLE TRUTH about the physical properties of steel? Do we need to waterboard him to get it out of him?
I have no idea how "Brother" Jones manages to keep his temple reccomend.
Alan Williams | 9:23 p.m. May 5, 2008
Still waiting for your answer to my question on page 4, Mr. Jones.
Thanks
Thanks
Emily | 10:02 p.m. May 5, 2008
The thing that strikes me, reading through these comments, is how mean, nasty
and childish some people are. Especially, the people who are afraid of Dr.
Jones' research.
What are they afraid of? Why are they so rude? After 8 years of lies from the Bush admin, is it really so outrageous to suggest that they lied about this too?
These defenders of the government story seem to think that they can kill a message just by attacking the messengers.
What are they afraid of? Why are they so rude? After 8 years of lies from the Bush admin, is it really so outrageous to suggest that they lied about this too?
These defenders of the government story seem to think that they can kill a message just by attacking the messengers.
Erik Howard | 10:26 p.m. May 5, 2008
Alan,
While I do not speak for Dr. Jones, I have come to respect his message. He makes very valid points. My I respectfuly suggest that you scruitinize the NIST reports and FAQs as you scruitinize Dr. Jones and you will begin to see where he is coming from.
While I do not speak for Dr. Jones, I have come to respect his message. He makes very valid points. My I respectfuly suggest that you scruitinize the NIST reports and FAQs as you scruitinize Dr. Jones and you will begin to see where he is coming from.
Howtex | 10:37 p.m. May 5, 2008
AAron H.,
I think you have overlooked the evidence of molten steel after the collapse. The NIST report does not offer any explaination for how this could have occured if their maximum temperature theory is correct.
You comment about "Brother" Jones is classless.
I think you have overlooked the evidence of molten steel after the collapse. The NIST report does not offer any explaination for how this could have occured if their maximum temperature theory is correct.
You comment about "Brother" Jones is classless.
Sitting-Bull | 10:58 p.m. May 5, 2008
Even if a fire reach 1000� C for peak temperature for a
short time, that does not mean that steel will get that hot, too. This
inflicting of temperatures is an insult, too.
Despite the fact that NIST claims that the steel was nowhere hotter than 600� C in their own tests, and the real WTC steel examinated colour fragments shown only 250�C peak temperature, the steel DID melt.
There are photos and videos of it, and the FEMA did a horrendous job in examining that molten metall, molten steel, in their Appendix C, "Limited Metallurgical Examinations". The NYT called the sulphur in the eutectic mixtures the perhaps greatest mystery.
And please look at the circumstances: First it was part of the official theory that the steel was molten. Than it was not, this claim rejected, but in fact it was indeed. Such behaviour is typically to confuse, to create "fog of war", as W said.
Despite the fact that NIST claims that the steel was nowhere hotter than 600� C in their own tests, and the real WTC steel examinated colour fragments shown only 250�C peak temperature, the steel DID melt.
There are photos and videos of it, and the FEMA did a horrendous job in examining that molten metall, molten steel, in their Appendix C, "Limited Metallurgical Examinations". The NYT called the sulphur in the eutectic mixtures the perhaps greatest mystery.
And please look at the circumstances: First it was part of the official theory that the steel was molten. Than it was not, this claim rejected, but in fact it was indeed. Such behaviour is typically to confuse, to create "fog of war", as W said.
Logician | 12:35 a.m. May 6, 2008
Falco98, are you deliberately stupid?
Had you been President of USA, sitting in that chair, what would you have done when aide Card whispered in your ear that a second plane had struck the second WTC Tower?
Would you have sprung to your feet, realizing a war had been declared and begun doing what a President is supposed to do ... take command and begin issuing instructions to counter the intruders?
An order to instantly revoke the strangely timed air defense surveillance stand down would have been an obvious start.
Or would you have sat motionless for 20 minutes listening to children reading about goats?
His total lack of response, coupled with Cheney's act of tyranny in the White House Bunker tells me all I need to know. I have held this view for the same reasons for 7 years.
What about the infamous 5 cheering Israeli spies waiting for the disaster right on time with video camera at the ready. Why are details of their several weeks of questioning to be classified for the rest of time?
Why is there never to be release of many videos from cameras looking outward from the Pentagon?
Hiding what? Think man, think.
Had you been President of USA, sitting in that chair, what would you have done when aide Card whispered in your ear that a second plane had struck the second WTC Tower?
Would you have sprung to your feet, realizing a war had been declared and begun doing what a President is supposed to do ... take command and begin issuing instructions to counter the intruders?
An order to instantly revoke the strangely timed air defense surveillance stand down would have been an obvious start.
Or would you have sat motionless for 20 minutes listening to children reading about goats?
His total lack of response, coupled with Cheney's act of tyranny in the White House Bunker tells me all I need to know. I have held this view for the same reasons for 7 years.
What about the infamous 5 cheering Israeli spies waiting for the disaster right on time with video camera at the ready. Why are details of their several weeks of questioning to be classified for the rest of time?
Why is there never to be release of many videos from cameras looking outward from the Pentagon?
Hiding what? Think man, think.
Phil | 1:14 a.m. May 6, 2008
This was a great article. Just look at the evidence Dr. Jones is presenting. If
we are to live in a nation with any real justice, this evidence (and the
collapse of building 7 alone) demands that more questions be answered.
Alan Williams | 1:32 a.m. May 6, 2008
"While I do not speak for Dr. Jones, I have come to respect his message. He
makes very valid points. My I respectfuly suggest that you scruitinize the NIST
reports and FAQs as you scruitinize Dr. Jones and you will begin to see where he
is coming from." -- Erik Howard
Thanks, but yes, I have Erik. I think I know where Jones is coming from, but I really need to hear from him regarding my question on page 4.
Please Mr. Jones??? It seems that you're reading these comments.
Thanks
Thanks, but yes, I have Erik. I think I know where Jones is coming from, but I really need to hear from him regarding my question on page 4.
Please Mr. Jones??? It seems that you're reading these comments.
Thanks
Dr. Doom | 4:01 a.m. May 6, 2008
Logician ---"Dr. Doom, I am well aware of the contents of an office. During
my long lifetime, I have created much of it. I am also aware that such materials
will never burn at steel melting temperatures. They would find it stifling to
burn whilst covered by huge amounts of pulverized concrete, denying
oxygen"___
pound for pound, wood, paper and plastic have just as much caloric value when burned as does coal. Underground coal fires burn very hot with even less oxygen than was under the WTC rubble pile.
pound for pound, wood, paper and plastic have just as much caloric value when burned as does coal. Underground coal fires burn very hot with even less oxygen than was under the WTC rubble pile.
Dr. Doom | 4:21 a.m. May 6, 2008
Logician. That photograph is indicative of the sociopathic outlook that
truthers bring to the table. Normal people look at that photograph and see a
fragile woman desperately clinging to the last moments of life in a living hell.
There was no going back into the building to look for an exit out. Truthers
see that photograph as an opportunity to play amateur investigator and to
further their lies.
To begin with the time stamps on those photos show that the latest one was taken around 9:40 or so. Later photographs of the same location show it completely obscured by smoke and fire. WTC 1 did not collapse until 10:28. Edna Cintron�s husband (yes, she had a family you insensitive jerks) stated that he recognized her in the photograph and that he also recognized her in one of the photos of people jumping to their deaths.
To begin with the time stamps on those photos show that the latest one was taken around 9:40 or so. Later photographs of the same location show it completely obscured by smoke and fire. WTC 1 did not collapse until 10:28. Edna Cintron�s husband (yes, she had a family you insensitive jerks) stated that he recognized her in the photograph and that he also recognized her in one of the photos of people jumping to their deaths.
Dr. Doom | 4:27 a.m. May 6, 2008
Sitting bull, you made a comment earlier that there was some sort of "fake
maintenance" work that lead to explosives being planted in the building
cores. Twice I asked you to elaborate on this.
You have failed to do so. Why?
How was it done?
How was the "work" coordinated so thatt he real maintenance workers in the building did not get suspicious? How was the "work" conducted under the noses of the building construction manager, Frank DeMartini, with out him noticing? Please elaborate with details. Thank you
You have failed to do so. Why?
How was it done?
How was the "work" coordinated so thatt he real maintenance workers in the building did not get suspicious? How was the "work" conducted under the noses of the building construction manager, Frank DeMartini, with out him noticing? Please elaborate with details. Thank you
goanna | 5:01 a.m. May 6, 2008
Looking from Australia.
Allright allright, someone from Herr Chertoff's office must be looking at all this.
For God's sake will Chertoff arrange for all the security videos of the Pentagon attack to be released.
Will he arrange for the foi applications before your courts seeking the identified parts of all aircraft involved be allowed.
So that we of the world might be able to pass on to other matters.
I have 130 words left per the Desert News comments rules.
Now I have 118, I need three days before a war Crimes Tribunal to present the material, go do your research and do not forget Mineta, Put options, stand downs and all the PNAC documents together with General Wesley Clarke's interviews; "7 countries in five years ending with Iraq", Grow up America you are a rogue iternational state and Jones and the rest are trying to bring you back into the international brotherhood before you, as a country are outlawed, You cannot 'shock and awe' the whole world, you are becoming a pussy cat. I have some words left, I say again US citizens, do your research 911, was a 'compartmentalised' inside job.
See: The 'Thomas Cr affair video'.
Allright allright, someone from Herr Chertoff's office must be looking at all this.
For God's sake will Chertoff arrange for all the security videos of the Pentagon attack to be released.
Will he arrange for the foi applications before your courts seeking the identified parts of all aircraft involved be allowed.
So that we of the world might be able to pass on to other matters.
I have 130 words left per the Desert News comments rules.
Now I have 118, I need three days before a war Crimes Tribunal to present the material, go do your research and do not forget Mineta, Put options, stand downs and all the PNAC documents together with General Wesley Clarke's interviews; "7 countries in five years ending with Iraq", Grow up America you are a rogue iternational state and Jones and the rest are trying to bring you back into the international brotherhood before you, as a country are outlawed, You cannot 'shock and awe' the whole world, you are becoming a pussy cat. I have some words left, I say again US citizens, do your research 911, was a 'compartmentalised' inside job.
See: The 'Thomas Cr affair video'.
Dr. Doom | 5:56 a.m. May 6, 2008
To Sitting Bull: Please google up and read the following paper:
SC_Baltimore.pdf
It's not very long or terribly technical.
Have you seen this before?
What do you think of the information in this paper?
SC_Baltimore.pdf
It's not very long or terribly technical.
Have you seen this before?
What do you think of the information in this paper?
Chris | 6:13 a.m. May 6, 2008
I just wish to add something about 911. To me the ultimate proof of inside job
is actually found at "gound zero" itself. There were some photos
showing some steel pillars sprouting out of the debris. They were mostly all
cut at 45% angles, proving that steel cannot melt with that shape, and
furthermore it is the hallmark of the way demolition experts place thier
detonators.
Now chemistry, and metalurgical experts, cannot explain those sharp edges. Construction never uses these shapes either, not at least foundation steel pillars. Amen.
Now chemistry, and metalurgical experts, cannot explain those sharp edges. Construction never uses these shapes either, not at least foundation steel pillars. Amen.
Not Afraid | 8:18 a.m. May 6, 2008
Let Dr. Jones investigate the collapse of the twin towers.
People with no preconceived conclusions are not "afraid" of what Dr. Jones might discover, they just see his studies as a sad waste of time and resources that could be spent on something more productive.
People with a political ax to grind will carry on trying to prove the unprovable, that a vast conspiracy that never did exist is responsible for the destruction of the WTC towers.
Instead of producing actual proof, they will be forced to rely on innuendo, half-truths and events that nobody can explain as "proof" of their preconceived conspiracies.
People with common sense will simply accept the fact that jumbo jets piloted by terrorists crashed into the twin towers and the resulting damage eventually destroyed the towers.
Conspirarists will never be disuaded from believing in their conspiracies. None of their scientific studies will ever actually prove anything, but their studies will leave enough unnanswered questions to "prove" that their unproven theories are correct.
People with no preconceived conclusions are not "afraid" of what Dr. Jones might discover, they just see his studies as a sad waste of time and resources that could be spent on something more productive.
People with a political ax to grind will carry on trying to prove the unprovable, that a vast conspiracy that never did exist is responsible for the destruction of the WTC towers.
Instead of producing actual proof, they will be forced to rely on innuendo, half-truths and events that nobody can explain as "proof" of their preconceived conspiracies.
People with common sense will simply accept the fact that jumbo jets piloted by terrorists crashed into the twin towers and the resulting damage eventually destroyed the towers.
Conspirarists will never be disuaded from believing in their conspiracies. None of their scientific studies will ever actually prove anything, but their studies will leave enough unnanswered questions to "prove" that their unproven theories are correct.
G | 9:35 a.m. May 6, 2008
How did all three WTC towers supposedly get planted with that much explosive
while thousands of people worked in them daily and nobody noticed? Controlled
demolition takes weeks of preparation, only a few companies have the expertise
to do it.
I'm going to go with Occam's Razor on this one: twenty-something terrorists with boxcutters.
I'm going to go with Occam's Razor on this one: twenty-something terrorists with boxcutters.
Erik Howard | 9:39 a.m. May 6, 2008
Alan,
First, let me thank you for not raking me over the coals for all the misspellings in my previous post.
Second, if I understand your concern you are stating that Dr. Jones deliberately left out part of the NIST answer to make it look like they were admitting to free fall collapse of the entire building. Alan I do not think you see where Dr. Jones is coming from on this. You are squinting at the mote (if there is one) in Jones� paper and neglecting the beam (there is one) in the NIST report.
See next comment for concluding remarks.......
First, let me thank you for not raking me over the coals for all the misspellings in my previous post.
Second, if I understand your concern you are stating that Dr. Jones deliberately left out part of the NIST answer to make it look like they were admitting to free fall collapse of the entire building. Alan I do not think you see where Dr. Jones is coming from on this. You are squinting at the mote (if there is one) in Jones� paper and neglecting the beam (there is one) in the NIST report.
See next comment for concluding remarks.......
Falco98 | 9:55 a.m. May 6, 2008
Chris wrote:
"To me the ultimate proof of inside job is actually found at "gound zero" itself. There were some photos showing some steel pillars sprouting out of the debris. They were mostly all cut at 45% angles, proving that steel cannot melt with that shape, and furthermore it is the hallmark of the way demolition experts place thier detonators."
I guess you missed the fact that these cuts were made by construction workers during cleanup, with torches. Detonators placed by demolitions crews do not, and can not, make this kind of shape. Neither can "thermate", which is not used nor usable in demolitions explosives. Pay more attention next time, eh?
"To me the ultimate proof of inside job is actually found at "gound zero" itself. There were some photos showing some steel pillars sprouting out of the debris. They were mostly all cut at 45% angles, proving that steel cannot melt with that shape, and furthermore it is the hallmark of the way demolition experts place thier detonators."
I guess you missed the fact that these cuts were made by construction workers during cleanup, with torches. Detonators placed by demolitions crews do not, and can not, make this kind of shape. Neither can "thermate", which is not used nor usable in demolitions explosives. Pay more attention next time, eh?
Falco98 | 10:00 a.m. May 6, 2008
"Logician" wrote:
"Had you been President of USA, sitting in that chair, what would you have done when aide Card whispered in your ear that a second plane had struck the second WTC Tower?"
I'm not terribly sure -- but leaping up and rushing out and getting on the road (where I'd be an obvious target in a travelling motorcade, etc) would probably not be the best idea until the situation could be assessed by my security staff. Also we must remember that even when the 2nd plane struck, we weren't completely sure it was a terrorist attack yet. Bush was taking orders more from his security staff at that point, it's kindof irrelevant. But even if you think he should have acted differently, it's idiocy to think it's indicative of some sort of conspiracy.
"Why is there never to be release of many videos from cameras looking outward from the Pentagon?"
Because they don't show anything. Duh. Several have been released already, and they show nothing / barely anything, simply because of line-of-sight and because of poor quality and low framerates. Why does it matter? Over a hundred eyewitnesses detail seeing the plane fly into the building.
"Had you been President of USA, sitting in that chair, what would you have done when aide Card whispered in your ear that a second plane had struck the second WTC Tower?"
I'm not terribly sure -- but leaping up and rushing out and getting on the road (where I'd be an obvious target in a travelling motorcade, etc) would probably not be the best idea until the situation could be assessed by my security staff. Also we must remember that even when the 2nd plane struck, we weren't completely sure it was a terrorist attack yet. Bush was taking orders more from his security staff at that point, it's kindof irrelevant. But even if you think he should have acted differently, it's idiocy to think it's indicative of some sort of conspiracy.
"Why is there never to be release of many videos from cameras looking outward from the Pentagon?"
Because they don't show anything. Duh. Several have been released already, and they show nothing / barely anything, simply because of line-of-sight and because of poor quality and low framerates. Why does it matter? Over a hundred eyewitnesses detail seeing the plane fly into the building.
Howtex | 10:07 a.m. May 6, 2008
Not Afraid,
Your "no preconceived conclusions" seem to have some definite preconceived conclusions. "unprovable","conspiracy that never did exist", "none of their scientific studies will ever actually prove anything"......LOL. It is the arguments (such as yours) from the official story that have convinced me something is afoot. You are talking circles around yourself and bending over backwards so you do not see the obvious in front of your face. Good luck.
Your "no preconceived conclusions" seem to have some definite preconceived conclusions. "unprovable","conspiracy that never did exist", "none of their scientific studies will ever actually prove anything"......LOL. It is the arguments (such as yours) from the official story that have convinced me something is afoot. You are talking circles around yourself and bending over backwards so you do not see the obvious in front of your face. Good luck.
Falco98 | 10:07 a.m. May 6, 2008
Howtex wrote:
"I think you have overlooked the evidence of molten steel after the collapse. The NIST report does not offer any explaination for how this could have occured if their maximum temperature theory is correct."
The problem is, the NIST reports are correct while the "molten steel" reports are fictitious. The whole "molten steel weeks afterwards" thing is ridiculous for several reasons -- First and most importantly, it no more indicates use of explosives or "thermate" than progressive collapse due to fire. Secondly, the only "evidence" for the molten metal stories are a collection of different accounts of different things having nothing to do with each other.
For example, workers reported fires burned in the rubble for some time afterwards ("fire" is not "molten steel"). Cleanup crews observed twisted pieces of steel wreckage that were almost red-hot ("almost red-hot" is not "molten"). And then they start talking about the mysterious "molten metal" streaming from the side of the building before collapse -- perhaps aircraft aluminum or various pieces of office debris, which can have a much lower melting point.
"I think you have overlooked the evidence of molten steel after the collapse. The NIST report does not offer any explaination for how this could have occured if their maximum temperature theory is correct."
The problem is, the NIST reports are correct while the "molten steel" reports are fictitious. The whole "molten steel weeks afterwards" thing is ridiculous for several reasons -- First and most importantly, it no more indicates use of explosives or "thermate" than progressive collapse due to fire. Secondly, the only "evidence" for the molten metal stories are a collection of different accounts of different things having nothing to do with each other.
For example, workers reported fires burned in the rubble for some time afterwards ("fire" is not "molten steel"). Cleanup crews observed twisted pieces of steel wreckage that were almost red-hot ("almost red-hot" is not "molten"). And then they start talking about the mysterious "molten metal" streaming from the side of the building before collapse -- perhaps aircraft aluminum or various pieces of office debris, which can have a much lower melting point.
Sitting-Bull | 11:20 a.m. May 6, 2008
>You have failed to do so. Why?
How was it done? <
I like real debates, even hard ones, however, I won't dance to the pipes of shills who are not interested in debate rather then insulting others. So I won't be your puppet on a stage that you set.
But: I already adressed one mind boggling issue that was never touched: the story of Sakher Hammad (google it!) and "Magic Heating and Plumbing" and "Denko Inc" in regards to the work on the sprinklers using most prob false basement level entry ID cards. Besides that I have another example:
NIST claimed (NCSTAR1-6a, table 4.2 page 97) that there was no asbestos removal work in 2000 and 2001, however, WTC janitor hero Will Rodriguez stated back in 2004:
"ask the people from the asbestos removal business... because it was going on constantly...�
Maybe, as you mentioned Frank DeMartini (RIP!) who never overlooked security issues, we should rather hear to what Doug Karpiloff and John O'Neill had to say. Especially Karpiloff was sure that you can't get a building like the WTC 100% secure. Especially not with Saudi-Securacom breaching security.
How was it done? <
I like real debates, even hard ones, however, I won't dance to the pipes of shills who are not interested in debate rather then insulting others. So I won't be your puppet on a stage that you set.
But: I already adressed one mind boggling issue that was never touched: the story of Sakher Hammad (google it!) and "Magic Heating and Plumbing" and "Denko Inc" in regards to the work on the sprinklers using most prob false basement level entry ID cards. Besides that I have another example:
NIST claimed (NCSTAR1-6a, table 4.2 page 97) that there was no asbestos removal work in 2000 and 2001, however, WTC janitor hero Will Rodriguez stated back in 2004:
"ask the people from the asbestos removal business... because it was going on constantly...�
Maybe, as you mentioned Frank DeMartini (RIP!) who never overlooked security issues, we should rather hear to what Doug Karpiloff and John O'Neill had to say. Especially Karpiloff was sure that you can't get a building like the WTC 100% secure. Especially not with Saudi-Securacom breaching security.
Sitting-Bull | 11:43 a.m. May 6, 2008
>Controlled demolition takes weeks of preparation, only a few companies have
the expertise to do it. <
There are several reasons why it takes so long, e.g. measuring the explosives need to work regarding the infractructure (means studiyng plans, buildings-quirks, weak points to assess), reducing costs, drill many holes to keep the explosive pressure low (just slightly enough to destroy the infrastructure to get the gravity the work done), security reasons (prevent flying debris). None of this may have applied to the WTC demolition, where someone could just set the double or treble amount of explosives originally needed near the core columns. (the red-silver-chips look like a rest of some kind of explosive-nanothermate-paint to me, but that's only my hypothesis)
And regarding the claim that only a handful of companies can do such work: Should we believe that someone in the military or some kind of rogue intelligence squadron couldn't?
This is ludicrous, especially as there is a long history of "strange circumstances" regarging the use of explosives in terror attacks in the US. Try "Emad Salem", "Robert Louis Harding" or "Frederic Whitehurst". Everyone of them had interesting details to provide.
There are several reasons why it takes so long, e.g. measuring the explosives need to work regarding the infractructure (means studiyng plans, buildings-quirks, weak points to assess), reducing costs, drill many holes to keep the explosive pressure low (just slightly enough to destroy the infrastructure to get the gravity the work done), security reasons (prevent flying debris). None of this may have applied to the WTC demolition, where someone could just set the double or treble amount of explosives originally needed near the core columns. (the red-silver-chips look like a rest of some kind of explosive-nanothermate-paint to me, but that's only my hypothesis)
And regarding the claim that only a handful of companies can do such work: Should we believe that someone in the military or some kind of rogue intelligence squadron couldn't?
This is ludicrous, especially as there is a long history of "strange circumstances" regarging the use of explosives in terror attacks in the US. Try "Emad Salem", "Robert Louis Harding" or "Frederic Whitehurst". Everyone of them had interesting details to provide.
Howtex | 11:52 a.m. May 6, 2008
Falco98 wrote:
"while the "molten steel" reports are fictitious"
Falco98,
This is too easy. Please read question 13 on NIST's FAQ. It states:
"The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing".
Talk about a narrow view for a scientific investigation....... Not to mention the molten steel reports are not "fictitious"
"while the "molten steel" reports are fictitious"
Falco98,
This is too easy. Please read question 13 on NIST's FAQ. It states:
"The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing".
Talk about a narrow view for a scientific investigation....... Not to mention the molten steel reports are not "fictitious"
Reaper | 12:48 p.m. May 6, 2008
Ashame we here in Utah have a great american hero, and he is ridiculed by the
ignorant.
Whant an opinion? Try an educated one! Look at both sides! Only a fool would believe the official fairy tale. Thank you for your dedication Dr. Jones.
Whant an opinion? Try an educated one! Look at both sides! Only a fool would believe the official fairy tale. Thank you for your dedication Dr. Jones.
Reaper | 12:56 p.m. May 6, 2008
It's easy to see why Utah is the fraud capitol of the United States.
With all the justifiable unanswered questions, and experts in the truth movement i will point you to the one video for the simple minded.
google Richard Gage how the towers fell.
With all the justifiable unanswered questions, and experts in the truth movement i will point you to the one video for the simple minded.
google Richard Gage how the towers fell.
Falco98 | 1:29 p.m. May 6, 2008
Howtex wrote:
"This is too easy. Please read question 13 on NIST's FAQ."
The NIST FAQ is referring to conspiracy theories and their claims of "molten pools of steel" - it dismisses this claim by reminding us (correctly) that whether or not there was "molten steel" afterwards is not indicative of controlled demolition any more than progressive collapse.
The problem is, the "molten steel" stories are still fictitious. Go look it up on 911myths or debunking911, they have numerous detailed explanations of the stories, with pictures, quotes, and so on. You won't convince me here that the so-called "molten steel pools" really existed -- i already know they're just myths -- it's you who needs to catch up a bit with their research.
"This is too easy. Please read question 13 on NIST's FAQ."
The NIST FAQ is referring to conspiracy theories and their claims of "molten pools of steel" - it dismisses this claim by reminding us (correctly) that whether or not there was "molten steel" afterwards is not indicative of controlled demolition any more than progressive collapse.
The problem is, the "molten steel" stories are still fictitious. Go look it up on 911myths or debunking911, they have numerous detailed explanations of the stories, with pictures, quotes, and so on. You won't convince me here that the so-called "molten steel pools" really existed -- i already know they're just myths -- it's you who needs to catch up a bit with their research.
Alan Williams | 1:30 p.m. May 6, 2008
Erik,
I'm concerned about a pattern of deception within Jones' work in general. The failure to include the key part of NIST's answer on free-fall in this supposedly peer-reviewed paper is only one of many attempts to mask or massage the reality of the situation.
In the first drafts of his previous paper, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?", he deliberately left out the part of fire engineer William Manning's testimony that made it clear that Manning was concerned about LACK OF FIREPROOFING ON THE TRUSSES BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FAILURE, and certainly not set bombs. He didn't even use the necessary punctuation to properly identify there being a missing sentence. Only later did he put in some .....s, and it took him still longer to add a disclaimer admitting that Manning "does not mention the controlled-demolition hypothesis". He's fine cherry-picking testimony and reports to make them appear to conform with his "theory". Just leave out the inconvenient parts. That's hardly good science.
He also apparently altered color on, and definitely mischaracterized photos in that same "report".
I'm concerned about a pattern of deception within Jones' work in general. The failure to include the key part of NIST's answer on free-fall in this supposedly peer-reviewed paper is only one of many attempts to mask or massage the reality of the situation.
In the first drafts of his previous paper, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?", he deliberately left out the part of fire engineer William Manning's testimony that made it clear that Manning was concerned about LACK OF FIREPROOFING ON THE TRUSSES BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FAILURE, and certainly not set bombs. He didn't even use the necessary punctuation to properly identify there being a missing sentence. Only later did he put in some .....s, and it took him still longer to add a disclaimer admitting that Manning "does not mention the controlled-demolition hypothesis". He's fine cherry-picking testimony and reports to make them appear to conform with his "theory". Just leave out the inconvenient parts. That's hardly good science.
He also apparently altered color on, and definitely mischaracterized photos in that same "report".
Dr. Doom | 1:37 p.m. May 6, 2008
So, sitting bull, are you saying that one person planted "the
thermite?"
As for the asbestos abatement, are you saying that there was fake asbestos work?
How was that done?
Most building owners have all sorts of consultants, air monitoring companies, engineers, etc reviewing abatemnt plans and work to be sure that there are no contamination issues in the rest of the building as a result of the work.
Abatement projects are closely monitored by the city and state.there are all sorts of notifications and licensing issues involving lots of people from the workers to the building engineers, tenants, and others.
People arn't as stupid as you believe them to be. Someone would have noticed that no asbestos work was going on. Try again.
As for the asbestos abatement, are you saying that there was fake asbestos work?
How was that done?
Most building owners have all sorts of consultants, air monitoring companies, engineers, etc reviewing abatemnt plans and work to be sure that there are no contamination issues in the rest of the building as a result of the work.
Abatement projects are closely monitored by the city and state.there are all sorts of notifications and licensing issues involving lots of people from the workers to the building engineers, tenants, and others.
People arn't as stupid as you believe them to be. Someone would have noticed that no asbestos work was going on. Try again.
Howtex | 2:43 p.m. May 6, 2008
Falco98,
I thought you would take that interpretation. Please keep reading the question 13 response. Quoted for your convenience:
"Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing."
NIST accepts that there was molten steel in the wreckage.
If you don't want to take the NIST as a good source for this, I don't blame you. After their blatant inconsistencies and narrow focus, I myself question what they say, obviously.
I thought you would take that interpretation. Please keep reading the question 13 response. Quoted for your convenience:
"Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing."
NIST accepts that there was molten steel in the wreckage.
If you don't want to take the NIST as a good source for this, I don't blame you. After their blatant inconsistencies and narrow focus, I myself question what they say, obviously.
Erik Howard | 3:14 p.m. May 6, 2008
Alan,
I hear you. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Jones is trying to paint an inaccurate picture with these quotations (or lack of quotations).
How can you overlook the obvious inconsistencies and the narrow scope of work in the NIST report (I am assuming you are overlooking them)? The physical floor trusses did not fail under the fire test. The floor deflections in the finite Element FE model were much larger than the physical test. Even with the larger FE deflections the pull in loads were not sufficient to initiate collapse so external loads from nowhere were applied to get the result they were looking for. They get around conservation of energy and momentum by not addressing the collapse propagation at all. How does any serious person overlook this (By the way please put my head on straight if I am not seeing this clearly. Show me what I am missing).
In the summation of all the evidence and arguments of Jones Vs. NIST it is the NIST that is spinning 911 not Jones. If there are errors in Jones' work, they pale in comparison to the NIST's.
I hear you. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Jones is trying to paint an inaccurate picture with these quotations (or lack of quotations).
How can you overlook the obvious inconsistencies and the narrow scope of work in the NIST report (I am assuming you are overlooking them)? The physical floor trusses did not fail under the fire test. The floor deflections in the finite Element FE model were much larger than the physical test. Even with the larger FE deflections the pull in loads were not sufficient to initiate collapse so external loads from nowhere were applied to get the result they were looking for. They get around conservation of energy and momentum by not addressing the collapse propagation at all. How does any serious person overlook this (By the way please put my head on straight if I am not seeing this clearly. Show me what I am missing).
In the summation of all the evidence and arguments of Jones Vs. NIST it is the NIST that is spinning 911 not Jones. If there are errors in Jones' work, they pale in comparison to the NIST's.
Erik Howard | 5:09 p.m. May 6, 2008
Alan,
I just read through the original material by Manning. You are quite right that Mannings main concern seems to be the fireproofing of the trusses and structure. Maybe I am seeing things through rose colored glasses, but I do not see any deliberate deception by Jones. What I read from the quotes cited by Jones is that Manning was calling for a serious investigation which was not happening at the time. This is the same thing that Jones is calling for as well. Manning in fact called the investigation up until that point ,"a half baked pharse" amongst other things. In my opinion that is a good charchterization of what has occured by the government since.
I do see how you could interpret how Jones cited Manning to be misleading, maybe it warrants a correction or explaination. But once again if it is misleading it is nothing compared to the NIST.
I just read through the original material by Manning. You are quite right that Mannings main concern seems to be the fireproofing of the trusses and structure. Maybe I am seeing things through rose colored glasses, but I do not see any deliberate deception by Jones. What I read from the quotes cited by Jones is that Manning was calling for a serious investigation which was not happening at the time. This is the same thing that Jones is calling for as well. Manning in fact called the investigation up until that point ,"a half baked pharse" amongst other things. In my opinion that is a good charchterization of what has occured by the government since.
I do see how you could interpret how Jones cited Manning to be misleading, maybe it warrants a correction or explaination. But once again if it is misleading it is nothing compared to the NIST.
Anonymous | 5:30 p.m. May 6, 2008
Dr. Doom, wet paper will not burn. Smothered paper will not burn. Try it in your
home fire place. These materials require much oxygen to sustain burning ... when
dry. Thermite does not. It uses its own oxygen.
It is for you to convince us what melted that steel, seem dripping from beams pulled from the wreckage. Those videos are available to be searched for, since this site does not permit placement of URLs.
Regarding Bush in the Florida school. His visit was most highly publicized for days prior. A second plane crash within such short time was plainly no accident.
Senario ... take one van, fill it with fertilizer mixed with fuel oil, buy one map showing location of said school, drive van to school, park van close to where Bush was dozing, exit van, at a safe distance detonate van bomb. Exit late President.
Regarding my suggested play role. Was there absolutely nothing you could think of doing during that 20 minutes snooze to help save the first day of obvious war? Perhaps at least restart the air surveillance system? Wonder what Card and the minders were doing or thinking during that wasted time? Anyone for cards?
It is for you to convince us what melted that steel, seem dripping from beams pulled from the wreckage. Those videos are available to be searched for, since this site does not permit placement of URLs.
Regarding Bush in the Florida school. His visit was most highly publicized for days prior. A second plane crash within such short time was plainly no accident.
Senario ... take one van, fill it with fertilizer mixed with fuel oil, buy one map showing location of said school, drive van to school, park van close to where Bush was dozing, exit van, at a safe distance detonate van bomb. Exit late President.
Regarding my suggested play role. Was there absolutely nothing you could think of doing during that 20 minutes snooze to help save the first day of obvious war? Perhaps at least restart the air surveillance system? Wonder what Card and the minders were doing or thinking during that wasted time? Anyone for cards?
Alan Williams | 5:57 p.m. May 6, 2008
Erik,
That's exactly my point. There ARE no significant inconsistencies in the NIST report, and Jones, by excluding that one paragraph about free-fall, CREATES the illusion of there being an inconsistency. (he does the same kind of thing on the other 13 points)
NIST's truss fire tests were only meant to establish a baseline data-set for their analysis. They were run with fire-proofing intact, and they did not include the full length 60' truss. It wasn't like OK, lets test those trusses to see if they would have collapsed. Not even close. And actually I believe they did begin to sag somewhat, even with fire-proofing. Not sure, but read the specific section in the report referring to these tests. Be sure to go to the original source -- don't rely on a Jones type cherry-picking job.
Narrow scope of work? This investigation was extensive, the most of any building failure in history, and produced a report thousands of pages in length.
NIST's conclusions were based on analysis of the information and data gathered. You're saying that they ignored their own analysis. I doubt very much this is truly the case.
That's exactly my point. There ARE no significant inconsistencies in the NIST report, and Jones, by excluding that one paragraph about free-fall, CREATES the illusion of there being an inconsistency. (he does the same kind of thing on the other 13 points)
NIST's truss fire tests were only meant to establish a baseline data-set for their analysis. They were run with fire-proofing intact, and they did not include the full length 60' truss. It wasn't like OK, lets test those trusses to see if they would have collapsed. Not even close. And actually I believe they did begin to sag somewhat, even with fire-proofing. Not sure, but read the specific section in the report referring to these tests. Be sure to go to the original source -- don't rely on a Jones type cherry-picking job.
Narrow scope of work? This investigation was extensive, the most of any building failure in history, and produced a report thousands of pages in length.
NIST's conclusions were based on analysis of the information and data gathered. You're saying that they ignored their own analysis. I doubt very much this is truly the case.
Logician | 6:04 p.m. May 6, 2008
Dr, Doom.
My reference to the unfortunate women seen standing in the plane entry gaps was in no way meant to demean them. Why try to depict my message emotionally out of context.
If there is anything to be gained from drawing attention to their temporary survival, which may help to solve this on going riddle, then let it be.
I have much sympathy for them and the other 3,000 dead of that day. I also have sympathy for the millions now dead as a result of two contrived wars, requiring an attack on USA to initiate. A third war with Iran is in the offing. You had better pray that this will not happen. You might assess the number of US dead in both wars so far. But you must COUNT THEM ALL. Not only the ones officially counted, who die within the two countries concerned, but also those who die where they are sent to hospitals. Count them all. Then think about it. Those wars have been planned for decades.
A major part of that planning included 9/11.
My reference to the unfortunate women seen standing in the plane entry gaps was in no way meant to demean them. Why try to depict my message emotionally out of context.
If there is anything to be gained from drawing attention to their temporary survival, which may help to solve this on going riddle, then let it be.
I have much sympathy for them and the other 3,000 dead of that day. I also have sympathy for the millions now dead as a result of two contrived wars, requiring an attack on USA to initiate. A third war with Iran is in the offing. You had better pray that this will not happen. You might assess the number of US dead in both wars so far. But you must COUNT THEM ALL. Not only the ones officially counted, who die within the two countries concerned, but also those who die where they are sent to hospitals. Count them all. Then think about it. Those wars have been planned for decades.
A major part of that planning included 9/11.
Falco98 | 6:21 p.m. May 6, 2008
Howtex wrote:
"Please keep reading the question 13 response." [snip]
"'Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature...'"
Good job of quote-mining against me. However, you have yet to prove that
A) they are referring to molten POOLS OF LIQUID steel.
B) they claim that there actually WAS "molten steel", as opposed to simply outlining an explanation for the presence thereof.
What we have here is your abuse of an unfortunately vague term, "molten", which conjures images of (but does not necessarily imply) liquid pools of metal. Photographs of wreckage show near-red-hot smoldering beams of steel being removed. Cleanup crews' accounts match this. The only "evidence" to support "molten pools of steel weeks afterwards", once again (i said this earlier), is a conflation of different accounts which ultimately have nothing to do with each other.
"Please keep reading the question 13 response." [snip]
"'Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature...'"
Good job of quote-mining against me. However, you have yet to prove that
A) they are referring to molten POOLS OF LIQUID steel.
B) they claim that there actually WAS "molten steel", as opposed to simply outlining an explanation for the presence thereof.
What we have here is your abuse of an unfortunately vague term, "molten", which conjures images of (but does not necessarily imply) liquid pools of metal. Photographs of wreckage show near-red-hot smoldering beams of steel being removed. Cleanup crews' accounts match this. The only "evidence" to support "molten pools of steel weeks afterwards", once again (i said this earlier), is a conflation of different accounts which ultimately have nothing to do with each other.
Logician | 6:49 p.m. May 6, 2008
Falco98,
I accidentally directed my reply to another contributor.
I shall repeat it for you.
You deliberately missed my point regarding the inaction by Bush in that school room. Two plane crashes in an hour should have convinced him that USA was under attack. The bad play acting of both Card and himself is most telling. Aide, Card simply entered the room, bent down to whisper into Bush's ear that a second plane had crashed into the 2nd Tower. He immediately left the room ... not waiting even a second for a reply. Bush remained motionless for 20 minutes.
Your facetious reply regarding difficulty for a pilot to locate that school is childish.
Try this simple scenario ... of a van filled with explosives driven to the school and parked near the room where Bush was snoozing, then detonated. This would have had the same desired effect. But he and his minders didn't need to consider it, because it was not part of their overall plan, which was neatly unfolding as required.
I accidentally directed my reply to another contributor.
I shall repeat it for you.
You deliberately missed my point regarding the inaction by Bush in that school room. Two plane crashes in an hour should have convinced him that USA was under attack. The bad play acting of both Card and himself is most telling. Aide, Card simply entered the room, bent down to whisper into Bush's ear that a second plane had crashed into the 2nd Tower. He immediately left the room ... not waiting even a second for a reply. Bush remained motionless for 20 minutes.
Your facetious reply regarding difficulty for a pilot to locate that school is childish.
Try this simple scenario ... of a van filled with explosives driven to the school and parked near the room where Bush was snoozing, then detonated. This would have had the same desired effect. But he and his minders didn't need to consider it, because it was not part of their overall plan, which was neatly unfolding as required.
Falco98 | 7:03 p.m. May 6, 2008
"Logician" wrote:
"You deliberately missed my point regarding the inaction by Bush in that school room."
you deliberatly fail to show how this proves or implies anything other than that they were slow to act. so?
"Two plane crashes in an hour should have convinced him that USA was under attack."
Sure thing. And it would have been the decision of his secret service to keep him in place, where they could be sure he was safe, for a few additional minutes until they could be sure of things.
"The bad play acting of both Card and himself is most telling."
you're talking about BUSH here, right? please.
"Bush remained motionless for 20 minutes."
You're lying now. We all know he finished the activity he was doing with the elementary school children. There was no reason not to, and he was probably under the advice of his secret service to stay just where he was.
So once again: HOW is this a conspiracy? you can argue for ineptitude or inability to deal quickly with a crisis, yeah yeah, those are arguable points, but making a conspiracy out of these things is just silliness.
"You deliberately missed my point regarding the inaction by Bush in that school room."
you deliberatly fail to show how this proves or implies anything other than that they were slow to act. so?
"Two plane crashes in an hour should have convinced him that USA was under attack."
Sure thing. And it would have been the decision of his secret service to keep him in place, where they could be sure he was safe, for a few additional minutes until they could be sure of things.
"The bad play acting of both Card and himself is most telling."
you're talking about BUSH here, right? please.
"Bush remained motionless for 20 minutes."
You're lying now. We all know he finished the activity he was doing with the elementary school children. There was no reason not to, and he was probably under the advice of his secret service to stay just where he was.
So once again: HOW is this a conspiracy? you can argue for ineptitude or inability to deal quickly with a crisis, yeah yeah, those are arguable points, but making a conspiracy out of these things is just silliness.
Logician | 7:59 p.m. May 6, 2008
Falco98
How do you know there were no worthwhile videos from the many cameras looking outward from the Pentagon? Who told you? A plane is approaching at low level and the security cameras cannot see it? Then why were the cameras there, if they couldn't record such an obvious scene. Were they perhaps switched off for the occasion? If so why? This only enhances the case for an inside job. Are you not even a little curious? What is there for them to hide?
You haven't offered a reason for classification of results of weeks of questioning of those 5 Israeli spies who knew all about the expected "attacks" on 9/11. Why are you so complacent about all these anomalies? The whole world is looking at these strange matters, increasingly after almost 7 years.
Truth will out.
How do you know there were no worthwhile videos from the many cameras looking outward from the Pentagon? Who told you? A plane is approaching at low level and the security cameras cannot see it? Then why were the cameras there, if they couldn't record such an obvious scene. Were they perhaps switched off for the occasion? If so why? This only enhances the case for an inside job. Are you not even a little curious? What is there for them to hide?
You haven't offered a reason for classification of results of weeks of questioning of those 5 Israeli spies who knew all about the expected "attacks" on 9/11. Why are you so complacent about all these anomalies? The whole world is looking at these strange matters, increasingly after almost 7 years.
Truth will out.
Falco98 | 8:50 p.m. May 6, 2008
"Logician" wrote:
"How_do_you_know_there_were no worthwhile videos from the many cameras looking outward from the Pentagon? Who told you? A plane is approaching at low level and the security cameras cannot see it?"
The_plane_was_travelling at around 500 MPH, at an altitude which parking-lot security cameras would not be set to capture. Furthermore, parking lot security cameras typically use wide-angle lenses, in which an object gets exponentially smaller the further away it's seen. Add to the fact that the video quality of most security cameras is very low-rez, and shot at only a few FPS (remember the plane was travelling at 500 MPH) -- even if the plane were somehow in its line-of-sight, it would have been in and out of frame too quickly for anything meaningful to be caught on film.
And once again I must ask: why does it matter? Several videos have been released. The ones that did show something (the pentagon parking lot cameras) were of such poor quality that the truthers claim they don't show anything meaningful. The security camera video that was released wasn't looking at the pentagon (surprise). And once again, lack of video does NOT negate the definitive witness accounts.
"How_do_you_know_there_were no worthwhile videos from the many cameras looking outward from the Pentagon? Who told you? A plane is approaching at low level and the security cameras cannot see it?"
The_plane_was_travelling at around 500 MPH, at an altitude which parking-lot security cameras would not be set to capture. Furthermore, parking lot security cameras typically use wide-angle lenses, in which an object gets exponentially smaller the further away it's seen. Add to the fact that the video quality of most security cameras is very low-rez, and shot at only a few FPS (remember the plane was travelling at 500 MPH) -- even if the plane were somehow in its line-of-sight, it would have been in and out of frame too quickly for anything meaningful to be caught on film.
And once again I must ask: why does it matter? Several videos have been released. The ones that did show something (the pentagon parking lot cameras) were of such poor quality that the truthers claim they don't show anything meaningful. The security camera video that was released wasn't looking at the pentagon (surprise). And once again, lack of video does NOT negate the definitive witness accounts.
Falco98 | 8:57 p.m. May 6, 2008
"Logician" wrote:
"You haven't offered a reason for classification of results of weeks of questioning of those 5 Israeli spies who knew all about the expected "attacks" on 9/11."
You haven't offered proof that this is anything more than twoofer fantasy, or any reason that it should matter. You described them as "infamous" earlier, but no reference to publication, quotes, or anything.
"Why are you so complacent about all these anomalies?"
Because I'm not delusional to the point where my mind turns everything i observe into a conspiracy-inducing "anomaly".
"You haven't offered a reason for classification of results of weeks of questioning of those 5 Israeli spies who knew all about the expected "attacks" on 9/11."
You haven't offered proof that this is anything more than twoofer fantasy, or any reason that it should matter. You described them as "infamous" earlier, but no reference to publication, quotes, or anything.
"Why are you so complacent about all these anomalies?"
Because I'm not delusional to the point where my mind turns everything i observe into a conspiracy-inducing "anomaly".
Kellysgarden | 9:33 p.m. May 6, 2008
The Associated Press reported about the approximately 400 human bone fragments
found on the roof of the Deutsche Bank building. This story was also carried by
many other newspapers. However, not a single article in these many newspapers
suggested an explanation as to how all those human bone fragments got deposited
onto the roof of this one skyscraper. I suppose that if 400 bone fragments were
found on just this one roof, there must have been thousands, if not hundreds of
thousands of bone fragments scattered upon many other rooftops around the
vicinity of the towers on that fateful morning. What kind of energy could
explain the physics benid human bones becoming fragmented into pieces a 16th of
an inch in size, then expelled from the inside of a collapsing skyscraper with
such force as to land upon the rooftops of other skyscrapers? It boggles the
mind to think that pancaking floors could be the explanation for this
phenomenon. I imagine that whatever source of energy pulverized all the
concrete, also fragmented the humans, with the victims' pulverized bones
floating in the WTC dust all over the city.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Jones' joy for life remembered 9:11 p.m.
- Photos: Hogle Zoo lights up 9:09 p.m.
- CBS producer dies 9:08 p.m.
- A reason why they play the game 9:07 p.m.
- Writing contest entries due 9:07 p.m.
- Public option is a low priority 9:06 p.m.
- Child prostitutes don't get help 9:06 p.m.
- Students on the job front 9:05 p.m.
- Alta lodge owner is constant 9:05 p.m.
- Eagle Mountain keeps Jackson 9:05 p.m.
- Cave to be sealed with body inside
- Predicting the unpredictable: BYU wins
- Vegas, Poinsettia bowls or bust
- Glover gives Utes last-second upset
- BYU football: 5 keys to victory
- Cougars turn back Wildcats'
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies
- Running game key to BYU offense
- Woods, wife unavailable for interview
- Idaho woman dies after fall
- Cougars beat Utes, 26-23
237 - Thunder rolls by Jazz136
- Letters: Rushing to judge Palin134
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies115
- Cave to be sealed with body inside114
- Editorial: Poor welcome for Palin113
- Letters: Trump card for believers99
- Rivalry Week is highly profane88
- Hall's legacy measured today75
- Hate crimes against gays rose 11%74
I wanted to tell them not to go. I dropped subtle hints. "My money is on...
When I was a kid, I worshipped my grandpa. He was undoubtedly my hero....
Latest comments
I listened to Max Hall's interview after the game. What a PATHETIC...
I'm so excited to play the PAC 10 #6 in the Poinsetta Bowl! If you can't...
Both teams had running backs that averaged over 5 yards per carry, and yet...
Re: the comment "BYU owns Utah" they "own" nothing unless the Utes and...
"RE:Can Someone Explain... | 8:46 p.m. Nov. 28, 2009 why it wasn't a...
Let's look at some facts? Since Meyer and Crowton left five years ago:...
Four wins. A positive direction or an abberation?
Brigham Young University - THE University of Utah!
will mark another year that BYU will not make it to BCS bowl game. 1) play...
I belive that if Enterprise can even go 4-3 in the first seven games, the...
Advertisements