WTC 7 collapse vs controlled demolition take down

Unleashed: Unanswered 9/11 questions

The collapse of New York’s World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001 is arguably one of the most well documented events in human history. Less well documented is the controversy over why the buildings fell as they did.

At the time of writing, 357 architectural and engineering professionals have signed a petition which directly challenges the National Institute of Standards & Training’s official finding that the destruction of these massive buildings was caused solely by structural damage from the impact of jet airliners and the resulting fires.
[…]
Current research indicates that an incendiary (thermite) may have been used to sever the massive box columns of the towers, causing the buildings to plummet to the ground at close to free-fall speed.
[…]
“As no reports have come to light of any steel framed buildings collapsing due to fire, and as all steel framed buildings which had collapsed had done so due to explosive demolition, the logical way to have started the investigation of this surprising event would have been to question whether explosives had been used. This apparently did not occur.

William Rodriguez, an acknowledged hero of 9/11 who single-handedly rescued fifteen people from the North Tower, described a massive explosion in the basement which occurred before the first plane struck, pushing him upwards out of the seat of his chair.

The New York Fire Department’s oral histories project contains 118 witness statements which are strongly consistent with explosive demolition. Incredibly, none of this shocking testimony was included or acknowledged in any official investigation, including the 9/11 Commission.

If the towers were wired with explosives by terrorists prior to the planes, that would imply a lack of security on a massive scale that would be worth hiding. On the other hand, how do you hide that much work to rig buildings like that? If terrorists didn’t do it, why would the towers be rigged with explosives? Leaving aside the wacko’s government conspiracies, are other buildings routinely wired to blow to bring them straight down if something happens to prevent them falling onto other buildings? An interesting ‘protection’ scenario for the neighborhood that would be worth hiding for many reasons.

And then there’s this article from a few months ago with quotes from military experts like this one:

“A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It’s impossible,” said Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret). With doctoral degrees in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Col. Bowman served as Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

“There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up,” continued Col. Bowman. “Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who’s responsible. Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information about 9/11? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it’s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney.”




  1. Mr. Gawd Almighty says:

    #422,

    Cheney and Rumsfeld were acting under orders to get a group of militant Islamists to plan their
    part o 9-11 (the part that involves flying schools and box cutters). It was on a need-to-know basis.
    They only needed to know they had a mission. Only one knew the day in advance.

    Riiiight. And I suppose that all the twoofers believe this same line.

    One question. If this is on a “need to know basis”, how is it that you know about it?

  2. August US will attack Iran sai says:

    Only one question?

  3. Mister Mustard says:

    >>If this is on a “need to know basis”, how
    >>is it that you know about it?

    Obviously, he needed to know.

  4. RBG says:

    #422 August US will attack Iran:

    So I take it if Iran is not attacked in August and gas does not go to $12 a gallon, you will have been wrong about everything else too?

    You do realized that stories backed by zero proof has about the same credibility as Extra Terrestrial beings causing 911? Not that this excludes Bush & Cheney. ;^)

    RBG

  5. Empirical Evidence says:

    # 421 Mr. Gawd Almighty said,
    #416, EE,

    6) Tons of molten Metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor) in basement (What could have produced all of that molten metal?)

    Say what? Again, all the twoofers keep telling us the fire wasn’t hot enough to melt steel. I wish you guys could go with ONE tale.

    Okay, if I can get this through to you, maybe we can make some progress…what we are dealing with here is the concept of a CONTRADICTION. The official story is that jet fuel and other materials burned at temperatures sufficient to soften the structural steel in the towers and cause them to collapse. Many argue that NIST’s own data contradicts this argument, and the evidence adduced in their own report shows that the fires that ensued from the collision were well below this threshold. At any rate, although there were in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 rumors that the fuel fires had melted the steel, no one (in officialdom at least) advocates this theory any more.

    But let’s assume that the official story is correct, and the intensity of the flames was indeed sufficient to soften the structural steel. If you have ever seen sword making, blacksmithing and/or other iron working techniques, then you have an idea of how metals behave when they are heated. From those empirical observations alone, common sense would lead us to expect that if the World Trade Towers were in fact being softened by fire, we would see 1) slow onset of collapse with large visible deformations and 2) asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires). But we saw none of that; instead, the buildings suddenly began to disappear, literally exploding into clouds of dust.

    It’s hard to reconcile the cause and effect here, but absent other evidence… and that’s where the pools of molten metal, another of the anomalies that don’t accord with the official theory, come in. NIST’s data confirms that the fires in the towers could not have melted their steel. But the presence of molten metal not only shows that the official theory is less than comprehensive, it CONTRADICTS IT!

  6. Mr. Gawd Almighty says:

    428, EE,

    1) slow onset of collapse with large visible deformations

    There was a slow onset and there were visible deformations. I don’t know how slow you wanted these collapses to go, but with hundreds of thousands of tons of building above them, a slow collapse was about three seconds.

    2) asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires).

    There is no reason for what you want. An asymmetrical collapse would be just falling on its side. Ain’t a gunna happen buddy. The entire structure is all interconnected. Although the trusses could not hold the horizontal load, that does not mean they also lost their tension holding onto the sides and center supports. That interconnected structure is what brought the towers down in a near straight line.

    I’m not going to search for it but the WTC 2, with the TV antenna, can be seen leaning to the side just before the building collapses. WTC 1 was too blanketed by dust and smoke to give a good view of any lean there, but it too would have happened.

    and that’s where the pools of molten metal, another of the anomalies that don’t accord with the official theory, come in.

    What pools of molten metal? Some steel may have been softened and with the pressure of all the debris above it was shaped. I still am unaware of any “molten pools” of metal found.

  7. RBG says:

    428. Empirical Evidence

    As you may recall, I’m not very good with angles, so maybe you could help me figure out whether this tower is collapsing straight down or as an asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires.
    http://tinyurl.com/3w3jxb

    After which, the path of least resistance for all that falling tonnage is straight down. relatively puny concrete has no chance.

    Btw, where would you put demolition explosives? Way up on the 80th floor, or so – or at the base? We see a collapse from the top down.

    1) slow onset of collapse with large visible deformations:

    Really, it’s like talking to a brick wall. Already seen in RBG #417: Plenty of deformations showing here, including a time-lapse progressively hanging floor slab, and shot showing an entire floor on fire:
    http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92134

    “Tons of molten Metal found…”
    Again, already discussed for your benefit in RBG #371.

    Hottest Satellite temperature readings never get even close to steel melting temperatures.

    You really couldn’t practically put enough thermite around steel to keep it at molten temperatures for weeks on end. Your so-called examples of thermite “explosives” show slag solidifying on contact with the rest of the beam. Smell test…remembering any of this?

    But even if you could claim the building structure shielded the satellite temperature readings; even if you could show evidence of pools of steel, NIST already admits:

    “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.

    That’s physics, not opinion.

    EE:“The official story is that jet fuel and other materials burned at temperatures sufficient to soften the structural steel…”

    The steel almost immediately begins to expand (deforming trusses) and, soon after, begins to weaken significantly causing catenary effects. See #209 RBG.

    EE: “the evidence adduced in their (NIST)own report shows that the fires that ensued from the collision were well below this threshold.”

    NIST: “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers.

    However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value.

    Physics always seems to get in the way of a good story.

    RBG

  8. Mr. Gawd Almighty says:

    Well said RBG. And well researched.

    EE, if you want to insist on continuing this thread, find someone else. I’m done.

  9. Mister Mustard says:

    >>I’m done.

    Jesus, is this thread still going on? I was done after the first few hundred posts. Sheesh!

  10. RBG says:

    432MM. Of course I agree with you. But just once (or 3 or 4 times), as a selfless public service, I wanted to show how every single little tin foil question, argument and follow-up representative of The Knights Who Say Woo can be exposed and exhausted as hot air.

    In subsequent DUs when the more sadistic editors again come out into the light on this topic, I will be able to merely link to this one.

    I think the CTs have actually taught me something here, though, and I am grateful. Such efforts make no difference in their conspiracy fanboy worlds.

    But we must think of the children… :^)

    RBG

  11. Empirical evidence says:

    Welcome to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!

    394 architectural and engineering professionals
    and 1529 other supporters including A/E students
    have signed the petition demanding of Congress
    a truly independent investigation.

    http://www.ae911truth.org/

  12. RBG says:

    UFO/Extraterrestrial Presence petition, now has 6,687 signatories
    http://tinyurl.com/5aajwo

    “Although most of the scientific community was convinced by the Air Force’s (UFO)statements, a small number of scientists and a considerably larger number of civilians did not agree with the Air Force. They founded numerous civilian organizations such as the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization,(APRO, 1952), Civilian Saucer Intelligence (CSI, 1953), the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP, 1956), [the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON, 1969) and the Fund for UFO Research (FUFOR, 1979)]
    http://www.stardrive.org/maccabee.shtml

    Already discussed #400/433, ditto petition demanding of congress a truly independent JFK investigation.

    RBG

  13. Empirical Evidence says:

    Moderator on the rag again…

  14. Mr. Gawd Almighty says:

    EE,

    My best argument against your A&E experts, and along the same lines as RBG’s links is this one. Another interesting group can be found at this link. Be sure to visit the discussion forums. Don’t forget, these people mean well and also have scientific experts and “questions”.

  15. Empirical Evidence says:

    Well you guys have your experts, I have mine… but I don’t think it’s going to get settled here. Especially since I’ve tried a half-dozen times to post a link to the 9/11 Commission Report and it never gets “approved”.

    Many who want a new investigation are dissatisfied with that particular report for good reasons; e.g., in the notes, we have statements like this:

    “For the dimensions, see FEMA report, “World Trade Center Building Performance Study,” undated. In addition, the outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14-inch-wide steel columns; the centers of the steel columns were 40 inches apart.THESE EXTERIOR WALLS BORE MOST OF THE WEIGHT OF THE BUILDING.THE INTERIOR CORE OF THE BUILDINGS WAS A HOLLOW STEEL SHAFT (emphasis mine), in which elevators and stairwells were grouped. Ibid. For stairwells and elevators, see Port Authority response to Commission interrogatory, May 2004.

    The government conceals the blueprints for five years, and makes egregiously false statements such as these and you guys can’t even see grounds for suspicion…? Figures…

  16. bobbo says:

    #438–Hey EE==This may have been mentioned above but it has struck me an “indirect” inference of “no conspiracy” that is pretty strong is that if BushCo was into that sort of thing, wouldn’t they have found weapons of mass distraction in Iraq? And yet none have shown up. Much, much easier to do that one and much more helpful if pulled off?

    So, if BushCo didn’t do an easy helpful conspiracy, why in the world would they do an impossible one of dubious connection?

    I thought threads were supposed to be reposted if they went over some certain number???

    If not, they should==support the interest of the group and so forth.

  17. Empirical Evidence says:

    Here’s some more “woo woos” for the Denier Duo to make fun of…

    Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement,
    and Government Officials Question
    the 9/11 Commission Report

    http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

    Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 – 1984. Also commanded the U.S. Army’s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army’s Intelligence School and Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32-year Army career. Member

    Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) – Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran (two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart). Appointed by President George H.W. Bush to serve on the American Battle Monuments Commission (1990 – 1994), and on the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces. Military Historian and Deputy Director of Field Operations for the U.S. Marine Corps Historical Center, Washington, D.C. 1990 – 1994.

    Capt. Edgar Mitchell, U.S. Navy (ret), BS Industrial Management, BS Aerontautical Engineering, Doctor of Science, Aeronautics and Astronautics from MIT – Pilot and Astronaut. Sixth man to walk on the moon (Apollo 14 mission). Patrol bomber and attack plane pilot, U.S. Navy. Test Pilot, Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 5 (VX-5). Chief of Project Management Division, Navy Field Office for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory Project. Graduated first in his class from the Aerospace Research Pilot School, and served as an instructor there. Recipient of many awards and honors including the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the USN Distinguished Medal and three NASA Group Achievement Awards. Inducted to the Space Hall of Fame in 1979 and the Astronaut Hall of Fame in 1998. Recipient of honorary doctorates in engineering from New Mexico State University, the University of Akron, Carnegie Mellon University, and a ScD from Embry-Riddle University. Founder of the Institute of Noetic Sciences.

    Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College. 34-year Air Force career. Licensed commercial pilot. Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic.

    more…

  18. Empirical Evidence says:

    # 439 bobbo said, on May 29th, 2008 at 10:55 pm

    So bobbo, you say it’s “Much, much easier” to plant weapons in Iraq. In fact, you call it an “an easy helpful conspiracy” and ask why Bush wouldn’t do that instead of “an impossible one of dubious connection?” BTW, good to see you’re still here homeboy… last I saw, you were sitting in front of your TV, drinking beer and waiting for another plane to hit a tower. I had the impression you’d emasculated your mind with Occam’s razor and forsaken the quest for knowledge, but I see you’ve still got a burning question or two left in you.

    Think about it… in 9/11/2001 Iraq is quiescent, the Persian Gulf War having ended in 2/1991. What’s your plan to sneak a WMD in there, something that is obviously of Iraqi manufacture? Where are you going to stash it so that you can plausibly claim to have discovered it through the agencies of intelligence? Remember, you can’t invade to plant the WMDs, you have to demonstrate their existence as a pretext to invade…

    Moreover, how does that give you a rationale to invade Afghanistan… The problem there was that in February, 2001, U.N. drug control officers said the Taliban religious militia has nearly wiped out opium production since banning poppy cultivation the last summer. The year before, Afghanistan produced nearly 4,000 tons of opium, about 75 percent of the world’s supply. The 1999 output was a world record for opium production, the United Nations said, more than all other countries combined, including the “Golden Triangle,” where the borders of Thailand, Laos and Myanmar meet. But hey, the invasion fixed that: since the downfall of the Taliban in 2001 (based on UNODC data), more land is now used for opium in Afghanistan, than for coca cultivation in Latin America. In 2007, 93% of the opiates on the world market originated in Afghanistan. This amounts to an export value of about $4 billion, with a quarter being earned by opium farmers and the rest going to district officials, warlords, insurgents and drug traffickers… and some say the CIA… clearly, all is right in Afghanistan again…

    Yet you regard the idea of a homegrown conspiracy as “impossible” and “of dubious connection”. Well now, where Saddam Hussein was in charge of the Military in Iraq in 2001, George Bush was Commander in Chief of the United States Military. So who do you think has a better chance, say, of penetrating the most heavily protected airspace on the planet and pulling off an attack on the headquarters of the world’s most powerful military force… a guy in Afghanistan with 19 henchmen with box cutters or the C in C of the US Armed Forces, GWB himself? Pull Occam’s razor out from between your frontal lobes and take a swipe at this one…

  19. bobbo says:

    EE==who is more capable of running airplanes into WTC? OBVIOUSLY a guy in Afghanistan with 19 henchmen. But I’ll leave you to your opium fueled conspiracies to calculate the odds on either approach.

  20. Empirical Evidence says:

    Cutter Charge Sounds Heard During WTC 2 Collapse On 9/11?

    Cutter Charge Sounds Heard During WTC 2 Collapse On 9/11?

    9/11 Blogger
    Friday, May 30, 2008

    As seen in the documentary “Clear The Skies”, cutter charge sounds like those generated during controlled demolitions of high rise buildings are apparently heard at the onset of the collapse of World Trade Center tower 2 on September 11, 2001.

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2008/300508_b_cutter.htm

  21. Empirical Evidence says:

    #442 bobbo said:

    EE==who is more capable of running airplanes into WTC? OBVIOUSLY a guy in Afghanistan with 19 henchmen. But I’ll leave you to your opium fueled conspiracies to calculate the odds on either approach.

    Okay…

    odds that four teams of airline pilots would turn over their planes to some scrawny dudes with box cutters without even activating the hijack alarms: 0%

    odds that four teams of airline pilots would turn over their planes to some scrawny dudes with box cutters in lieu of kicking their scrawny asses: 0%

    odds that the planes from Logan were switched for pilotless drones when they went off the radar: 98%

    odds that the plane that departed for Saudi Arabia when all other civilian air traffic was grounded contained the alleged hijackers: 98%

    odds that the fat-faced guy in the first bin Laden “confession” video was in fact Osama bin Laden: 0%

    odds that the US air defense system stood down on 9/11: at least 110%

  22. bobbo says:

    #444–EE==I’ll make the general apology that this thread seems about done? I can’t give you the discussion you want because I don’t have the technical expertise to get energized by doing the research that would only duplicate what RBG and Gawd has done.

    But as a pilot, I would have turned over my plane to the hijackers because up until that time, that was the best way to keep the passengers safe. Today==with a trespass safe door and general agreement that planes will not be turned over, surrender is no longer an option regardless of what the hijackers have, show, or threaten. Hijack alarms came in after I stopped flying, so can’t comment on that, but on the face of it, does sound surprising.

    Pilotless drones? Absurb.

    The plane that picked up the bin ladin family et al during the shutdown==yes that was outrageous. Money has a lot of power==especially with the Bushies. Any proper plot would have had these good folks out of the country to begin with?

    The guy looked like bin ladin to me. But seriously, all terrorists do kinda look the same.

    Stand down of air defense? I’ve seen references to that. I thought the deal was they were looking in the wrong direction? Most first real situations show failure as people aren’t really ready to react to new stimuli. That explains Pearl Harbor and all the “confusion” of 911.

    Do you have any first person testimony that they were part of the conspiracy?

  23. Mr. Fusion says:

    #441, EE,

    So who do you think has a better chance, say, of penetrating the most heavily protected airspace on the planet

    Someone invaded Israel? Do tell !!!

  24. RBG says:

    438. EE. Try again there, I don’t understand what your point is. Is it that the outside walls didn’t support the weight or that the inside core was in fact solid?

    440 EE. Well you guys have your experts, I have mine

    Capt. Edgar Mitchell.

    I take it this guy is indicative of your “experts?”

    “Mitchell’s interests include consciousness and paranormal phenomena. During the Apollo 14 flight he conducted private ESP experiments with his friends on Earth.

    Mitchell has publicly expressed his opinions that he is “90 per cent sure that many of the thousands of unidentified flying objects, or UFOs, recorded since the 1940s, belong to visitors from other planets”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Mitchell

    441 EE: So who do you think has a better chance, say, of penetrating the most heavily protected airspace on the planet and pulling off an attack on the headquarters of the world’s most powerful military force… a guy in Afghanistan with 19 henchmen with box cutters or the C in C of the US Armed Forces, GWB himself?

    By that logic, US presidents have been responsible for every airline hijack that has ever happened.

    443. EE. By any chance, do “cutter sounds” go bang?

    444. EE: Chances that the airline pilots were expecting to be attacked and killed with box cutters and thought taking the time to switch the transponder to a hijack code might help their immediate situation: 0%.

    odds that the planes from Logan were switched for pilotless drones when they went off the radar: 98%

    And you have evidence that this happened, how? Did they switch all the passengers at the same time, or fill the drones with clones for the remains to be discovered? BTW, you do know that planes can’t “go off the radar” when at altitude? Now you’re just getting silly.

    Plane with “alleged hijackers” to Saudi Arabia: Is that more wishful thinking or do you have something to back that up? Thought not. Then how do you arrive at 98%?(BTW, did this also include the pilots heard on the airline radios before they crashed the plane?)

    US air defence does not defend against domestic airliners. And as every pilot knows, they watch targets in specific areas off the continental US.

    By now you should be detecting a pattern re the credibility of all your assertions. Thanks for playing. See you at the moon-landing conspiracy blog.

    RBG

  25. Empirical Evidence says:

    # 447 RBG said, on May 31st, 2008 at 12:23 am

    438. EE. Try again there, I don’t understand what your point is. Is it that the outside walls didn’t support the weight or that the inside core was in fact solid?

    Of course you miss the point… there are NUANCES here. The questions does not actually reduce to, “was the building’s core hollow or solid?” But why waste time trying to explain that to you. From the lofty perspective of your haughty high horse, your perceive your supercilious and scattershot criticizm as passing for critical thinking, Until you get past that phase you won’t have a clue what a nuanced argument is.

    RBG said re Capt. Edgar Mitchell: “Mitchell’s interests include consciousness and paranormal phenomena. During the Apollo 14 flight he conducted private ESP experiments with his friends on Earth.

    I get the impression that everytime you encounter a word such as “telepathy” you leap from your chair and run around the room shouting “Woo woo, woo woo…” until the very notion has been expelled from your mind. You are no doubt one of those whose thinking is stuck in the paradigms of the 19th century, and you maintain that the notion of telepathy is “unscientific”… in which case you don’t even know enough about science to be dangerous, except perhaps to yourself… A scientific context that would accomodate certain so-called paranormal phenomena goes back to Albert Einstein’s protracted argument with the quantum theorists. Although Max Planck’s theory of the quantum wasn’t accepted until buttressed by Einstein seminal 1905 paper on the photo-electric effect, Einstein never fully accepted the implications of the theory that his own work had helped to promote. One of his objections was to the randomness built into the theory, which he famously voiced as “God does not play dice!” But more to the point here, he and some others were disturbed by the ramifications of a thought experiment that seemed to imply “spooky” action at a distance.

    Although he, Podolsky, and Rosen presented the eponymous EPR paradox in a 1935 paper as a refutation of quantum theory, it was eventually borne out, in theory and experiment, that particles can somehow “comunicate” instantaneously at infinite distance. Bell’s theorem, which resolves the paradox, has even been called “the most profound in science.” Eventually these exciting discoveries came to the attention of philosphers and other abstract thinkers, many of whon recognized that the old models of reality had been upended. By the ’70s, books such as “The Tao of Physics” and “The Dancing Wu Li Masters” showed that reductionist Western science had somehow come to a confluence with ancient Eastern mystical traditions. A physicst once described for me a cartoon that was popular with he and his collegues: A serene ‘Buddha’ sits in lotus at the apex of a mountain, as a fellow labeled ‘Physics’ labors toward him from the summit below. Buddha says, “I was wondering when you’d get here…” That was about 40 years ago, and science has moved on into even more exotic realms from there… but although the assumptions on which you seem to base your narrow view of reality have long since been called into question, if not outright refuted, you evidently haven’t got the word… or else the nuances (here’s that word again) of these arguments are beyond your ability to understand.

    444. EE: odds that the planes from Logan were switched for pilotless drones when they went off the radar: 98%

    RBG said: And you have evidence that this happened, how? Did they switch all the passengers at the same time, or fill the drones with clones for the remains to be discovered? BTW, you do know that planes can’t “go off the radar” when at altitude? Now you’re just getting silly.

    You believe that they found the remains of the airline passengers at the WTC based on the say so of the same people who brought you the magic passport. Although the fireballs of the WTC attacks completely destroyed both airplanes cockpit voice-recorders (situated at front)*and* the black-box data recorders (located in the rear of the aircraft) a passport (coincidently that of a “hijacker”) survived. Clearly the lesson here is to design a new black-box data recorder manufactured from the same indestructible material used to produce magical Saudi passports.

    You ask “Did they switch all the passengers at the same time…?” and then say “…you do know that planes can’t “go off the radar” when at altitude?” A passenger switch would logiaclly imply a landing somewhere right? I don’t say that the passengers were switched… the plane with the strange pod on its fuselage that hit WTC was NOT United Airlines Flight 175…

    RBG said: Plane with “alleged hijackers” to Saudi Arabia: Is that more wishful thinking or do you have something to back that up? Thought not. Then how do you arrive at 98%?(BTW, did this also include the pilots heard on the airline radios before they crashed the plane?)

    I believe that a new investigation will show that the hijackers, whose names were appended to the passenger lists after the fact, weren’t on the planes.

    RBG said: US air defence does not defend against domestic airliners. And as every pilot knows, they watch targets in specific areas off the continental US.

    This is one of the silliest statements you’ve made to date, demonstrating beyond all doubt that parroting crap found on denier websites is no sustitute for research. Search, say, “air defense scramble” for a clue to what happens in the real world…

  26. Mr. Catshit says:

    Hey Zeus H. Christ !!! EE, you are fucking nuts !!! Over 400 posts and you haven’t made any point that hasn’t been thoroughly disputed. Give it up.

  27. Empirical Evidence says:

    # 445 bobbo said, on May 30th, 2008 at 2:30 pm

    #444–EE==I’ll make the general apology that this thread seems about done? I can’t give you the discussion you want because I don’t have the technical expertise to get energized by doing the research that would only duplicate what RBG and Gawd has done.

    Well, RBG and Gawd haven’t gone to these sites:
    Pilots for 9/11 truth
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
    110+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals Question Official Account of 9/11
    http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

    But as a pilot, I would have turned over my plane to the hijackers because up until that time, that was the best way to keep the passengers safe. Today==with a trespass safe door and general agreement that planes will not be turned over, surrender is no longer an option regardless of what the hijackers have, show, or threaten. Hijack alarms came in after I stopped flying, so can’t comment on that, but on the face of it, does sound surprising.

    bobbo said: Pilotless drones? Absurb.

    Well okay, they have pilots but not in the plane itself. Unmanned surveillance drones are common… do you claim that it is beyond the military to adapt this technology to larger planes? Would they tell you about it if they could?

    bobbo said: The plane that picked up the bin ladin family et al during the shutdown==yes that was outrageous. Money has a lot of power==especially with the Bushies. Any proper plot would have had these good folks out of the country to begin with?

    Perhaps this very ‘proper’ plot had a loose end… i.e., 19 alleged hijackers… For more about Saudis and 9/11, search ‘Cozen O’Connor Saudi lawsuit’ for info about a firm suing the Saudis on behalf of insurers Chubb, Ace, Allstate and One Beacon among others. Interesting information at Wikipedia’s page on Omar al-Bayoumi.

    bobbo said: The guy looked like bin ladin to me. But seriously, all terrorists do kinda look the same.

    That’s just your conditioning bobbo…

    bobbo said: Stand down of air defense? I’ve seen references to that. I thought the deal was they were looking in the wrong direction? Most first real situations show failure as people aren’t really ready to react to new stimuli. That explains Pearl Harbor and all the “confusion” of 911.

    Again, intercepts of errant airliners were, before 9/11, routine. After 9/11 the air defense forces are once again scrambled in these situations. It’s evidently just one of those coinkydinks that US air defenses stood down on the same day that the laws of physics were suspended in New York.

    bobbo said: Do you have any first person testimony that they were part of the conspiracy?

    Yeah, Scott McClellan just came clean, but he was only in on the latter stages, when they started selling the wars. After we get a new administration, I’m sure we’ll see some revelations… right now, where ya gonna go?

  28. Mr. Gawd Almighty says:

    #451, EE,

    What you fail to understand is you keep referring to sites that have either a lot of opinion masquerading as fact or facts that have been totally debunked.

    Give us some evidence. And please, don’t say “look at this site, they have evidence”. Give facts and back that up with citations.

    Don’t bother with the “… well they could have…” That is bullshit.

  29. RBG says:

    EE: We already established that these pilots don’t know what they are talking about in #386 RBG.

    RBG

  30. Empirical Evidence says:

    # 449 Mr. Catshit said, on May 31st, 2008 at 5:42 pm

    Hey Zeus H. Christ !!! EE, you are fucking nuts !!! Over 400 posts and you haven’t made any point that hasn’t been thoroughly disputed. Give it up.

    Well Mr. Catshit,

    If you look atop the page here, you’ll see a split screen video of two buildings collapsing. One of them is your standard demolition job and the other is due to causes that are at present unknown… no, let’s say “Gawd only knows why the other collapsed.”

    You see, nearly seven years after this event, no official explanation has been offered… but Gawd has it all figured out… the cracked foundation that only he can see, the raging fires that appear to everyone else to be small flames flickering in a few windows…

    But hey, y’all believe in Gawd don’t you? Just because “The Experts Are Starting To Say The 9/11 Conspiracy Wackos May Be Right” you’ll surely not be so audacious as to question his word when he says “There’s nothing to see here folks, just move along.”

    Somehow, personally, I just can’t make that leap of faith… I see nothing in that video that allows me to distinguish between the cause of the two collapses. But who an I to deny Gawd and his disciple RBG a fair opportunity to convert me to belief in the One True Story of 9/11?


14

Bad Behavior has blocked 5440 access attempts in the last 7 days.