The 9/11 Forum

Good post.

I do not seek to discredit your authority and expertise. On the contrary, in real life I have a strange sort of affinity for both engineers and attorneys.

The influence of the subjective effects all of us humans, some more than others.

Curious if you served in the Australian military at all?

I think we both know what the 'official story' is. I assume that one as well educated and qualified as yourself does. That is really the essence of what we discuss, for indeed, a very elaborate story was told that day, largely by way of staged cell phone conversations and innuendo. Certainly the US President, however slowly he might have started that day, and however dumb he looked, had it all figured out by the end of the day. Not only was the story told, it has been repeated ad nauseam, for 10 years now.

And reference "logic process", I wonder if you might address just how that process is influenced when its very premise and starting point is based upon the statements of an entity known to be quite mendacious?

As to the specifics, and regarding your comment that the 'exit hole' is just what one would expect, I would like your engineering side to explain to me how an alumium fuselage whose structural integrity was compromised sufficiently at the first millisecond to spew 6 foot sections backwards from the direction of travel, as shown by the nicely painted American Airlines piece on the front lawn of the Pentagon, how could that compromised fuselage suddenly acquire the properties of some sort of earth-boring drill so that it could then bore through however many 'rings' present, to then make such a neatly symmetrical exit hole?

Further, why do we not have similar exit holes made by the much heavier (and fully retracted and enclosed at time of impact) steel landing gear? Why no exit holes for the huge and heavy and hard turbine engines?

I will not push on the aerodynamic implications, for I know you would not appreciate the finer points.

Heretic76 wrote:...Curious if you served in the Australian military at all?..

15 years in the reserve - RAE - "Royal Australian Engineers" which includes the field or combat engineers and construction engineers. No active service.

Heretic76 wrote:...I think we both know what the 'official story' is....

that is where the problem starts because the expression "Official Story" is used with untruthful effect - whether by people who are being deliberately dishonest or unable to focus on what they specifically mean. At one end of the spectrum it is used to include the technical issues - the big three where the "official" side has "No CD at WTC"; "It was that 757 at Pentagon and "No Shootdown at Shanksville". We then see accusations that anyone supporting the "Official Story" are government shills etc etc.

Put as simply as possible the range of issues which can potentially be included in the "Official Story" ranges from the Government statements explaining the terrorist involvement right across to explanations of WTC towers collapse.

That is not one story that can be "right" or "wrong" - it is at least dozens of separate events/issues each of which can stand alone as to "right' or "wrong" where some may be right whilst some may be wrong.

I see the terminology most often originating in a "truther side' claim which is at least partially false and where the claimant makes no distinction as to which bits of that story he is pushing. It is not possible to argue those claims without hundreds of words of disclaimer attempting to get rid of the innuendoes and inferences.

Heretic76 wrote:...That is really the essence of what we discuss, for indeed, a very elaborate story was told that day, largely by way of staged cell phone conversations and innuendo. Certainly the US President, however slowly he might have started that day, and however dumb he looked, had it all figured out by the end of the day. Not only was the story told, it has been repeated ad nauseam, for 10 years now...

(my emphasis) Ok, so by the "Official Story" you mean the explanation in the very elaborate story was told that day. So "the Official Story", when you use the term, does not include the later explanations of the technical events at WTC, Pentagon and Shanksville. I have no problem with the idea that Bush et all massaged the message for political ends. How much and to what effect are matters for discussion and IMO have not been adequately pursued by the truth movement. Hence my repeated concern that leading truth movement advocates such as Gage and Jones in earlier days insist on linking their calls for a new investigation to the false technical claim of demolition at WTC. Keep them separate. I can go along with one. The other is nonsense.

Heretic76 wrote:...And reference "logic process", I wonder if you might address just how that process is influenced when its very premise and starting point is based upon the statements of an entity known to be quite mendacious?

So you don't start from doubtful premises. In discussing WTC collapse I have on occasion had to go right back to zero base and start with "Do you agree that the Twin Towers were standing on 9/10 and not standing on 9/12?" And one of the best truther side researchers I know declined to answer when I asked "Do you agree that the visible collapse of the twin towers started as a downward movement of the 'top block' above the impact and fire zone? - if you don't accept that please state when you think it started?"

I divide the 9/11 events and issues into two classes. The technical - essentially the big three technical questions and the subordinate aspects thereto AND all the rest which tends to be in the socio political domain. With the technical is is nearly always possible to be definitive - not so simple when dealing with political issues.

Heretic76 wrote:...As to the specifics, and regarding your comment that the 'exit hole' is just what one would expect, I would like your engineering side to explain to me how an alumium fuselage whose structural integrity was compromised sufficiently at the first millisecond to spew 6 foot sections backwards from the direction of travel, as shown by the nicely painted American Airlines piece on the front lawn of the Pentagon, how could that compromised fuselage suddenly acquire the properties of some sort of earth-boring drill so that it could then bore through however many 'rings' present, to then make such a neatly symmetrical exit hole?...

I explained it at some length on another forum - on the basis of the plane passing through several walls in succession -- red face department when I realised that the area it went through was not separated into rings.

Your comment "earth boring drill" suggests that you may have a concept of a rigid structure or device making the holes. Think of it a different way. The aircraft is moving mass. And relatively fragile in terms of the structural integrity giving it rigidity. The rigidity is not the key issue rather the energy of the moving mass of the parts. So as the plane hits the outer wall (and starts to disintegrate) what hits the wall is a concentrated mass of fuselage and undercarriage. At a distance either side a lesser mass of engines - one each side. And an even less mass stretched out linearly with wings and tail.

The mass of fuselage is either sufficient or not sufficient to break through the first wall. And, if it is sufficient there may still be some distribution effects. The energy at the outer limits of the fuselage may not be able to break through so the hole may be slightly smaller than the fuselage. Not so at Pentagon - I'm generalising a lot for the explanation.

Same story for the engines but lesser energy so if the wall is too strong the engines would bounce back. The engines actually went through the first wall at Pentagon - photo evidence.

Same storey for the wings but more so.

Now at the Pentagon the hole was a wide one - fuselage plus two engines and those knocked a big enough hole for most of the wing to pass through.

If the fuselage mass then strikes a second wall it is still advancing but with reduced energy and the advancing mass is a more or less cylindrical mess of debris. And the outer parts of the cylinder are easier to stop than the centre - more concentration of mass at the centre and focussed on less strength of wall.

So the hole through the second wall is smaller. Given successive walls the hole would tend to get smaller. The engines would run out of energy sooner than the fuselage.

So that is broadly the mechanics - and when I first gave it I thought the plane had gone through multiple walls. It actually only went through 2 walls and creamed a lot of columns in the space between them. And, of course, none of these claims of circular mean precise circles in reality.

And, at pentagon, the engines didn't make it through second wall but the remaining fuselage energy did.

Heretic76 wrote:...Further, why do we not have similar exit holes made by the much heavier (and fully retracted and enclosed at time of impact) steel landing gear? Why no exit holes for the huge and heavy and hard turbine engines?...

correct me if I'm wrong but the heavy bits of undercarriage on a 757 fold into the lower fuse? o it would merely add to the total mass of the central mess of fuselage. Most of the fuse mass seems to have been expended of energy and did not pass through the inner wall? And the engines had run out of energy - I dunno to what extent they were involved in damaging columns between the two walls.

Heretic76 wrote:...I will not push on the aerodynamic implications, for I know you would not appreciate the finer points.

Wrong for two reasons:
1) Aerodynamics is engineering dynamics. I may not have learned it as a specific topic but I am fully capable of understanding any bit of it that is relevant to the discussion; AND
2) At this stage I have not seen an argument which requires understanding of aerodynamics so the point is moot.

I prefer to discuss the topics at hand, and NOT the persons making them. I avoid using the word shill, though I do understand its denotation and connotation.

I knew some Australian soldiers back when I was in Vietnam, and they were an amiable lot. One of the main events driving my life in the last decade or so was the Farewell Speech of President Eisenhower. I think his sober assessment and warning regarding the Military Industrial Complex were spot on, and I think that what we discuss here is a result of Ike's worst nightmares having come true with a vengeance.

The "later explanations of the technical events at WTC the Pentagon and Shanksville" is a bit vague, but I think I know what you're getting at. Explanations that confirm what we were told--is that what you mean? If so, I see those 'explanations' as sophistry and spin control, nothing more. There may be a few exceptions, but I can't think of any right off. I have read various of them, but most of them are too technical for me, as far as engineering and architectural considerations.

As for those explanations regarding aviation, for which I am qualifed to judge, they are bunk.

I am more than happy to embrace the notion of moving mass. I think you already know that the most massive parts of the 757 are its landing gear assemblies and engines. The landing gear were retracted at the supposed time of impact, thereby protected to some degree by aluminum, yet there at the exit hole, no landing gear visible, even the nose gear pieces. I would like to remind you that the center of this cylindrical mass is seats and air. Oh yes, and some passengers, of course. None of which were seen, by the way, by at least one April Gallop who walked out through the debris.

And it seems that in reality, assuming the pictures are accurate, the symmetry of the exit hole is pretty darn close to perfect.

Right, the massive engines, and the more massive LG, did not make it through the 2nd wall. Does that cast doubt on the 'moving mass' notion?

Glad to hear you're up on aerodynamics, so you understand Vne, which is the redline on the airspeed indicator. According to the FDR, which is one tiny bite of the official story, the airplane was quite a bit over redline speed. I'm thinking something on the order of 35%.

A few knots over redline is not fun, and I've done it in smaller airplanes as part of my job. But 35% over. No way. That raises 2 big issues for aerodynamics--structural considerations for the airframe, and controllability issues for the flight controls. The same moving mass that penetrated through the several concrete structures whilst maintaining approximate inegrity is UNABLE to penetrate air above a certain velocity.

Cheers mate!

It is clear Heretic76 tha we approach 9/11 matters fon vastly different perspectives, both as to our regard for evidence and our regard for logic.

just few brief comments:

Heretic76 wrote:I prefer to discuss the topics at hand, and NOT the persons making them. I avoid using the word shill, though I do understand its denotation and connotation...

I was referring to an issue of fact when I used the term, not "discussing the persons making them" which is not relevant in the context.

Heretic76 wrote:...The "later explanations of the technical events at WTC the Pentagon and Shanksville" is a bit vague, but I think I know what you're getting at....

..it was not obtuse. "After" meaning later in time - I was simply trying to determine what you mean by "Official Story". Whether you meant what was published immediately following 9/11 OR whether you included the later official reports.

Heretic76 wrote:...Explanations that confirm what we were told--is that what you mean? If so, I see those 'explanations' as sophistry and spin control, nothing more. There may be a few exceptions, but I can't think of any right off....

not what I was referring to - I simply referred to "after" meaning "later in time". I tend to write with legal precision - so what I write is what I mean and I mean no more than what I write.

Heretic76 wrote:... I have read various of them, but most of them are too technical for me, as far as engineering and architectural considerations....

the engineering ones also over rule the architectural when it comes to understanding collapses. The architectural demands require something but it is up to the engineering to accommodate what the architect wants. There is currently a discussion on JREF about "moment frames" - principally they are needed to allow for horizontal impacts on a building of which seismic events - earthquakes - are the main cause. To build against seismic induced horizontal impacts the easiest engineering solution is trusses with diagonal bracing. But diagonal bracing conflicts with the architectural need for clear openings for windows. Bottom line it is the engineering which matters in discussion of collapses.

Heretic76 wrote:...As for those explanations regarding aviation, for which I am qualified to judge, they are bunk...

This is where your approach to logic departs from mine. you make a "bold assertion" and an appeal to authority. Your claim is worthless until you prove it. And remember at this stage we have not even identified a claim about the aviation aspects so there is nothing to discuss --- yet. If you want to demonstrate that some aviation aspect is not admissible you would need to put a claim in a proper context. The starting point is that it is accepted fact that on 9/11 a 757 jet crashed into the Pentagon. So that is where you start.....If you want to claim it didn't crash into the Pentagon there is a lot of work ahead of you....go for it!

Heretic76 wrote:...I am more than happy to embrace the notion of moving mass....

Good!

Heretic76 wrote: I think you already know that the most massive parts of the 757 are its landing gear assemblies and engines.

Yes - by the way it requires no piloting knowledge to understand that bit of engineering

Heretic76 wrote:The landing gear were retracted at the supposed time of impact, thereby protected to some degree by aluminum,

...Not so! We come to the "gap" where you need to understand some of the concepts of energy and momentum. At the speeds and energies involved the protection was effectively no better than tissue paper. Another engineering assessment which can be backed up if needed.

Heretic76 wrote:...yet there at the exit hole, no landing gear visible, even the nose gear pieces.

Naturally - the point I started to explain in the moving mass and energy explanation. clearly we will need to help you get up to at least moderate speed on the concepts involved.

Heretic76 wrote: I would like to remind you...

Try not to be patronising - I will filter it out but it is pointless...

Heretic76 wrote:that the center of this cylindrical mass is seats and air. Oh yes, and some passengers, of course. None of which were seen, by the way, by at least one April Gallop who walked out through the debris....

So the evidence of a deluded untruthful woman (proven to be untruthful by several court cases) outweighs all the other evidence? You will need to present proper arguments and real evidence is you want to sway me on that lot.

Heretic76 wrote:...And it seems that in reality, assuming the pictures are accurate, the symmetry of the exit hole is pretty darn close to perfect.

Yes! So what? That is what we should expect.

Heretic76 wrote:...Right, the massive engines, and the more massive LG, did not make it through the 2nd wall. Does that cast doubt on the 'moving mass' notion?

No it tends to prove what I said. So the real issue is that as yet you appear to not have taken my explanation on board...

Heretic76 wrote:...Glad to hear you're up on aerodynamics, so you understand Vne, which is the redline on the airspeed indicator. According to the FDR, which is one tiny bite of the official story, the airplane was quite a bit over redline speed. I'm thinking something on the order of 35%.

A few knots over redline is not fun, and I've done it in smaller airplanes as part of my job. But 35% over. No way. That raises 2 big issues for aerodynamics--structural considerations for the airframe, and controllability issues for the flight controls. The same moving mass that penetrated through the several concrete structures whilst maintaining approximate inegrity is UNABLE to penetrate air above a certain velocity....

Please:
A) Don't patronmise me with your superior knowledge in aspects which so far you have not established as being relevant;
B) Avoid the "texas sharpshooter" fallacy of logic;
c) If you are trying to say the plane couldn't have flown the path then say so...and back it with relevant reasoned argument.

Heretic76 wrote:...Cheers mate!

...and cheers to you sir!

Heretic76 wrote:... some passengers, of course. None of which were seen, by the way, by at least one April Gallop who walked out through the debris...

The last part of this begs the question "would you expect to find visible and discernible parts of passengers in the area that April Gallop walked through?", which you might want to establish for us. But don't try too hard.

The main point I would like to make at this point is: When you recruit April Gallup as witness for your case, expect us to cross-examine her claims. Luckily for us, many of her claims are already on public record and have been decided on by proper courts of law, which came to final decisions:

1. April Gallop won a court case against American Airlines in which she, along with a number of other claimants, claimed that AA negligently allowed one of its planes to be hijacked, crahed and injuring her and her minor child. She won and received damages. So: April Gallup claimed that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon, a court of law found this to be in agreement with all evidence, including evidence presented by American Airlines, and upgeld April Gallop's claims.

2. April Gallop lost a subsequent court case against Cheney, Rumsfeld and Myers, in which her lawyers alleged that it wasn't an airliner that attacked the Pentagon and caused injuries to April Gallup and her minor child. This case was dismissed by the court for utter lack of evidence, the allegations were deemed frivolous, her lawyers fined, and they payed the fines.


So if you want to accept April Gallup as a witness for your case, please note that her entire story has been found to be in agreement with the commonly accepted theory by which AA77 was hijacked by Muslim terrorists and crashed, and April Gallup's entire story refutes the competing allegation that AA77 did not crash into the Pentagon.


You'll have some work to do before the April Gallup evidence goes in favour of your claims.

Ozeco

Yessir, it seems we do see things differently, but that's why we participate in this obsessive behavior, isn't it? And, it seems we both 'appeal to authority'. You to your experience and specific training in engineering and law, I to my training and experience in aviation.

What for you is an accepted fact--that a 757 struck the Pentagon--is a fallacy. It has not been proved, it has been asserted by the government. Unfortunately all the evidence works against that assertion, and that is the heart of the matter. We have already touched on some of the facts that disprove your assertion, so I won't bore you with that again.

The retracted landing gear were NOT protected by aluminum enclosures? That's news to me. I agree that the aluminum does not offer MUCH protection, especially when the airplane assumes the role of building destroyer, but there is some small measure of protection.

What would be nice would be for you to offer an explanation how with the 'moving mass' phenomenon, some portions of the moving mass actually separate from the mass and move in the opposite direction. That would be most helpful to me. Especially a nice 6 foot section or so conveniently painted with a non-current paint job.

April Gallup was not proven to be a liar by ANY court. Her case never made it to court sir. The court dismissed her case out of hand.

That the more massive parts of the airplane did NOT penetrate the other walls PROVES the moving mass explanation? While the disintegrating and exploding aluminum fuselage makes a perfect circle exit hole? Please sir. I might have been born at night, but it was not just last night.

Aerodynamics are NOT RELEVANT in a case involving an airplane? Egads, I'm beginning to wonder if this exchange is relevant?

Perhaps you misunderstand my point. For the sake of discussion I'm willing to say that the airplane MIGHT have performed the claimed maneuver, but what I say is that a substandard and inexperienced pilot, first time ever in a Boeing OR an airplane exceeding 150 knots, would NEVER have been able to perform the maneuver. With that much energy in airspeed, he would have missed the building by 10 country miles, assuming he could have even SEEN the low profile target.

That is combining aerodynamics and human behavior, another favorite of mine.

C'mon Oystein, she particpated in the class action suit against AA and took whatever the airline offered, same as everybody else that settled with the insurance company.

By that she may have fatally injured any chances of a separate case against others. I don't know, I'm not a lawyer.

But I do know that in her case against Rumsfeld et al, her suit was not even allowed, it was not heard.

Heretic76 wrote:...April Gallup was not proven to be a liar by ANY court. Her case never made it to court sir. The court dismissed her case out of hand....

She claimed damages based on plane crash and won. She then attempted to claim based on no plane. The state of fact, as it relates to your attempt to use Gallop as a source of evidence, exists in the legal system and it is that the plane crashed into the Pentagon. If another matter goes to court it will have to prove the earlier evidence false. Yes we could dress that up in proper legal terminology but I will leave it in layman's language. You are mixing up legal reasoning with layperson wishful thinking.

Heretic76 wrote:...That the more massive parts of the airplane did NOT penetrate the other walls PROVES the moving mass explanation? While the disintegrating and exploding aluminum fuselage makes a perfect circle exit hole? Please sir. I might have been born at night, but it was not just last night....

Whilst you (a) Misrepresent what I said; AND (b)deny basic physics there is no basis for further discussion on this topic. I have given you a factual outline. The lack of understanding remains with you. BUT you cannot use your ignorance of physics as an argument.

Heretic76 wrote:...Aerodynamics are NOT RELEVANT in a case involving an airplane? Egads, I'm beginning to wonder if this exchange is relevant?...

Evasion. The issue is that it is your burden of proof to demonstrate that those matters of aerodynamics are relevant. I gave you the starting point. The plane hit the Pentagon. to build your argument you will need to prove that it didn't. Until you show that aerodynamics issues are relevant and how they are relevant the ball remains firmly in your court.

Heretic76 wrote:...Perhaps you misunderstand my point. For the sake of discussion I'm willing to say that the airplane MIGHT have performed the claimed maneuver, but what I say is that a substandard and inexperienced pilot, first time ever in a Boeing OR an airplane exceeding 150 knots, would NEVER have been able to perform the maneuver. With that much energy in airspeed, he would have missed the building by 10 country miles, assuming he could have even SEEN the low profile target...

Look up "texas sharpshooter" fallacy and rethink what you are trying to say.

Heretic76 wrote:C'mon Oystein, she particpated in the class action suit against AA and took whatever the airline offered, same as everybody else that settled with the insurance company.

Which probes you accept that April Gallup is a liar. And now on the the question of witness credibility...

Heretic76 wrote:By that she may have fatally injured any chances of a separate case against others. I don't know, I'm not a lawyer.

While the court noted this fact, it wasn't considered in the case against Cheney, Rumsfeld Myers. I think that was a nice move on the part of the judges who sensed from the beginning that Gallup was being abused by deluded lawyers, so they kinda obverlooked this problem in order to save Gallup personally from fines for vexatious, fraudulent and frivolous litigation.

Heretic76 wrote:But I do know that in her case against Rumsfeld et al, her suit was not even allowed, it was not heard.

It was considered at length by a court which found that Gallup and her lawyers failed to present evidence for their allegations. It was basically rejected out of hand because Veale nad Cunningam didn't even try to make a prima facie case and instead resorted to slanderous, unsubstantiated allegations and fantasizing. The court found this to be frivolous in the extreme, fined them, and gave them due time to explain why they should not be fined. Instead of providing evidence against the defendants when told that their frivolous claims didn't meet eben the most basic standards, they resorted to insulting the court and accusing it of being biased, which rightly earned them a doubling of fines.
There procedings went over the course of many months.
Months in which the claimants failed to even try to provide proper evidence.

And that's your problem, too: You say you have evidence, but it consists merely in your own conviction. None of your evidence is real.

Heretic76 wrote:But I do know that in her case against Rumsfeld et al, her suit was not even allowed, it was not heard.

That is the problem that you and fellow believers face. Pontificate all you want but don't ever go near the objective reality of a court case. Whether in actual hearings OR in "moot court" type situations on Internet forums.

I have had several "truth" advocates who over the years made the mistake of trying to put their truther claims as if they were in a court of law. So I put the hard realities of what would happen in a court of law...

In fact the Gallop nonsense is a good example to study. Read all the court reports and see why some of the nonsense she was claiming never even got into the front door. The real world is a hard taskmaster for people trying to sell fantasy. In Gallop's case it is embarrassing to see what qualified lawyers were prepared to put to the court.

It may be fun to put your unsupported claims on an Internet forum...I won't take discussion further until you get serious and it would be a good test for you to ask "How could I prove this claim if it was before a court?" So read all the Gallop findings and see if you can still put her forward as a witness. And if you still think you can then go back and read it all again until....

I'm more than happy Gents, to accept your explanations for the history of the 2 Gallop cases. That might very well have been the court's reasoning, and I fully understand the contradiction involved in taking payments and admitting thereby than an airplane was involved, and subsequently claiming that there was no airplane. That is sensible.

But one of the unintended consequences was the APPEARANCE of impropriety in the decision.

It seems a truly neutral judge would have allowed the case to proceed and perhaps chuckle as it could not be made.

Instead, the court denies the citizen her day in court on a whim.

I've read her story, and seen her interviewed. I find her credible, because I know very well there was no Boeing in that building that day.

Heretic76 wrote:I'm more than happy Gents, to accept your explanations for the history of the 2 Gallop cases. That might very well have been the court's reasoning, and I fully understand the contradiction involved in taking payments and admitting thereby than an airplane was involved, and subsequently claiming that there was no airplane. That is sensible.

But one of the unintended consequences was the APPEARANCE of impropriety in the decision.

It seems a truly neutral judge would have allowed the case to proceed and perhaps chuckle as it could not be made....

Outright wrong on that lot Heretic.
1) there is no appearance of impropriety to a suitably informed and reasonable person which is the type of test which is applicable. The distortions of persons who have prejudiced views do not affect the legal standards of the courts. Recall my caution in the previous post.
2) Your insinuation against the Judge is irrelevant. He is the arbiter of facts and controller of the legal process before him. Judge Chin had first hearing of the second Gallop claim - her claim that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Myers plus other unnamed government officials "aided in the attacks" which involved a plane crashing into the Pentagon. Chin heard the case and decided that very little of Gallop's case reached the level of factual allegations, and there was insufficient basis upon which to ground the lawsuit. So Chin did allow the case to be put and judged that it was not made out. Again your insinuation of "chuckle" has no place in the legal process. It is cold bloodedly objective. And that is the reason why any attempt to put truther claims of the type we see here before a court will be unsuccessful. The sort of bad or no logic, unfounded assertions and such nonsense simply will not survive in a court setting. Read Chin for yourself as I suggested. Try here: http://sites.google.com/site/resipsa2006/gallop

Heretic76 wrote:...Instead, the court denies the citizen her day in court on a whim...

Nonsense - read the decision please.

Heretic76 wrote:...I've read her story, and seen her interviewed. I find her credible,...

Let me get you to stop being vague and be specific.
She says:
(A) There was no plane; AND
(B) There was a plane.

Which one do you find credible? "A"? "B"? Both "A' and "B"?

No matter which one of those you pick you cannot "find her credible" if you wish to be credible yourself.

Heretic76 wrote:... because I know very well there was no Boeing in that building that day.

That of course is nonsense to me and will remain nonsense until you or some other person who shares that fantasy can put forward a reasoned argument worthy of consideration. 10 years since 9/11 and there has never been such a reasoned argument put for any of the "big three" technical claims. Therefore it is legitimate for me to assume those claims are false given the weight of evidence against those claims and in the absence of any rigorous argument to the contrary.

Maybe Judge Chin had no other choice, maybe he didn't.

That she participated in the class action suit was clearly an error on her part, but I would be most interested to see if you could provide in any way a statement by her that "there was an airplane" as you allege.

I understand that mere participation in the suit is an implicit statement, but I doubt very much you can show me any verbal or written statement by her to the effect than an airliner was there.

I further understand that you have faith in your position that 77 crashed into the building, and that my position is nonsense to you.

Nonetheless, I'm very comfortable in my position. So in the end, we agree to disagree.

And you never did explain how the principle of moving mass could account for a part of that mass to be ejected backwards suffienctly to overcome its 400 knot velocity, or whatever number you use for that. Is the moving mass principle compatible with some sort of chaos principle?

Cimino is a charlatan who thinks radio altimeters can "get behind".

Nothing he says is of value.

Yeah, and there are some fools who believe that a pair of hijackers would simultaneously change their altimeters to local pressure. Too funny!!!

Are fools and charlatans the same thing?