The 9/11 Forum

SanderO wrote:
I suppose you don't recall their early pancake collapse nonsense...

Wasn't it FEMA's/ASCE's "Building Performance Assessment Team"?

SanderO wrote:Excuse me? You think that the entire NIST report is error free?

What the...??? I didn't even hint at such utter nonsense! It is trivially true that OF COURSE the NIST report contains errors.

What I said was:



I said that in response to your post

SanderO wrote:We know that there was a cover up because parts of the NIST explanation is factually wrong... and their conclusion(s) would therefore be wrong. Same is true for AE911T.

Now I'll not explain that and instead give you a second chance to figure it out all by yourself.
Just ask yourself: What did you say? And what did I say?
I think you can look up the meaning of "Non sequitur" at Wikipedia, if you are not sure what it means. Hint: It's a term in the field of logic.

SanderO wrote:I suppose you don't recall their early pancake collapse nonsense...

True, I don't recall that. What I do recall is that FEMA suggested such a thing, but hastened to add that they had too little information and that this should be checked by a more thorough investigation.

SanderO wrote:and their final explanation that the trusses sagged from heat weakening the steel, but still had sufficient strength to pull the facade box columns inward? You don't believe that nonsense is factual do you?

Why shouldn't I? But this is really far far off-topic here. Dang why am I even replying to this...

SanderO wrote:And this pulling was uniform through the floor so that the facade lost support on all four sides at the same time so that it more or less came straight down ... except off set to by pass all the columns below? So what was the NIST explanation for the collapse?

Well, that was surely not it. I think I shouldn't waste my time here with someone who condemns something that he doesn't know well enough...

SanderO wrote:Do you believe that the girder and the beams and the shear studs welded to them at column 79 caused the total collapse of bldg 7 when they stretched from heating and the one girder walked off the beam seat at column 79? You think that is a good explanation for the building collapse?

You are asking for my belief? Seriously?
Massive argument from incredulity here.

SanderO wrote:Get real dude... NIST covered up the design *decisions* which ultimately allowed all three towers to collapse. And they were not the only ones to avoid the implications of the design decisions.

And still Non Sequitor, with a False Dychotomy thrown in.
And massively off-topic.



No, I do not believe at all that the NIST covered up anything.

SnowCrash wrote:
As for what kind of planes they were, at least the second plane can be readily identified as a United Airlines 767:

Piece of fuselage that was landed on the roof WTC5 with a portion of the tail number "N612UA":

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/sing ... &t=3213759

Oystein,
Let me be the first to say this. Your attitude on this forum stinks. You are a pedantic condescending insulting person who is not the least bit collegial.

If this were my house I would show you the door. But OWE is too much the gentleman to do that and so readers have to suffer your aggressive style.

Sorry I get a little frustrated that people make sweeping assumptions about me rather than address my arguments.

We all get frustrated, but we don't all resort to insults and ad homs. My sense is that your arguments were addressed, but apparently you were not satisfied.

MrKoenig wrote:Piece of fuselage that was landed on the roof WTC5 with a portion of the tail number "N612UA":

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/sing ... &t=3213759

Ah, thanks! A bit inconclusive, but good to have anyway.

SanderO wrote:We all get frustrated, but we don't all resort to insults and ad homs. My sense is that your arguments were addressed, but apparently you were not satisfied.

No, that wasn't my sense. Typically, something else was addressed, sometimes things I didn't mean. But I see a possibility that my perception here is biased, as we tend to remember the rough and difficult spots on the course more vividly than the smooth sailing in between.

SnowCrash wrote:Heretic76, I have a method I use to determine truth and factuality and it's not specifically motivated by either trust or distrust in government but rather principles of science, journalism, epistemology, historiography, philosophical skepticism and logic.

I don't know about Oystein, but earlier I already condemned the nature of the current US government. I'd gladly complain about my own government or the EU, too.

There is no question in my mind there was a 9/11 cover up.

I lean towards (elements of) the USG allowing 9/11 to happen, too.

As I understand the labels, that would be LIHOP, no?

I have considered that position, but cannot embrace it for a number of reasons: the absence of a 757 at Shanksville, and a similar situation at the Pentagon. The impossible maneuver assigned to Hani and 77, that based upon my life experiences in aviation. The work done by A&E911 persuades me that the WTC was rigged for demolition. A strictly gravitational collapse cannot leave the forensic fingerprints that were there.

The fact that Vigilant Guardian and Tripod exercises were being conducted by the US Government rules out the "oops, we let it happen because we are incompetent" position.

Snow

What those photos show is NOT NECESSARILY a United Airlines aircraft. It cannot be proved either way, but what it shows is an airplane PAINTED in UA livery. Maybe it's a United craft, maybe it's not.

And as for the external effects, if the picture is accurate and true, the several appendages/fairings shown strongly suggest that it is NOT a United aircraft, but some other, painted up in UA livery.

You may or may not recall that Dubya suggested to Tony that they could paint up an airplane in Iraqi colors and schemes, and have it violate the no-fly zones there, inducing retaliation by US forces. Can't remember if that was in the Downing Street memo, but the conversation was eventually made public all those years ago.

Putting fake paint jobs on airplanes is a trick as old as the hills.

Heretic76 wrote:As I understand the labels, that would be LIHOP, no?

LIHOP plus if you add the possibility of building sabotage.

Heretic76 wrote:I have considered that position, but cannot embrace it for a number of reasons: the absence of a 757 at Shanksville,

Well, in the Shanksville physical evidence thread you simply dismissed the evidence of a plane crash... besides, the FDR and the CVR were found, as well as DNA evidence, personal effects and passports.

Heretic76 wrote: and a similar situation at the Pentagon.

Not at all...

Heretic76 wrote: The impossible maneuver assigned to Hani and 77, that based upon my life experiences in aviation.

I believe Rob Balsamo disagrees with you... but the turn wasn't impossible at all, ask former P4T member and 757 pilot "ProudBird" at ATS... Just a standard turn to lose altitude. FDR analysis of AA 77 shows just how incompetent of a pilot Hanjour really was... Al-Shehhi on the other hand, what he did was remarkable.

Heretic76 wrote: The work done by A&E911 persuades me that the WTC was rigged for demolition. A strictly gravitational collapse cannot leave the forensic fingerprints that were there.

Can you show me the hundreds of examples of explosive shaped charge column cutting that would be evident in the photos released by Kurt Sonnenfeld?

Heretic76 wrote:The fact that Vigilant Guardian and Tripod exercises were being conducted by the US Government rules out the "oops, we let it happen because we are incompetent" position.

Good point, and I never said LIHOP equals incompetence, where did you get that idea?

Heretic76 wrote:Snow

What those photos show is NOT NECESSARILY a United Airlines aircraft. It cannot be proved either way, but what it shows is an airplane PAINTED in UA livery. Maybe it's a United craft, maybe it's not.

It could also be a hologram... It COULD be a lot of things. As it stands, the picture simply proves the plane is a United Airlines 767. What you'd need is positive evidence of a fake paint job. Besides, you can't look at the evidence in isolation and declare it to be fake based on falsification-speculation.. there are many cross-corroborating points in my long post which you failed to address.

Heretic76 wrote:And as for the external effects, if the picture is accurate and true, the several appendages/fairings shown strongly suggest that it is NOT a United aircraft, but some other, painted up in UA livery.

The "pod" theory has long since been proven to be baseless by Eric Salter.

Besides, look at the internal contradiction in your own logic: on the one hand, it was painted to look exactly like a United Airlines 767, on the other, it has fuselage anomalies which clearly show it to be something else? What a waste of a good paint job fakery effort!

Heretic76 wrote:You may or may not recall that Dubya suggested to Tony that they could paint up an airplane in Iraqi colors and schemes, and have it violate the no-fly zones there, inducing retaliation by US forces. Can't remember if that was in the Downing Street memo, but the conversation was eventually made public all those years ago.

Putting fake paint jobs on airplanes is a trick as old as the hills.

But you would need positive evidence to prove it actually happened.

It seems to me you have a lot of catching up to do?

Snow

Yes, regarding Shanksville I am biased. That, because I can remember that day watching and wondering just where the airplane was. Nobody in the helicopter could see it, and it was not visible on the video. I fly helicopters too, and I've seen all sorts of crashes from the air. That was my big question, though ultimately I succumbed to the propaganda effort. For about 4 years.

I don't really care what Balsamo says. I have been a flight instructor since about 1970, and I know what 3500 feet per minute vertical and downward is. And I know that almost nobody, certainly NOT a 300 hour pilot described as "poor" by all his flight instructors, could perform that maneuver. The 3500FPM thing in itself is possible, but the TRANSITION from that vertical component to almost level off to "terrain following flight" is the impossible part. This is a guy who has never flown an airplane more than 150knots or so in his entire life, suddenly getting into a transport category airplane (which he had never flown before) and performing a most difficult feat FLAWLESSLY. Sorry, I cannot buy into that.

The NTSB did not investigate any of the accident sites. In a situation that never has happened before, the Pentagon investigated the accident sites of civilian aircraft accidents. That factoid might not mean much to you, but it sticks out like a sore thumb to those of us in the aviation business.

Pardon my cynicism, but from my little time in the US Army, I know what the military is capable of when it comes to planting or destroying evidence. The experiences and comments by the civilian coroner Mr. Miller speaks volumes about this subject.

I cannot make a qualified statement regarding building demolition, but I do rely upon A&E911 and others to help me make an informed decision in that regard.

IMO, the LIHOP position strongly suggests government incompetence. After all, they were so incompetent that the arabs got the other hand, eventually the americans found out, and then said "oops", we never knew some bad guys would fly airplanes into buildings.

As opposed to Made it Happen, the nuanced Let It Happen suggests incompetence, at least to me.

BTW, I am well aware of the fact that diligent Northwoods-adherents have been belching out thousands of 'anomalies', all of which, on closer examination, fail scrutiny. You could elongate this thread by a million pages, going around in circles forever, with points and counterpoints.

Ask yourself this: were the 'swapped planes' scheduled to almost collide?

Heretic76 wrote:Snow

Yes, regarding Shanksville I am biased. That, because I can remember that day watching and wondering just where the airplane was. Nobody in the helicopter could see it, and it was not visible on the video. I fly helicopters too, and I've seen all sorts of crashes from the air. That was my big question, though ultimately I succumbed to the propaganda effort. For about 4 years.

I'm a bit biased too, since my friend Cosmos from TruthAction lost his family friend, Mickey Rothenberg on that plane.

Heretic76 wrote:I don't really care what Balsamo says. I have been a flight instructor since about 1970, and I know what 3500 feet per minute vertical and downward is. And I know that almost nobody, certainly NOT a 300 hour pilot described as "poor" by all his flight instructors, could perform that maneuver. The 3500FPM thing in itself is possible, but the TRANSITION from that vertical component to almost level off to "terrain following flight" is the impossible part. This is a guy who has never flown an airplane more than 150knots or so in his entire life, suddenly getting into a transport category airplane (which he had never flown before) and performing a most difficult feat FLAWLESSLY. Sorry, I cannot buy into that.

That's just the thing... he didn't do it flawlessly at all... He smacked into an obstacle course on the way in, and he overstressed the aircraft to the point of structural failure. That hardly mattered though, since it was about to crash.

Heretic76 wrote:The NTSB did not investigate any of the accident sites. In a situation that never has happened before, the Pentagon investigated the accident sites of civilian aircraft accidents. That factoid might not mean much to you, but it sticks out like a sore thumb to those of us in the aviation business.

That means very little, as 9/11 was a terrorist attack and not an accident, so it was investigated by the FBI (With the assistance of the NTSB). They declared the Pentagon a crime scene shortly after the attack.

Heretic76 wrote:Pardon my cynicism, but from my little time in the US Army, I know what the military is capable of when it comes to planting or destroying evidence. The experiences and comments by the civilian coroner Mr. Miller speaks volumes about this subject.

I guess..

Heretic76 wrote:I cannot make a qualified statement regarding building demolition, but I do rely upon A&E911 and others to help me make an informed decision in that regard.

I was a member. SanderO was. What's wrong with our opinions?

Heretic76 wrote:IMO, the LIHOP position strongly suggests government incompetence. After all, they were so incompetent that the arabs got the other hand, eventually the americans found out, and then said "oops", we never knew some bad guys would fly airplanes into buildings.

As opposed to Made it Happen, the nuanced Let It Happen suggests incompetence, at least to me.

Well, letting a terrorist attack happen on purpose isn't incompetent. It's treason. (And so is any kind of criminal cover-up)