I suppose you don't recall their early pancake collapse nonsense...
Wasn't it FEMA's/ASCE's "Building Performance Assessment Team"?
Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been suspended.
SanderO wrote:Excuse me? You think that the entire NIST report is error free?
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.
SanderO wrote:I suppose you don't recall their early pancake collapse nonsense...
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?
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?
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
Heretic76 wrote:As I understand the labels, that would be LIHOP, no?
Heretic76 wrote:I have considered that position, but cannot embrace it for a number of reasons: the absence of a 757 at Shanksville,
Heretic76 wrote: and a similar situation at the Pentagon.
Heretic76 wrote: The impossible maneuver assigned to Hani and 77, that based upon my life experiences in aviation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests