A Boeing Engineer doubts 911 planes existed

[dianewood]

A Boeing Engineer Discovers the Official 9/11 Airplane Story Is a Big Fat Lie
John Herold -
You'll have to pardon my giddiness at what happened yesterday.
In my work I drive to homes and businesses to solve computer problems. Every now and again I meet someone with knowledge or experience that directly relates to my understanding of 9/11. And when I detect that I'm in the presence of a real expert, I'll start a verbal dance where I quiz them about 9/11 without mentioning 9/11. For a brief window of time, I can get some honest answers without evoking the natural resistance people often have when they realize what they believe is incorrect. Once that happens, emotions often take over and the rational discussion usually stops. All this while fixing their computer.
This time my client was a kind, retired gentleman. After I got to work we started chatting about subjects other than his computer. He ruminated about airplanes and informed me that he's a retired Boeing engineer.
Sweet! I love quizzing people about planes, and here I am talking to someone who really should know!
He then went on: "The 787 is a mess. In for another delay. Composites are very tricky. The interface between metals and composites is difficult. Titanium+composite is OK. But when aluminum meets composite, they literally rot each other over time. This is why there's so much talk about these fasteners. Ultimately the 787 will be heavier, more expensive, less efficient, way delayed, and more technically tricky than promised. Unless these problems are solved, it'll probably be less safe than promised, too. They should just stick with what they know. All this hassle isn't worth it."
He then mentioned that the Hudson River water landing wouldn't have gone so well had it been in a Boeing 737 rather than an Airbus A-320.
He had my attention. "Why?" I asked.
He then explained that it's due to the fact that the cross-section of an Airbus fuselage is ROUND. Before the 777 he said, Boeing airliners are what I believe he called "double-lobed" -- meaning that if you view the fuselage end-on it would NOT be round. Instead, he equated it to a compressed "figure-8" shape. It's wider on the bottom, and then the bottom half is joined to a smaller-diameter upper piece and those two pieces have to be joined together and fastened carefully. That joint is naturally not as strong as if there were no joint at all. That's what an Airbus is. It's round without interruption. Like an egg, this continuous [uniform] curve [curvature] lends strength since no one point is any more vulnerable than another. It's all round. The superior strength of a seamless circle as he put it, is just common sense.
He suspected that a 737's fuselage would probably have come apart in the stress of said water landing.
So bottom line, fly Airbus, he told me. Their design makes better sense and he said there are more and more Boeing engineers who are willing to admit the same. Being retired gave him a certain advantage in the candor department, I suspect.
So naturally I began to think, if this retired Boeing engineer is ready to admit that Boeings are fragile in a water landing, then surely he'll have no problem rejecting plane-shaped holes in the WTC.
Of course this subject is kind of tricky to approach with my computer clients. In this case, the more questions I asked about the vulnerability of airliners, the more suspicious he became that I was planning to show up in the evening news.
"Trust me, I have no intent to hurt anyone or any planes," I assured him.
"You're not going to fly a plane into my house, are you?" he said half-jokingly.
Then we discussed my work on his computer...for a little while.
Ten minutes later I returned to the more important matter.
"So humor me: if I locked you in a hangar with a Boeing 767 and a 9 pound sledgehammer, do you think you could make it unflyable in 15 minutes?" This is one of my very favorite questions and it gets all sorts of responses.
Without pausing, he quickly replied, "I don't need 15 minutes, and I don't need a hammer. I'll just unplug a few wires and I'm all done."
"What about from the outside of the plane? Could you do it then?" I wanted to hear what a sledgehammer does to a plane. This guy was too smart for the my first version of the question.
Calmly he stated, "It would be so easy. I could do with my hands. But with a sledgehammer, sure, even easier."
I asked where the plane is the most fragile. He then told me that most of the strength in a Boeing is on the bottom of the plane. The top is where it's most fragile. Parts of the tail are pretty delicate, too.
"How thick is the skin?" I could barely contain my excitement at what he had to say.
"It varies," he said. Some places it's more than 1/2 inch (I think he even said 3/4 inch in the strongest places like where the wing and fuselage meet). Multi-layered aluminum.
"What about the frame? What's it made from?"
With an expression as if he didn't even need to say so, "It's all aluminum, John."
Playing dumb, I asked, "So the frame isn't made from steel."
"No way. There's no steel anywhere except for stainless steel cargo doors on certain models, and a little in the back in case the plane scrapes its tail on the runway. But it's not much."
You should have seen his face. The thought of a plane made of steel (frame, skin, whatever) was laughable. I might as well have asked if his house was made from soap bubbles.
So at this point I'm thinking, this guy's open-minded enough...let's see if he'll "go there," as it were.
I spilled the beans and told him about what I very gently described as a "debate" regarding whether planes actually crashed into the Twin Towers on 9/11.
Incredulous, he raised his voice and started talking faster: "My wife told me to turn on the TV and I saw it happen! The plane looked like it flew behind the tower, but it actually hit it. And the explosion and fire, you know fire weakens steel. Eventually the building started to collapse and it couldn't stop."
He just went on and on about how he saw it happen. It was really pretty funny to watch.
"Yes, but is that what a Boeing 767 would do when encountering the WTC?" I asked. "Some people don't think so."
"John you have to remember that the plane was fully fueled and was going quite fast, probably 170 or maybe even 200. And then all that fuel would just weaken the whole building and there you have it."
HOLD UP, I'm thinking. I didn't hear him specify whether he meant mph or knots, but who cares? This guy is under the impression that this plane was coming in for a mid-air refueling with the WTC, not balls-to-the-wall full throttle as government and media described it.
I informed him that NIST claims United 175 was going over 500 mph.
"What? No way. That's wrong. Commercial jets don't fly even close to that fast at that low an altitude. That's incorrect."
"Why not?" I asked rhetorically.
Confidently he replied, "Because of the air resistance! Sure, they can achieve high speeds like that at 42,000 feet, but it's very thin up there."
I wonder what was going through his mind at this point. Here he's discovered that his knowledge of airliners directly contradicts what he believes happened on 9/11, on multiple fronts.
So I paused for a while...returned to fixing his computer and let it go.
Then I asked him to humor me again.
"What would happen if, while flying a 757 at very low altitude and high speed (whatever that means), what would happen if you hit a light pole with the wing?
"You mean the cast metal kind or wood?"
"Take your pick." I said.
He paused for a second. "Well...I think the wing could cut the light pole down whether it was made of wood or aluminum. It would definitely damage the wing but I don't think it would take the wing off."
To review I asked, "So a light pole wouldn't stay standing, and leave a hole in the airplane's wing shaped like a light pole?"
He started laughing. "No."
"OK, how about this?" I asked. "What if you took a big beefy, load-bearing steel column from a skyscraper, buried some of it in the ground and then hit THAT with the wing?"
Without hesitation, he responded, "Oh, now there you'd have a problem. The wing will not sheer a steel beam. Instead the beam will destroy the wing and there you have it. The pilot is not going to have a good day. That plane, what's left of it, is in big trouble."
"So the wing will not sheer the steel and keep going?"
"Of course not, John."
"But that's what you were told! That 'plane' into the World Trade Center left behind a plane-shaped hole, all the way out to the wings!" Now I was the one having trouble staying calm.
"What? No!" He seemed to think I got my "facts" wrong.
"YES! That's how the official story goes!"
Talking faster without even thinking about it, I asked, "Another question -- how hard would it be to maneuver a Boeing into the WTC and hit it, wingtip-to-wingtip at 500 mph or so?"
"John you can't go that fast at that altitude, but if you could -- it would be tough! You can't easily make adjustments and correct your errors like you can when you're getting ready to land. That IS what those hijackers were doing. They had just taken off, you know."
I had to correct him: "No, actually the maps they showed us depict a much more circuitous route and again, NIST claims United 175 was going 500 mph when it hit the WTC." It was really getting good watching his face.
He quipped, "Somebody's lying about that. They're not telling the truth."
At this point all I had to do was watch him go.
"But...but John, the strongest part of a building are those load-bearing core columns that hold the stairways and elevators! The concrete floors and exterior in a building, other than the corners, is really not that strong. If the plane had hit the core columns, or one of the corners, THAT would be like the steel beam you're imagining."
I then informed him that the WTC towers were unusual that way, with much of its load-bearing steel on the outside perimeter, and that really as buildings go, it's probably a poor candidate for a plane-shaped hole with a Boeing.
And that was it. I finished fixing his computer, his wife wrote me a check and I was on my way. I wonder what's going through his mind. I wonder if he hears a faint voice...Houston, we have a problem!
If he decides to hire me back, I'll see how he's progressed.
You can email John at behave_pc@yahoo.com


http://www.drjudywood.com
http://www.behavepc.com/
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&...ineer_discovers

[goldman]

Nice read, thanks.

Same with 1 inch of aluminum of the plane cutting through foots and foots of multiple core columns as in a 3D reenactment a university released, really ridiculous. It defies all logic.

[stannrodd]

It reads like a Mills and Boon "novel" .. novel being the operative word.

Sometimes what appears to defy logic at first impression, can be fact.

The math required to show that a 767 wing can penetrate a sample section of the WTC tower perimeter columns has been done, and whether some do not like the fact that it is possible .. does not detract from the fact that it is a possibility.

In fact the scenario must be consistent with proveable fact .. such that scrutiny of the event, must be able to be "sold" to those who adhere only to the Official Fairy Tale, even if one believes that there were no planes.

This will go down like a lead balloon in some quarters but there is no point in denying proof, and relying on one's opinion which says "ridiculous" .. "defies logic" without any proof in suppport of ones opinion.

That is illogical.

Stann

[dianewood]

It reads like a Mills and Boon "novel" .. novel being the operative word.

Sometimes what appears to defy logic at first impression, can be fact.

The math required to show that a 767 wing can penetrate a sample section of the WTC tower perimeter columns has been done, and whether some do not like the fact that it is possible .. does not detract from the fact that it is a possibility.

In fact the scenario must be consistent with proveable fact .. such that scrutiny of the event, must be able to be "sold" to those who adhere only to the Official Fairy Tale, even if one believes that there were no planes.

This will go down like a lead balloon in some quarters but there is no point in denying proof, and relying on one's opinion which says "ridiculous" .. "defies logic" without any proof in suppport of ones opinion.

That is illogical.

Stann


Stann...i thought you were a regular on phil jahan's site? looks like they've done a proper brainwashing job on ya...planes nose cone don't fly through steel buildings and emerge other side intact...end of story!

[stannrodd]

I still visit at Phils forum .. post the occasional thing. No brainwashing applied to me there .. sorry. They are a great group of people over there.

I don't agree with everything being touted but that's the same here. The difference is we usually agree to disagree rather than fragment discussion.

Now where did I say that a plastic 767 nose cone could do what you suggest I said ??

Can I suggest you re-read what I said.

This is about logic and facts .. not opinion and conjecture based on ridiculous assumption.

The article you posted reads like a fairy tale. Being a Boeing engineer doesn't make him an expert in the physics of collisions does it.

I'm not either .. but I do try to be logical without emotional outbursts.

OMG a sledgehammer applied to a wing .. now that's some proof.

Stann

[secondsun]

...once i had a slow puncture... went to the garage for a repair.... and the mechanic held up a pair of pliers with a match stick in its jaws!.... he said he had repaired thousands of punctures but this was a first!... now go try and push a match stick through the side wall, or any part, of a car tyre!

[stannrodd]

...once i had a slow puncture... went to the garage for a repair.... and the mechanic held up a pair of pliers with a match stick in its jaws!.... he said he had repaired thousands of punctures but this was a first!... now go try and push a match stick through the side wall, or any part, of a car tyre!

Exactly ..

I was just demonstrating to my wife how when you push a flat angled blade through corrugated cardboard in a way which would resemble the dynamics of a 767 wing slicing into the WTC2 perimeter, it becomes obvious instantly that the resultant cut, forces debris toward the fuselage and not away as bryan suggests. I suggest he does the same experiment.

This can be shown with force vector analysis .. there is no instantaneous resultant moment, in the direction he speculates.

As for the column being bent out as has been alleged in another thread .. it is obviously a piece of the aluminium cladding and not a perimeter column at all.

Well spotted secondsun.

Stann

[secondsun]

Well spotted secondsun.

...cheers!

forces debris toward the fuselage

...try again... but at the scaled equivalent of about 500 mph!... ;)

[lizzy]

thanks dianewood.....interesting convo you had.

I hold with the no planes theory these days.

[secondsun]

Stann......planes nose cone don't fly through steel buildings and emerge other side intact...end of story!

...thats right!..they don't!... but if you are naive and gullible enough to base your belief system on some faked nose out footage!?... well... you need a cranial upgrade desperately!

[secondsun]

And when I detect that I'm in the presence of a real expert

Once that happens, emotions often take over and the rational discussion usually stops.

...but somehow seems to remember such great detail?...

The 787 is a mess. In for another delay. Composites are very tricky. The interface between metals and composites is difficult. Titanium+composite is OK. But when aluminum meets composite, they literally rot each other over time. This is why there's so much talk about these fasteners. Ultimately the 787 will be heavier, more expensive, less efficient, way delayed, and more technically tricky than promised. Unless these problems are solved, it'll probably be less safe than promised, too. They should just stick with what they know. All this hassle isn't worth it."
He then mentioned that the Hudson River water landing wouldn't have gone so well had it been in a Boeing 737 rather than an Airbus A-320.

...the memory of an elephant has nothing on this `computer` fixer...

He then explained that it's due to the fact that the cross-section of an Airbus fuselage is ROUND. Before the 777 he said, Boeing airliners are what I believe he called "double-lobed" -- meaning that if you view the fuselage end-on it would NOT be round. Instead, he equated it to a compressed "figure-8" shape. It's wider on the bottom, and then the bottom half is joined to a smaller-diameter upper piece and those two pieces have to be joined together and fastened carefully. That joint is naturally not as strong as if there were no joint at all. That's what an Airbus is. It's round without interruption. Like an egg, this continuous [uniform] curve [curvature] lends strength since no one point is any more vulnerable than another. It's all round. The superior strength of a seamless circle as he put it, is just common sense.
He suspected that a 737's fuselage would probably have come apart in the stress of said water landing.

...you people need to get better at spotting professional disinfo` agents!

...this DI 9-11 forum is infested with them!

[stannrodd]

Silly thing about the double lobe .. figure 8 cross section drama with a 737 .. is .. wait for it

This isn't about 737's or Airbus A320's landing in a river.

LANDING ON WATER ??

Don't you land on land ??

Diversionary tactics going on I suspect.

Stann

[dianewood]

...thats right!..they don't!... but if you are naive and gullible enough to base your belief system on some faked nose out footage!?... well... you need a cranial upgrade desperately!

oh dear...same old tripe being regurgitated...you guys must work in packs...first hint of truth you're round it like rabid wolves

[stannrodd]

oh dear...same old tripe being regurgitated...you guys must work in packs...first hint of truth you're round it like rabid wolves

What truth is it .. that the wolves are rabid about ??

The alleged ramblings of a retired Boeing engineer at another website?

If you want .. let's get all these people involved ?

He said .. she said .. they said .. ??

Where do you fit in ??

Stann

[sidlittle]

...you people need to get better at spotting professional disinfo` agents!

...this DI 9-11 forum is infested with them!
:rolleyes:
infested withe disinfo agents? or simply burgeoning numbers who have come to understand the video and audio irregularities of the 911 footage ?

I guess some people will always be the last to find out when the milkman is doing their wife.

[voodoo]

you know people its 2009 now let it the fuck go

[dianewood]

you know people its 2009 now let it the fuck go

not while there are idiots promoting this bullshit!

9/11 ripple effect...pure pod bullshit!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.911rippleeffect.com/

[bryan]

Sometimes what appears to defy logic at first impression, can be fact.


Since we know that a piece of straw can be made to penetrate a tree in a hurricane, anything at all could happen in this strange old world of ours, even the near free-fall collapse of a steel-framed building or EVEN aluminium cutting through steel.



The math required to show that a 767 wing can penetrate a sample section of the WTC tower perimeter columns has been done, and whether some do not like the fact that it is possible .. does not detract from the fact that it is a possibility.


Could you link to a scientific paper with the maths you're talking about? All the papers I've seen start off by assuming the plane went through the wall, then they do the maths by working backwards from the conclusion. I've never seen any scientist try to work out if it's actually possible. It's the same with the studies of the 'progressive gravitational collapses' of the towers, carried out by scientists like Bazant and Greening.

When Jim Fetzer asked Frank Greening if he thought the planes in the videos might have been faked, given that they appear to break the laws of physics, Greening said "there's no such thing as a physical impossibility". Later in the interview, Greening admitted there were anomalies in the collapses, but refused to consider whether controlled demolition would explain them, because of "problems in terms of logistics". I find it astounding that Frank Greening would be so blatant about his double standards.

Honest common sense will serve people better than this fraudulent pro-establishment science. As far as we know, Greening is only involved in the cover up, but that's not necessarily the case with Bazant, who had his first paper ready two days after 9/11.



This is about logic and facts .. not opinion and conjecture based on ridiculous assumption.


The ridiculous assumption that steel is a hard, high density, tough material that can withstand high stress levels without fracturing, and aluminium is a soft, low density, malleable material which buckles or crumples relatively easily.



I was just demonstrating to my wife how when you push a flat angled blade through corrugated cardboard in a way which would resemble the dynamics of a 767 wing slicing into the WTC2 perimeter, it becomes obvious instantly that the resultant cut, forces debris toward the fuselage and not away as bryan suggests. I suggest he does the same experiment.


You do well to divert the conversation to corrugated cardboard, because there's no way you can explain the damage in the picture in terms of a plane's wing.



you need a cranial upgrade desperately!


This is how Stann "agrees to disagree rather than fragment discussion".


Stann...i thought you were a regular on phil jahan's site? looks like they've done a proper brainwashing job on ya...planes nose cone don't fly through steel buildings and emerge other side intact...end of story!

Diane, be careful to distiguish between the brainwashed and the brainwashers. The brainwashed can be de-programmed by showing them good evidence and logical arguments. The brainwashers need to be recognized as such and tackled head-on.

[voodoo]

not while there are idiots promoting this bullshit!

9/11 ripple effect...pure pod bullshit!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.911rippleeffect.com/

You the idiot wasting your god damn time with this thinking your making a difference.
Like your some fucking James Bond bout to exspose tptb kiss my ass

[sidlittle]

you know people its 2009 now let it the fuck go

You the idiot wasting your god damn time with this thinking your making a difference.
Like your some fucking James Bond bout to exspose tptb kiss my ass

Get the fuck out of the 911 forum then, if it holds you no interest.

[oiram]

Yes at least he was telling you the truth!

I was working as Airplane mechanic on the Airbus in Germany.

The strongest part is the tail section because of the amounts of high-locks & rivets & in sections double lair of Aluminums is used; also the center section of the wings which creates the center tank & usally accommodates the landing gear has the thickest material being used because of the stress loads in this area. Yes all high grade coted Aluminum with all major stringers made out of profiled Aluminum sections riveted to the Shell. No steal anywhere except some stainless parts which also have to have sealant and separation from any Aluminum parts because of the effect of electrolysis between the two materials. Also the Landing gear will have steal/ stainless hydraulic cylinders.

Look at just about every plane crash which section is usally still fully recoverd yes it's the tail section.

I would have expected the Engine & tail section to separate in a incident like this & falling down on the outside of the building. Engines are only supported to the wings with one ore two bolts. Which are designed to shear if extreme stress is applied. Except if the Engines had a column free section.
Also what's about the Pentagon a total magic trick right!

The rest is just a egg shell in comparisons to a welded steal structure!

The most resistant parts are in the engines using many stainless & titanium elements and they would never disappear in the fire. Never!

If a flying chicken hits the shell of a aircraft with 500 mph you will have a big nice dent.
Now you try to use the same size of a chicken made out of steal & try the same exercise. If you hit the front center it will exit the tail end. Trust me!

500mph or lets say 500 km/h speed in this altitude well hard to control I say with the density of the air. But every active pilot should be able to confirm this fact & should naturally questions the official story the Government presented.
They were talking of a 767-200 (AA11 and UAL175).Air density deceases the engines ability to perform at maximum efficiency, thus the 35,000 foot cruising altitude. The higher the altitude the more efficent the engines perform, lower air density. These 2 planes could not attain the speeds of 450 mph at ower level flightsThis is one reson why I don't believe AA77 hit the pentagon, a combination of a 330 degree high speed (500 mph) high bank angle (45 degree) would have produced about 3 g's, shaking the airframe apart. Forget the pilot's abilities, the airframes were never designed to take that stress. Also ground effects would prevent AA77 from flying a few feet above the ground, areodynamics would force the aircraft to do what it was designed to and that is lift up, or if you force the controls down to counter ground effects it would immediately nose into the dirt cartwheeling.

http://letsrollforums.com/speed-limitations-boeing-aircraft-t16740.html?


What I am looking for is the data from the 8 flight recorders they must have recovered.
All what was needed on the report is that the flaps where fully extended flying 500 km/h! :D

Paper does not cut steal but steal cuts paper.

Aluminum does not cut Steal Box columns but Box columns will cut Aluminum.

Also columns in a high-rise buildings are made of higher grade material so it will even cut profiled Aluminum foil more easily.

Here is my answer for ALL involved covering up the reality!
http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr40/413200/11/jail.jpg


I am certain that it is true, especially if they formally say so in the video and documentation; The question then should become what you asked, what type of plane did they use? And wile we can't ever really know for certain, without a full investigation, perhaps it was a plane like these below, which are modified Boeing 757's about to go 400+ MPH at ground level and then take off and do a near vertical climb! Somethings your ordinary 757/767 just can't and won't do; These planes in these videos are modified 757's, and were delivered as such to the New Zealand Royal Air Force;

Cheers-
phil
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vJliayH6co
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50BRFzVxDH8

http://letsrollforums.com/speed-limitations-boeing-aircraft-t16740.html?


"Unless they oppose it, they will be blamed for it. If they defend it, they are part of it."

[tannah]

You the idiot wasting your god damn time with this thinking your making a difference.
Like your some fucking James Bond bout to exspose tptb kiss my ass

One person can make all the difference, and can even alter the insipid drive for the global ego to self destruct itself. Be that person.

[mr_pixie]

Bump

[stannrodd]

you need a cranial upgrade desperately!

This is how Stann "agrees to disagree rather than fragment discussion".

I refer you to post #10 bottom of page 1.

I never said that. Get your facts straight mate !!

The problem bryan is that you play the same game as Chris Brown.

You claim that there is no "live to air footage" of the plane impacting the south tower. This may be so, but that does not prove that a plane didn't hit it. All it does is say that there was "no live to air footage" of that event.

Chris claims that there are no images from 9/11 which shows the steel columns in the core .. this doesn't mean or prove that the core was concrete.

There is a mountain of evidence to support the structural steel nature of the towers cores which is not sourced from images taken on 9/11.

Similarly there is plenty of evidence, which was not live to air, that there were planes involved in the events of 9/11 at the WTC.

So getting back to facts and not fantasy ..!

I'll find the full document on the column slicing by a 767 aircraft wing and post it for you. OK ?

The corrugated cardboard experiment was done simply to show the direction of forces at work .. not to prove or disprove the ability of the wing to actually do that. Twisting the experiments design to suit your theory is very obvious and lacking good judgement.

Your claim that the forces involved would push the columns away from the fuselage is simply incorrect and shows a lack of understanding of simple high school physics. Having a gut feeling about how things should work doesn't always pay dividends. It was an assumption on your part and it is incorrect. FACT !

Have a nice day !!:p

Stann

[tannah]

I refer you to post #10 bottom of page 1.

I never said that. Get your facts straight mate !!

The problem bryan is that you play the same game as Chris Brown.

You claim that there is no "live to air footage" of the plane impacting the south tower. This may be so, but that does not prove that a plane didn't hit it. All it does is say that there was "no live to air footage" of that event.

Chris claims that there are no images from 9/11 which shows the steel columns in the core .. this doesn't mean or prove that the core was concrete.

There is a mountain of evidence to support the structural steel nature of the towers cores which is not sourced from images taken on 9/11.

Similarly there is plenty of evidence, which was not live to air, that there were planes involved in the events of 9/11 at the WTC.

So getting back to facts and not fantasy ..!

I'll find the full document on the column slicing by a 767 aircraft wing and post it for you. OK ?

The corrugated cardboard experiment was done simply to show the direction of forces at work .. not to prove or disprove the ability of the wing to actually do that. Twisting the experiments design to suit your theory is very obvious and lacking good judgement.

Your claim that the forces involved would push the columns away from the fuselage is simply incorrect and shows a lack of understanding of simple high school physics. Having a gut feeling about how things should work doesn't always pay dividends. It was an assumption on your part and it is incorrect. FACT !

Have a nice day !!:p

Stann

Heya Stann

I've seen you write that you think the official theory regarding 9/11 doesn't add up. Yet, at the same time you do tend to spend your time knocking the voices that question the 9/11 OT. Whether you agree with this, or simply point out that one should look for facts etc etc, do you mind just letting me in on a few things you think don't add up about the OT, and why.

[bryan]

I refer you to post #10 bottom of page 1.

I never said that. Get your facts straight mate !!


You're right. You and secondsun were quoting each other and I lost track of who said what. My mistake and I take back the suggestion you were being abusive.



You claim that there is no "live to air footage" of the plane impacting the south tower. This may be so, but that does not prove that a plane didn't hit it. All it does is say that there was "no live to air footage" of that event.


Nobody is claiming the lack of live footage of the impact is proof that a plane didn't hit the tower. You made that up yourself as a straw man.

What it does do is explain how they could keep the live composites a lot simpler than the more detailed ones that came later, and it might explain why the South Tower had to take the second plane. That's something you haven't been able to address from the point of view of a planes theory.

It's also proof that the planehuggers are wrong when they recite: "We all saw the plane crash into the building live on TV". When people make statements like that it's hard to know whether they are trying to deceive or whether they are just totally clueless about the evidence.

Even though they don't show the impact, the live shots are still proof that the plane was faked.



Similarly there is plenty of evidence, which was not live to air, that there were planes involved in the events of 9/11 at the WTC.


The videos of the impact are yet more proof that the plane was faked.



So getting back to facts and not fantasy ..!


It's only a couple of days since you were saying Ace Baker's pdf was making a lot of sense. Did you come across a piece of incontrovertible evidence that made you do a u-turn?



I'll find the full document on the column slicing by a 767 aircraft wing and post it for you. OK ?


Try googling Wierzbicki. He's the physicist who deals with that particular branch of bogus science.



Your claim that the forces involved would push the columns away from the fuselage is simply incorrect and shows a lack of understanding of simple high school physics. Having a gut feeling about how things should work doesn't always pay dividends. It was an assumption on your part and it is incorrect. FACT !


It's another nail in the coffin for the planes theory.

[stannrodd]

Heya Stann

I've seen you write that you think the official theory regarding 9/11 doesn't add up. Yet, at the same time you do tend to spend your time knocking the voices that question the 9/11 OT. Whether you agree with this, or simply point out that one should look for facts etc etc, do you mind just letting me in on a few things you think don't add up about the OT, and why.

I haven't seen you do much at all except be critical of critics..:)

As for knocking the voices .. I'm not into that .. what I do though is try to be a fair critic when I see things which are patently false.

I am of the opinion that a DC10 or variant hit the North Tower, and that a 767 or variant hit the South Tower. What do you think ?

It's also interesting that you joined here not long after Chris was banned at BFN .. strange that.

@bryan .. like I said I have read the pdf and found it interesting and partially credible. I'm taking advice on some aspects which I need to clarify and am choosing to use an independent source. In the meantime I'm not saying it's garbage and I'm not saying it isn't garbage.

Good things take time and if it's good it will reveal itself without my belief or faith in it. Is that fair ?

One of the things I like to do is test the official story and all the various aspects technical and otherwise.

The official story claims that planes did the damage which was visible on the towers perimeter columns right .. that in itself must be provable to be valid.

So far .. I am reasonably sure that the damage as seen in the photographic evidence could be attributed to aircraft impacts. That's just me OK .. I'm not attempting to push that down your throat.

I have shown that one of your claims is simply not valid .. such as the columns should be pushed away from the fuselage. This isn't meant to imply anything other than your claim is untrue. The fact that the evidence supports the maths and the columns are bent toward the fuselage shows that the evidence supports the forensic analysis. The theory/facts will emerge all by itself using this process.

You attempt to then use what is untrue to bolster other claims .. and then lash out at the critic who is attempting to help the very theory survive. Like I said someplace else .. if the speculation or conjecture is patently wrong or indeterminate it's better to not involve it in your argument, because it will drag your work down.

Working with critics rather than against them will yield a better outcome and probably a more honest one.

Cheers
Stann

[tannah]

I haven't seen you do much at all except be critical of critics..:)

As for knocking the voices .. I'm not into that .. what I do though is try to be a fair critic when I see things which are patently false.

I am of the opinion that a DC10 or variant hit the North Tower, and that a 767 or variant hit the South Tower. What do you think ?

It's also interesting that you joined here not long after Chris was banned at BFN .. strange that.

Stann, I've been following you around for 3600 years, didn't you know? Yeah strange isn't it that you want to imply that there is a connection with Chris being banned from this BFN and me joining here. What's this you complaining about facts? Not interested in your fantasies mate, gimmee the proof!! Or live by your own criteria.

Wow, a whole DC10 and a 767. All that research you tell us to do if we REALLY wanna know, and you come up with that!

Stunn, I've read quite a few threads at this BFN. It can become a small world on this here darn web thing. I noticed your way of arguing by scoffing at Chris, and others that were open to what he had to say. Pick away, look for the miniscule, delay delay, reverberate the speil and repeat repeat.

I've done more than be critical of critics. I've asked one or two questions that haven't been answered yet, by Gamolon in particular.

I'm of the view that putting real pressure on the need for an investigation is the way forward. I very much doubt a theory to challenge the OT is going to stand a chance, because there will always be miniscule problems that get challenged, whilst the OT can stand without scrutiny. An investigation will simply focus on the OT and for once will be what is being scrutinized. A better deal in my eyes.

And nowadays I'm not fucking interested in having to be the one to answer questions. I haven't murdered god knows how many people by my acts.
The list of questions that need answering regarding the OT is pretty long already.

[stannrodd]

I'm of the view that putting real pressure on the need for an investigation is the way forward.

Agreed .. how are you going to assist in that quest?

Playing silly mind games with me ?? All you do is demonstrate an innate quality which is best left out of fruitful discussion.

The name is Stann not Stunn OK .. the letters U and A are not adjacent on qwerty keyboards .. silly stuff really tannah.

Why do you read that garbage thread at BFN ? .. just curious. It's history .. so is Christopheras Concrete core theory .. simply disinformation and bullshite.

The way I see it is .. if this Ace Bakers pdf about composite video construction has merit .. why isn't it or hasn't it been seriously studied .. and out in the open .. instead of hiding in conspiracy theory nut house forums.

Get my drift?

At least I have forwarded it to a very experienced TV video person involved in news presentation to ascertain whether it has glaringly false claims in it. If what I suspect are the returned comments then I will simply dismiss it.

It's no skin off my nose mate.

If the truth is that which I don't want to hear .. I'm not going to invent a theory just to confuse. Why do that?

In your post above there was 98% BS and 2% reality.

You can be helpful or unhelpful, or simply a nuisance .. you choose.

Stann

[secondsun]

oh dear...same old tripe being regurgitated...you guys must work in packs...first hint of truth you're round it like rabid wolves

..think its the other way round myself!... but you guys always seem to hit with the reverse psychology first!

Yes at least he was telling you the truth!

...if the conversation actually took place... maybe it is!?

...but for someone popping in to fix someones computer... seems to be able to recall to much info` from memory imo`!

[tannah]

Agreed .. how are you going to assist in that quest?

Let's sit around for 3600 more years and discuss .


Playing silly mind games with me ??

If that's how it looks, I'll soon leave you to what ever it is you want to do. People are free to make their own minds up about your input.


All you do is demonstrate an innate quality which is best left out of fruitful discussion.

Yeah right, fruitful, that's the one.


The name is Stann not Stunn OK .. the letters U and A are not adjacent on qwerty keyboards .. silly stuff really tannah.

Stinn, that's the Australian pronounciation right?


Why do you read that garbage thread at BFN ? .. just curious. It's history ..

Just followed the links mate. It's amazing, one minute one is here , the next second another page opens up. One starts reading, and after a few posts it's as if you know the people, ya know? Plus, there is "history"" in there that shouldn't be repeated here.


so is Christopheras Concrete core theory .. simply disinformation and bullshite.

If you and your comrade and forum owner say so.

The way I see it is .. if this Ace Bakers pdf about composite video construction has merit .. why isn't it or hasn't it been seriously studied .. and out in the open .. instead of hiding in conspiracy theory nut house forums.

Them nutters, always a step ahead.


Get my drift?

No, send it again.

At least I have forwarded it to a very experienced TV video person involved in news presentation to ascertain whether it has glaringly false claims in it. If what I suspect are the returned comments then I will simply dismiss it.


Best thing you've said. Tread careful.

It's no skin off my nose mate.

Ouch.


If the truth is that which I don't want to hear .. I'm not going to invent a theory just to confuse. Why do that?

Have you invented a theory?


In your post above there was 98% BS and 2% reality.You can be helpful or unhelpful, or simply a nuisance .. you choose.

Stonn, I wouldn't hear of it mate. You carry on be helpful, and I'll just ignore the urge to post to you. That way any strange feelings it conjures up in you will be down to your own wonky periscope. I'd rather not become another one of those you and Gamolon had fun painting as the unhelpful ones.
With your track record of scorning people, you're a cheeky little fucker really, complaining about my altering your name. I fully expect you to eventually end up posting ridiculous images and videos towards others here that you conjure up the image of having been exposed. Chris is not unique.

Your nuisance.:)

[bryan]

The way I see it is .. if this Ace Bakers pdf about composite video construction has merit .. why isn't it or hasn't it been seriously studied .. and out in the open .. instead of hiding in conspiracy theory nut house forums.

Get my drift?


Ace Baker presented his paper in September last year, inviting 'criticism or correction' in a very open manner.

Please feel free to download and read my treatise on the 9/11 airplane composites. Any criticism or correction will be welcomed, any questions answered.

http://www.psy-opera.com/Papers/Composites-1-8.pdf

I bring 22 data sets to test two competing hypotheses:

• The real airplane hypothesis – A real Boeing 767 airplane flew into WTC2 on 9/11.

• The video composite hypothesis – The jet crash was faked by inserting airplane images into otherwise authentic video footage.

Thank you.

Ace Baker

He was totally ignored by the planehuggers here because they find it much easier to debunk holograms and missiles and won't touch the real evidence with a barge pole. From what I can gather, he was banned from Loose Change, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and the JREF forums for presenting his evidence that the second plane was faked.

If you'd been around 400 years ago you'd be saying "this Galileo character must be talking crap or the Catholic Church would be taking him seriously". Today's orthodoxy is government-funded science, and the inquisition consists of the scientists, the bogus regulators, and the various branches of the fake opposition, which is where you fit in.



@bryan .. like I said I have read the pdf and found it interesting and partially credible. I'm taking advice on some aspects which I need to clarify and am choosing to use an independent source. In the meantime I'm not saying it's garbage and I'm not saying it isn't garbage.

Good things take time and if it's good it will reveal itself without my belief or faith in it. Is that fair ?

One of the things I like to do is test the official story and all the various aspects technical and otherwise.

At least I have forwarded it to a very experienced TV video person involved in news presentation to ascertain whether it has glaringly false claims in it. If what I suspect are the returned comments then I will simply dismiss it.



One aspect that you and other debunkers avoid like the plague is statistics and probability. Planehuggers embrace the laws of probability when they're arguing the case against three steel-framed buildings collapsing within a few hours of each other, then throw the same laws out of the window and accept any number of coincidences that come with planes flying through the wall of a building.

Maybe you should forget about what the scientists are saying and go down to your local betting shop instead. Ask them what the odds would be against all the TV cameras being on the north side of the WTC when they were filming the most dramatic events in the history of television news. Ask them how likely it would be for the only two choppers that got live shots of the approaching plane to be positioned by pure chance so that nine necessary conditions for making a live video composite were fulfilled. Ask them if they'd have taken bets on whether parts would have broken off the plane as it passed through the wall and whether wreckage would be visible on the outside of the building or in the hole. Then take all the numbers and multiply them together.

Bazant, Greening and Wierzbicki are good at pretending anything is possible in theory, but they never ask how credible it is for all these unlikely events to occur at all, let alone one after another.



The official story claims that planes did the damage which was visible on the towers perimeter columns right .. that in itself must be provable to be valid.

So far .. I am reasonably sure that the damage as seen in the photographic evidence could be attributed to aircraft impacts. That's just me OK .. I'm not attempting to push that down your throat.

I have shown that one of your claims is simply not valid .. such as the columns should be pushed away from the fuselage. This isn't meant to imply anything other than your claim is untrue. The fact that the evidence supports the maths and the columns are bent toward the fuselage shows that the evidence supports the forensic analysis. The theory/facts will emerge all by itself using this process.


For reasons best known to yourself, you choose to apply your scrutiny to the unofficial conscpiracy theories but not the official one. Planes couldn't have done the damage and that fact alone proves that no planes hit the towers.



You attempt to then use what is untrue to bolster other claims .. and then lash out at the critic who is attempting to help the very theory survive. Like I said someplace else .. if the speculation or conjecture is patently wrong or indeterminate it's better to not involve it in your argument, because it will drag your work down.

Working with critics rather than against them will yield a better outcome and probably a more honest one.


I've yet to see you make a valid criticism of any of the no-planes evidence. All you do is ignore the proofs and knock down straw men.



I am of the opinion that a DC10 or variant hit the North Tower. . .

What do you think ?


Illogical, unprovable and a total waste of time. Guaranteed to lead nowhere.

[mynameis]

Ace Baker presented his paper in September last year, inviting 'criticism or correction' in a very open manner.

As far as I know, this was the only venue he asked for input. Did he try ATS or AE911truth? If he asked for input from other science minded groups this would be better for him. For some people their time is a finite resource. For the record, there's no lack of finite resources for imaginary planehuggers and their concepts of reality though, I wonder why? Maybe he could only get Ron Wieck of Hardfire to analyze his lack of material then?

[bryan]

As far as I know, this was the only venue he asked for input. Did he try ATS or AE911truth?


He sent a copy to the Patron Saint of Thermite, who seemed to agree it was proof of video compositing. The trouble is, rather than accept there were no planes, the professor would have us believe the perps might have put fake planes over the top of the real ones just to divide the truth movement. He doesn't really believe that, of course. He was put in place to cover up the molten metal and to encourage people to believe the planes were real.



If he asked for input from other science minded groups this would be better for him. For some people their time is a finite resource.


If people on 9/11 forums can't find the time to study the best evidence so far that 9/11 was an inside job, it's not likely that mainstream scientists will be enthusiastic about the subject. It was even ignored by most no-planers because of the differences between the various factions.



For the record, there's no lack of finite resources for imaginary planehuggers and their concepts of reality though, I wonder why?


Apart from Jim Fetzer, I haven't noticed any no-planers hosting their own radio show, getting books published and films distributed, organising conferences or being interviewed on TV.



Maybe he could only get Ron Wieck of Hardfire to analyze his lack of material then?


Most people would rather look the other way than risk throwing their reputation down the drain trying to counter an irrefutable proof. Steve Wright is now a laughing stock after arguing on Hardfire that the fade to black was caused by the camera's automatic gain control and claiming that the nose out was ejected debris. :D That's what happens when you start with the conclusion then work back twisting the evidence so it fits. I've noticed the Right Engine Theory is conspicuously absent in the current thread on the nose out. Has it been ditched or are you going to give us a laugh?

[stannrodd]

This forum is the first place I've seen any mention of Ace Baker. But then being a planehugger I don't usually hang out with No Planers.

The document certainly isn't out there in my opinion, but that's not surprising really is it..

Either way I will give it a fair crack of the whip. :eek:

@tannah

Strayans don't speak at all well at times.. they speak Strine

eg.

Straya = Australia
Strayan = Australian

But I'm English you see old bwah .. and live in New Zealand.

Kiaora
Stann

[mynameis]

Steve Wright is now a laughing stock after arguing on Hardfire that the fade to black was caused by the camera's automatic gain control and claiming that the nose out was ejected debris. :D That's what happens when you start with the conclusion then work back twisting the evidence so it fits. I've noticed the Right Engine Theory is conspicuously absent in the current thread on the nose out. Has it been ditched or are you going to give us a laugh?

I don't follow you on what you mean by "laughing stock" cameras do adjust the picture. What kind of camera and the capability is the issue. I think that if the guy you are speaking of is an expert in his field, whereas a doubter would find his explanation suspect. You find his explanation suspect, then I suggest you provide evidence to conclude otherwise. I don't know about what your claiming about right engine anything. Pictures exist that show there is no nose out taken from two different angles as claimants consider that shape being projected from the explosion.

First, you are saying that there isn't a nose out that's a fake plane, then you are twisting the interpretation to fit that of a fake plane, which isn't even a nose, but not just part of the explosion.

I take it you want to believe there were fake planes, then wouldn't you expect the so called fake nose have the same trajectory outside the building as would be expected of a plane's nose before impact? How would they know when to stop the fake plane trajectory?

As you can see there is no matching trajectory from the crash that clears the building at the same trajectory to indicate a fake plane. As you can see placement of any fake plane does not put the nose at the edge of the building, nor would it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI8u-I0GWs4


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1uv53cFW-A