Mackey & Wieck debunked no-planes? How so?

[killtown]

I skimmed through their discussion where Wieck didn't dissappoint by showing the immature P.O.S. that he is by all his little childish comments, snide remarks and name-calling. (Is Wieck really only 12?!)

Anyways, myself and most other no-planers I talk to believe a 767 would not 100% pass through the WTC's facade as appeared to be the case in the 2nd hit videos that show the view of the plane passing through the facade.

Seems like the no-planers that Mackey and Wieck were trying to debunk were the few that I know of that believe "the plane would have simply bounced off the building" in which I believe they did debunk them since I personally don't believe "the plane would have simply bounced off the building."

So how did Mackey and Wieck debunk the no-planers like me who think a 767 wouldn't 100% pass through the WTC's facade, but only some of it would?

[kooskoets]

Seems like the no-planers that Mackey and Wieck were trying to debunk were the few that I know of that believe "the plane would have simply bounced off the building" in which I believe they did debunk them since I personally don't believe "the plane would have simply bounced off the building."

So how did Mackey and Wieck debunk the no-planers like me who think a 767 wouldn't 100% pass through the WTC's facade, but only some of it would?

Maybe make it more clear.

I think that the front fusilage would have been crunched against the wall and the landinggear/engines would have power and strength enough to go through that wall.

And of course the explosion of the fuel would start outside, where the plane meets the wall.

The video's shows smth very different so...they're fake.

It's easy...the clowns are only trying to make it look like a difficult problem.

It's not. It's simple.

Same trick as with the money system f.i.
Same trick, same bastards.

[onourwayto2012]

I skimmed through their discussion where Wieck didn't dissappoint by showing the immature P.O.S. that he is by all his little childish comments, snide remarks and name-calling. (Is Wieck really only 12?!)

Anyways, myself and most other no-planers I talk to believe a 767 would not 100% pass through the WTC's facade as appeared to be the case in the 2nd hit videos that show the view of the plane passing through the facade.

Seems like the no-planers that Mackey and Wieck were trying to debunk were the few that I know of that believe "the plane would have simply bounced off the building" in which I believe they did debunk them since I personally don't believe "the plane would have simply bounced off the building."

So how did Mackey and Wieck debunk the no-planers like me who think a 767 wouldn't 100% pass through the WTC's facade, but only some of it would?
they didn't.......
because you can't

[shure]

Ronald Wieck & Ryan Mackey Caught Lying and Manipulating
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWw8dm7XXgI

If a plane is "coming out of a power dive," the transition from straight down to horizontal would pull a lot of g force. If the plane comes apart flying 500+ mph on the horizontal, imagine what would happen if it were to make a turn, especially from vertical to horizontal. A Boeing 767 is designed as an "economy bus", not a fighter jet.

So, if a Boeing 767 came out of a power dive at a rate fast enough to have it horizontal at 540 mph (before wind resistance slowed it down), the plane would be destroyed.

Ryan Mackey essentially proves no planes! He stated he knows (or believes) it can't fly 540 mph.

[goldengoose]

Ronald Wieck & Ryan Mackey Caught Lying and Manipulating
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWw8dm7XXgI

If a plane is "coming out of a power dive," the transition from straight down to horizontal would pull a lot of g force. If the plane comes apart flying 500+ mph on the horizontal, imagine what would happen if it were to make a turn, especially from vertical to horizontal. A Boeing 767 is designed as an "economy bus", not a fighter jet.

So, if a Boeing 767 came out of a power dive at a rate fast enough to have it horizontal at 540 mph (before wind resistance slowed it down), the plane would be destroyed.

Ryan Mackey essentially proves no planes! He stated he knows (or believes) it can't fly 540 mph.


You've been exposed as a fraud and a liar. ALL of the aeronautical engineers you've ambushed agree completely with Mackey's analysis. No, the plane would NOT be destroyed by leveling off after a power dive, and in reality (how you hate that concept!), it was not destroyed.

Nobody thinks that a Boeing 767 is designed to function as a fighter jet. You are, of course, unable to comprehend Mackey's words when he explains that it is POSSIBLE to damage the aircraft by flying at high speeds, BUT Flight 175 never even reached Mach 1.

Stop babbling about what commercial airliners can and cannot do. You know absolutely nothing about the subject and are ineducable.

[kooskoets]

If a plane is "coming out of a power dive," the transition from straight down to horizontal would pull a lot of g force. If the plane comes apart flying 500+ mph on the horizontal, imagine what would happen if it were to make a turn, especially from vertical to horizontal.

Good logic.

[kooskoets]

No, the plane would NOT be destroyed by leveling off after a power dive, and in reality (how you hate that concept!), it was not destroyed.

Nobody thinks that a Boeing 767 is designed to function as a fighter jet.

No logic at all.

[goldengoose]

Maybe make it more clear.

I think that the front fusilage would have been crunched against the wall and the landinggear/engines would have power and strength enough to go through that wall.

And of course the explosion of the fuel would start outside, where the plane meets the wall.

The video's shows smth very different so...they're fake.

It's easy...the clowns are only trying to make it look like a difficult problem.

It's not. It's simple.

Same trick as with the money system f.i.
Same trick, same bastards.

No videos are fake.

Tens of thousands of onlookers saw the fuel explosion when the plane hit the building.

When Mackey calculated the MINIMUM speed necessary for the plane to penetrate the building as it did, what do you suppose happens BELOW that minimum speed?

Is there a difference between hitting the facade of the building at 500 mph and hitting it at 150 mph? Explain your answer.

[goldengoose]

I skimmed through their discussion where Wieck didn't dissappoint by showing the immature P.O.S. that he is by all his little childish comments, snide remarks and name-calling. (Is Wieck really only 12?!)

Anyways, myself and most other no-planers I talk to believe a 767 would not 100% pass through the WTC's facade as appeared to be the case in the 2nd hit videos that show the view of the plane passing through the facade.

Seems like the no-planers that Mackey and Wieck were trying to debunk were the few that I know of that believe "the plane would have simply bounced off the building" in which I believe they did debunk them since I personally don't believe "the plane would have simply bounced off the building."

So how did Mackey and Wieck debunk the no-planers like me who think a 767 wouldn't 100% pass through the WTC's facade, but only some of it would?


Mackey debunked agenda-driven know-nothings like you by calculating the MINIMUM speed necessary to penetrate a building as Flight 175 penetrated the South Tower. See my previous post.

Again, contrast hitting the building at 500 mph with hitting it at 150 mph. Is there a difference? Why?

[bryan]

Mackey debunked agenda-driven know-nothings like you by calculating the MINIMUM speed necessary to penetrate a building as Flight 175 penetrated the South Tower. See my previous post.

Again, contrast hitting the building at 500 mph with hitting it at 150 mph. Is there a difference? Why?

Mackey made some smoke & mirrors by calculating the speed necessary for a "block of fuel" to fracture a steel column. Like he said himself, it's a very simplified mathematical model. In fact, it's so simplified that only a simpleton would think it had any relevance.

[goldengoose]

No logic at all.



Have you considered signing up for a remedial reading course? I mean, seriously?

A fraud writes gibberish and you mindlessly bleat about "logic." I point out an incontrovertible fact, and you pretend to discern "bad logic." Why not try thinking before you give in to your compulsion to post nonsense?

NO, a 767 that has not achieved Mach 1 will NOT break up, and nobody with a background in aeronautics thinks it will.

[goldengoose]

Mackey made some smoke & mirrors by calculating the speed necessary for a "block of fuel" to fracture a steel column. Like he said himself, it's a very simplified mathematical model. In fact, it's so simplified that only a simpleton would think it had any relevance.

Stop babbling. A working scientist explained how to calculate the force required for a plane to penetrate a building as Flight 175 penetrated the South Tower. You were unable to understand his words. You don't, however, ask for help. You persist in writing nonsense.

Tell us why nobody with a background in physics or aeronautics disagrees with a word Mackey said. The block of fuel isolates a specific component of the plane that performed a specific function, i.e., it broke a steel column. By providing the precise data on the block and the column, it is possible to calculate the effects of a collision. You can't understand any of this, or are too intellectually lazy to make an effort, so you prattle about "smoke & mirrors."

Over and over, I demand that fantasists run their foolishness by a local physics teacher. None ever do, and none ever will. I think we get the idea.

[john white]

LOL!

Tactical mistake by "Killtown" this thread!

[john white]

Respect to you Goldengoose :)

[queenofleon]

Stop babbling. A working scientist explained how to calculate the force required for a plane to penetrate a building as Flight 175 penetrated the South Tower. You were unable to understand his words. You don't, however, ask for help. You persist in writing nonsense.

Tell us why nobody with a background in physics or aeronautics disagrees with a word Mackey said. The block of fuel isolates a specific component of the plane that performed a specific function, i.e., it broke a steel column. By providing the precise data on the block and the column, it is possible to calculate the effects of a collision. You can't understand any of this, or are too intellectually lazy to make an effort, so you prattle about "smoke & mirrors."

Over and over, I demand that fantasists run their foolishness by a local physics teacher. None ever do, and none ever will. I think we get the idea.

My My, arent you an angry boy.

Very very angry indeedy.

Does your bonus depend on how many NPT threads you can attempt to debunk?

[goldengoose]

Respect to you Goldengoose :)


Many thanks, John

[goldengoose]

My My, arent you an angry boy.

Very very angry indeedy.

Does your bonus depend on how many NPT threads you can attempt to debunk?


Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm having fun. It's too bad you're not. You might try defending a saner position next time.

[killtown]

Mackey debunked agenda-driven know-nothings like you by calculating the MINIMUM speed necessary to penetrate a building as Flight 175 penetrated the South Tower. See my previous post.

Again, contrast hitting the building at 500 mph with hitting it at 150 mph. Is there a difference? Why?
Ron, how does that debunk the no-planers like me who think the plane should not have penetrated 100%, but don't deny some of the plane would have penetrated?

[goldengoose]

Ron, how does that debunk the no-planers like me who think the plane should not have penetrated 100%, but don't deny some of the plane would have penetrated?

You haven't persuaded us that your opinion is important. Quite frankly, you've demonstrated that you know nothing about physics or engineering. When you disagree with an explanation provided by an aeronautical engineer, we are justified in asking what you know that he doesn't.

In reality, Flight 175 crashed through the facade of the South Tower and was smashed to bits inside the building. You really need to tell us why this actual historical event shouldn't have happened as it manifestly did. Physicists, structural engineers, and aeronautical engineers see nothing unusual here. The onus is on you to show why they're all wrong. Explain why no experts anywhere in the world share your opinion.

[killtown]

You haven't persuaded us that your opinion is important. Quite frankly, you've demonstrated that you know nothing about physics or engineering. When you disagree with an explanation provided by an aeronautical engineer, we are justified in asking what you know that he doesn't.

In reality, Flight 175 crashed through the facade of the South Tower and was smashed to bits inside the building. You really need to tell us why this actual historical event shouldn't have happened as it manifestly did. Physicists, structural engineers, and aeronautical engineers see nothing unusual here. The onus is on you to show why they're all wrong. Explain why no experts anywhere in the world share your opinion.
Nice side-step Ron.

Mackey's and Wieck's attempt to debunk all no-planers = FAIL

[kooskoets]

Quite frankly, you've demonstrated that you know nothing about physics or engineering.

Well..i think that anybody who has a problem with alu-sheet constructions entering steel and concrete buildings has a good notion of physics.

You don't have a prob with that, just as the other clown.

So....why don't you shut up about physics ?
You're clearly only shouting someone elses words.

[killtown]

It's funny how much time Ron spends out of his life on trying to combat truthers when he thinks our movement is going nowhere and dwindling.

[tabea_blumenschein]

Ronald Wieck & Ryan Mackey Caught Lying and Manipulating
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWw8dm7XXgI

If a plane is "coming out of a power dive," the transition from straight down to horizontal would pull a lot of g force. If the plane comes apart flying 500+ mph on the horizontal, imagine what would happen if it were to make a turn, especially from vertical to horizontal. A Boeing 767 is designed as an "economy bus", not a fighter jet.

So, if a Boeing 767 came out of a power dive at a rate fast enough to have it horizontal at 540 mph (before wind resistance slowed it down), the plane would be destroyed.

Ryan Mackey essentially proves no planes! He stated he knows (or believes) it can't fly 540 mph.


No, no, no, that's all wrong. G forces in a turn or a pull-up aren't dependent on velocity, but on the turn radius.

The simplest case to consider is one where the plane pulls out of the dive with the flightpath describing part of a circle. In this case, the acceleration is:

a = v^2/r

Where v is the velocity, a is the acceleration, and r is the pullup radius. We want to solve this for r:

r = v^2/a

We'll take the speed of the plane to be v = 240 meters per second, and we'll assume the plane is pulling up at 1 g, which makes a = 9.8 meters per second squared.

r = 240^2 / 9.8 meters

r = 5877 meters

Now to calculate the distance of the pull-up arc. Just convert the angle A to radians and multiply it by r:

A = pi/180 * 30 radians

A = .523 radians

Arc length = .523 * 5877 meters

Arc length = 3077 meters.

If we make the simplifying assumption that the velocity will remain roughly constant while executing the pull-up, we can estimate the time by dividing the arc length by the velocity:

t = 3077 / 240 seconds

t = 12.8 seconds to complete the pull-up.

~

Let's try that again with a pull-up at 2 g's (that makes our variable a = 19.6 meters per second squared). Doubling the g-force means we can just divide our previous results by 2:

r = 2938 meters

Arc length = 1536 meters

t = 6.4 seconds to complete the pull-up.

Finally, a pull-up at 3 g's:

r = 1959 meters

Arc length = 1025 meters

t = 4.3 seconds to complete the pull-up

That should be enough calculations to settle the matter: the g-forces on the plane are determined by how fast you pull out of the dive, not by how fast you're going. So drop this argument, people, you're making yourselves look foolish.

There are any number of other possibilities for a pull-up trajectory, but the math for those is usually a lot harder! :)

~

Also, contrary to shure's assertions in the quoted post, nobody believes that the plane was pointed "straight down at the ground" while it was diving.

EDIT: Oh, yes, you'll need to add up to 1 g of additional force to those g-forces because of gravity. But the argument is still valid.

[bryan]

Respect to you Goldengoose :)

Many thanks, John

Does anybody find it strange that John White would want to form an alliance with a professional 9/11 conspiracy debunker to attack other members of the truth movement?

The only logical explanation is that NPT is a threat to both the 9/11 truth movement and the perps.

How can that be?

If NPT was disinfo, the perps would love it.

If the perps hate NPT so much, why does the truth movement hate it even more?

[goldengoose]

Well..i think that anybody who has a problem with alu-sheet constructions entering steel and concrete buildings has a good notion of physics.

You don't have a prob with that, just as the other clown.

So....why don't you shut up about physics ?
You're clearly only shouting someone elses words.

No, you have no clue about physics. You can't learn from a working scientist whose background is in physics and aeronautics. Your vague fantasies about the construction of the towers are a very poor substitute for knowledge and understanding. Mackey discussed the properties of the materials involved. He calculated the forces involved. You couldn't comprehend his presentation. Nobody who knows anything has a problem with a 100-ton projectile moving 500 mph breaking steel columns.

Your problem is your problem. If you attempt something that no fantasist has yet dared to try and ask a local physics teacher to explain the collisions, you will find that Mackey is right. The important point is that no one who understands physics will ever disagree with Mackey's explanation. Your unwillingness to subject your fantasies to critical scrutiny reveals your agenda.

[goldengoose]

Does anybody find it strange that John White would want to form an alliance with a professional 9/11 conspiracy debunker to attack other members of the truth movement?

The only logical explanation is that NPT is a threat to both the 9/11 truth movement and the perps.

How can that be?

If NPT was disinfo, the perps would love it.

If the perps hate NPT so much, why does the truth movement hate it even more?


Rationalists have contempt for anybody promoting baseless myths about an inside job that obviously didn't occur. Events have the passed the fantasy movement by. There is no pipeline being built in Afghanistan; Russia and China inked the sweetheart oil deals with Iraq's new government; American troops will be gone from Iraq next year; Bush and Cheney are private citizens, replaced by a leftist who promises to reverse most of Bush's policies.
It's over.

Other fantasists hate the no-planers because the no-planers are even crazier than the people who prattle about soundless explosives that left behind no detonator caps, bits of wiring, or seismic data. It 's comical to those of us who can think, but the loon who pretends that voice-morphing technology existed seven years ago that would enable real time conversations is embarrassed by the loon who pretends that a plane seen by 100,000 people didn't exist.

[goldengoose]

It's funny how much time Ron spends out of his life on trying to combat truthers when he thinks our movement is going nowhere and dwindling.


Actually, I spend very little time. I have less interest in the fantasy movement per se than I have in bizarre beliefs in general. I'm always curious to learn why people believe nonsense. Michael Shermer says that people hold weird beliefs because they want to. That sounds right to me.

The fantasy movement isn't a real movement because it has no potential for growth. Its loudest charlatans spend all their time hiding and ducking confrontations with authentic experts. Imagine a charlatan like Richard Gage presenting his farrago of errors and falsehoods to a panel of structural engineers and demolition professionals. By raving about soundless explosives, what can he hope to accomplish apart from making a fool of himself? Who can he possibly deceive?

In a different world where your no-planes fantasies were real, lunatics like Judy Wood would be eager to comfront real scientists like Mackey. The reason I find it impossible to scrounge up a debate opponent for a debunker is that no fantasist is willing to take a beating from someone who has the facts. If the jihadist attacks of 9/11 were an inside job, scientists and engineers from all over the world would be tearing apart the NIST Report. Nobody finds any bad science in NIST's publications because there is none!

Do you seriously imagine that you would confine yourself to tiny blogs with a handful of members if you were in possession of a great truth? If you had a shred of evidence, you'd march into the offices of the NY Times, or the Washington Post, or the LA Times, and you’d win someone a Pulitzer Prize. Assuming these Bush-bashing liberal dailies are all in on it, you'd take your earth-shaking evidence to Le Monde, or the Guardian, or, or, whatever.

In short, you'd break the biggest story in the history of journalism and earn for yourself fame and fortune. Instead, you choose to do NOTHING. You exchange messages with a vanishingly small community of cranks who also choose to do NOTHING.

Look, I have no animosity toward the people here. Generally, they treat me well and I respect these mods far more than I respect the spiteful bullies at the JREF. I save my anger for the David Ray Griffins of the world, who churn out and hustle worthless, interchangeable books and flee from their critics.

Griffin is a cynical scoundrel. You people merely take pleasure from believing silly stuff.

[bryan]

In a different world where your no-planes fantasies were real, lunatics like Judy Wood would be eager to comfront real scientists like Mackey.

Why did you say on Hardfire that no 9/11 truthers would debate Ryan Mackey, when you didn't even invite Anders Björkman to appear on a show which consisted of you and Mackey making false claims about Björkman's research?

[fanoftruth]

"Look, I have no animosity toward the people here. Generally, they treat me well and I respect these mods far more than I respect the spiteful bullies at the JREF"

This is a fantastic comment and I take my hat off to you for making it! The trouble, in my eyes, without 9/11 conspiracies is so many of them can be refuted and debunked and argued against with rationale but I honestly believe there to be a lack of places that can do the above with any sort of maturity.

I am very open minded in regards to both sides of the 9/11 fence and over the years in my research (though I tend not to read up as much these days...) I like to make sure I cover all angles of any arguement best I can. JREF of course is infamous to anyone who has spent any worthwhile time looking into 9/11. I have myself visited the forum on quite a few occasions only to be almost immediately turned away by the barrage of disgusting, purile and derogatory attitudes present in the 9/11 forum. The problem is the maturity levels in the 9/11 JREF forum can be so low that many a researcher will choose not to bother with them...and perhaps as a result will lose out on a wealth of good information.

The problem with the internet on the whole is our computers act as shields infront of us. People engage each other is ways people should not talk to one another. We're all guilty of it at least sometimes. I hope nobody who frequents JREF (9/11 forums) acts that way offline with friends and family.

If a mature researcher approaches JREF without knowing what they're in for they're met with phrases like 'twoofer' (whatever the hell that means), 'loonies', 'cool aid' (whatever the heck that is), 'tin foil' et al. So regardless of what information is available there it's bound to be overlooked by many people simply for the way the info is conveyed by its members.

[bryan]

If a mature researcher approaches JREF without knowing what they're in for they're met with phrases like 'twoofer' (whatever the hell that means), 'loonies', 'cool aid' (whatever the heck that is), 'tin foil' et al. So regardless of what information is available there it's bound to be overlooked by many people simply for the way the info is conveyed by its members.

Here are a few examples of how Anders Björkman has been treated on the JREF forum in the last week or so. He has 30 years experience in maritime accident investigation and is an expert on collisions between ships, which are steel-framed structures.


This forum is about exposing the paranormal delusions, like your delusions on 911. You don’t know this forum is about being skeptical and we found you willfully spreading delusions based on you failed common sense and incompetence at engineering.

This forum is about exposing the fraud of 911Truth, and you joined 911Truth. Irony as you post delusions without a clue about the forum you post the tripe in.

Your axiom is dumb. Go ask a physicist if you can find one on the slopes next time you use gravity for pleasure but have no clue how it fits in 911.



Over 7 years and the best you can do is fail in your attacks on Mackey and spew tangential tripe while plugging your failed physics page on 911.

The truth movement has the upper hand in hearsay, lies and fantasy.



What would anyone from 911Truth do? They have only delusions. So tell us what you think about this presentation or take your junk ideas and move on to the correct thread.

What do you have to contribute to this thread?

Do you understand 911Truth is full of delusions and how this presentation can be used to understand 911Truth is junk science?

[goldengoose]

Why did you say on Hardfire that no 9/11 truthers would debate Ryan Mackey, when you didn't even invite Anders Björkman to appear on a show which consisted of you and Mackey making false claims about Björkman's research?


I said that no twoofers would dare to face Mackey because none would. Mackey and I made no false claims about Bjorkman's incompetent idiocy. Anders has the opportunity to make his case, but he knows what's in store for him.

[goldengoose]

Here are a few examples of how Anders Björkman has been treated on the JREF forum in the last week or so. He has 30 years experience in maritime accident investigation and is an expert on collisions between ships, which are steel-framed structures.

Anders has antagonized many people with his conduct. A discussion involves give-and-take. When people who build large structures (Bjorkman works with ships) try to explain how they perform their jobs, Bjorkman's typical response is to sneer and direct them to his stupid paper that hasn't been accepted in a single professional journal. He never takes a backward step. Even when his most ludicrous errors are pounded into his head, he is incapable of revising his thinking one iota. When he gets completely destroyed, he vanishes for a week, then returns spouting the same nonsense. He is neither honest nor serious in his approach.

When ships collide, gravity is not a huge factor.

[john white]

Does anybody find it strange that John White would want to form an alliance with a professional 9/11 conspiracy debunker to attack other members of the truth movement?

The only logical explanation is that NPT is a threat to both the 9/11 truth movement and the perps.

How can that be?

If NPT was disinfo, the perps would love it.

If the perps hate NPT so much, why does the truth movement hate it even more?

ROTFLMAO

That's your "only logical explanation"?

I've "formed an alliance" because I dare to make one post appreciating a poster whose not in the "happy gang" and has their brain switched on

Just saying hi to someone posting damn good sense is far to simple :)

Good sense that you've shown you simply can't handle

If NPT was disinfo, the perps would love it.



NPT is "Disinfo", because its the opposite of the truth

The "perps" DO Love it, thats the point

They LOVE it because it protects them from the truth of their treason:

Its also why the deliberate fraudsters creating NPT are compounding treason protecting the guilty and denying justice to the victims

And it's also why you are a tool of the evil that murdered 3000 Americans and set off the murder of millions more around the world

Keeping saying it enough even YOU might get it to actually understand that!


If the perps hate NPT so much, why does the truth movement hate it even more?

Because NPT is part of an agenda trying to prevent 9/11 Truth galvanising the public to bring the traitors to Justice!

Seriously though Bryan... your not starting to wake up, are you?

One has to live in hope I suppose...

[sidlittle]

Does anybody find it strange that John White would want to form an alliance with a professional 9/11 conspiracy debunker to attack other members of the truth movement?



No Bryan , I don't find it strange but then again I'm not one of that insignificant moribund group that still believe john white's motivations are honorable.

His response ^^ is pathetically predictive. No matter how he dresses it up, he is essentially hand in hand with one of the most despicable human beings any genuine truth seeker could possibly imagine.

For shame.

[john white]

No Bryan , I don't find it strange but then again I'm not one of that insignificant moribund group that still believe john white's motivations are honorable.

His response ^^ is pathetically predictive. No matter how he dresses it up, he is essentially hand in hand with one of the most despicable human beings any genuine truth seeker could possibly imagine.

For shame.

Anything to hold together your denial that planes hit the buildings sid

What's pathetic is your scapegoating of me because you can't deal with he facts

And I can dis-agree with anyone about a great deal of things but STILL agree with them when they are right

That's because I'm not a child

[goldengoose]

ROTFLMAO

That's your "only logical explanation"?

I've "formed an alliance" because I dare to make one post appreciating a poster whose not in the "happy gang" and has their brain switched on

Just saying hi to someone posting damn good sense is far to simple :)

Good sense that you've shown you simply can't handle



NPT is "Disinfo", because its the opposite of the truth

The "perps" DO Love it, thats the point

They LOVE it because it protects them from the truth of their treason:

Its also why the deliberate fraudsters creating NPT are compounding treason protecting the guilty and denying justice to the victims

And it's also why you are a tool of the evil that murdered 3000 Americans and set off the murder of millions more around the world

Keeping saying it enough even YOU might get it to actually understand that!



Because NPT is part of an agenda trying to prevent 9/11 Truth galvanising the public to bring the traitors to Justice!

Seriously though Bryan... your not starting to wake up, are you?

One has to live in hope I suppose...


John, I'm going to disagree just a bit. While no-planers promote sheer nonsense, I think that most of them swallow it. Ace Baker understands that he is peddling idiocy--he has severe mental problems and is willing to humiliate himself to gain attention. But the rest of them give the impression of being unable to recognize just how absurd their fantasy is. They are True Believers, not disinfo agents.

To be a no-planer, it helps to live somewhere other than New York City. You won't get far screaming about the nonexistence of a plane that the person you're screaming at either saw with his or her own eyes or knows someone who did.

The no-planes fantasy fails on every level. They can't trick a single video compositing expert. They are helpless to deal with the mountain of aviation data. They can't figure out how the remains of passengers and crews of Flights 11 and 175 ended up at the crash sites. There's all that inconvenient aircraft wreckage. Sure, their imaginary super-villains planted evidence in plain view of thousands of onlookers, but such desperate fabrications won't persuade anybody sane.

They're reduced to screeching that absolutely everybody--the air traffic controllers, the forensic examiners, the structural engineers, the rescue workers, American and United Airlines, the FAA, NORAD--is lying to protect an imaginary conspiracy that seemingly had no purpose beyond electing Democrats.

[bryan]

And I can dis-agree with anyone about a great deal of things but STILL agree with them when they are right

That's because I'm not a child

You can agree with debunkers, even though they support the OCT.

Yet you can't agree with Killtown on Shanksville.

I suppose it's a question of priorities.

[stannrodd]

You can agree with debunkers, even though they support the OCT.

Yet you can't agree with Killtown on Shanksville.

I suppose it's a question of priorities.

And your priorities are to totally ignore good evidence in favour of support for conjecture.

Non support for the NPT = support for the MSM version ?.. is that what you are saying bryan ?

Because if that is what you are saying then you have an agenda which is not based in finding any truth at all .. rather you are simply pushing poo and taking the piss !! :eek:

Stann

[onourwayto2012]

Goose: I don't think you are a retard because you actually write(and insult) pretty well..... so are you : brainwashed? ,in which case you wouldn't know.... or just a dick who likes to argue endlessly despite knowing you're not going to change a single persons mind on the forum...... or an evil bastard who believes that pushing the OS is the right thing to do despite knowing it's all a big fat lie....... or most likely just another "patriot" who believes in mom, apple pie, and anything Dubya says(and knows enough science to fashion some gobbledegook)???

[goldengoose]

Goose: I don't think you are a retard because you actually write(and insult) pretty well..... so are you : brainwashed? ,in which case you wouldn't know.... or just a dick who likes to argue endlessly despite knowing you're not going to change a single persons mind on the forum...... or an evil bastard who believes that pushing the OS is the right thing to do despite knowing it's all a big fat lie....... or most likely just another "patriot" who believes in mom, apple pie, and anything Dubya says(and knows enough science to fashion some gobbledegook)???


I can't be angry with you because your little dog is so damn cute. If I thought that I had no chance of opening anyone's mind, I'd get depressed. The fantasy movement has produced absolutely nothing in over seven years of screaming. There isn't a single inside-job myth that can stand scrutiny.
Think of a question regarding the mainstream account, check out the discussion on 911myths.com, and tell me honestly that you still swallow the fantasy spin.

[onourwayto2012]

I can't be angry with you because your little dog is so damn cute. If I thought that I had no chance of opening anyone's mind, I'd get depressed. The fantasy movement has produced absolutely nothing in over seven years of screaming. There isn't a single inside-job myth that can stand scrutiny.
Think of a question regarding the mainstream account, check out the discussion on 911myths.com, and tell me honestly that you still swallow the fantasy spin.

I checked it out and I still swallow the fantasy spin.... however I am going to check out more to see if I can actually find something that will change my mind, even just ONE thing.

[goldengoose]

I checked it out and I still swallow the fantasy spin.... however I am going to check out more to see if I can actually find something that will change my mind, even just ONE thing.

As absolutely nothing peddled by the fantasy movement is correct, I have to wonder what you cling to.

[killtown]

So how did Mackey and goldengoose, er Wieck debunk no-planers like me who think some of a 767 would enter the WTC, but not all of it?

[goldengoose]

So how did Mackey and goldengoose, er Wieck debunk no-planers like me who think some of a 767 would enter the WTC, but not all of it?


We pointed out that you know nothing about physics and were unable to comprehend a world Mackey said.

[killtown]

We['er ridiculing you by saying] you know nothing about physics and were unable to comprehend a world Mackey said [because we didn't actually debunk you, so I have to resort to ad-hom attacks, us skeptic's favorite sleazy tactic].
Corrected it for you.

[heiwa]

Anders has antagonized many people with his conduct. A discussion involves give-and-take. When people who build large structures (Bjorkman works with ships) try to explain how they perform their jobs, Bjorkman's typical response is to sneer and direct them to his stupid paper that hasn't been accepted in a single professional journal. He never takes a backward step. Even when his most ludicrous errors are pounded into his head, he is incapable of revising his thinking one iota. When he gets completely destroyed, he vanishes for a week, then returns spouting the same nonsense. He is neither honest nor serious in his approach.

When ships collide, gravity is not a huge factor.

Bjorkman actually submitted a paper to ASCE/The Journal of Engineering Mechanics on 2 February 2009. On 8 April 2009 the editor Ross Corotis of The Journal of Engineering Mechanics informed Bjorkman that paper was still under review. The paper is quite good. Do you want it published here?
Bjorkman never vanishes for a week. But he has other things to do sometimes. Skiing, tennis, .... work (?).

[white horse]

There isn't a single inside-job myth that can stand scrutiny.


You have to be kidding right?

What's your theory on 911?

That some CIA sponsored Saudi Hijackers were 'allowed' onto planes without being searched, over powered all the crews, and flew those planes smack bang directly on to their targets, despite being abysmal pilots, while the US Airforce was Ordered to stand down by Cheney, (while Rumsfeld was nowhere to be found - in person, by phone OR pager) during an exercise that... huh... simulated hijacked passenger planes being flown into the Pentagon and the WTC.

That's still an inside job isn't it really? Cheney and the CIA are at the heart of this however you cut it. Or was it a guy with a laptop in a caev in Tora Bora? (EVEN THEN Osama was sponsored by the CIA and AL Qaeda was created and funded by the CIA so either way you look at it it was still an inside fucking job)

And I haven't even mentioned TV footage or NPT. :eek:

Forget about NPT - why is the TV footage contradictory? Do you assert like JW does that it has been tampered with by fraudsters like Killtown and Webfairy to fool us all - for who knows what reason?

Don't go into NPT - engage me on the TV footage. Why is it so dogey and in many places contradictory? Or do you assertain that it is a clear and accurate record of live events unfolding? Cos I've seen billions of hours of TV and that is the dodgiest I ever saw.

What's your story?


[btw apologies for ranting a bit, got caught up in the negativity of the moment - please put me straight if I have got you wrong, but you dont' swallow the OS do you??]

[goldengoose]

You have to be kidding right?

What's your theory on 911?

That some CIA sponsored Saudi Hijackers were 'allowed' onto planes without being searched, over powered all the crews, and flew those planes smack bang directly on to their targets, despite being abysmal pilots, while the US Airforce was Ordered to stand down by Cheney, (while Rumsfeld was nowhere to be found - in person, by phone OR pager) during an exercise that... huh... simulated hijacked passenger planes being flown into the Pentagon and the WTC.

That's still an inside job isn't it really? Cheney and the CIA are at the heart of this however you cut it. Or was it a guy with a laptop in a caev in Tora Bora? (EVEN THEN Osama was sponsored by the CIA and AL Qaeda was created and funded by the CIA so either way you look at it it was still an inside fucking job)

And I haven't even mentioned TV footage or NPT. :eek:

Forget about NPT - why is the TV footage contradictory? Do you assert like JW does that it has been tampered with by fraudsters like Killtown and Webfairy to fool us all - for who knows what reason?

Don't go into NPT - engage me on the TV footage. Why is it so dogey and in many places contradictory? Or do you assertain that it is a clear and accurate record of live events unfolding? Cos I've seen billions of hours of TV and that is the dodgiest I ever saw.

What's your story?


[btw apologies for ranting a bit, got caught up in the negativity of the moment - please put me straight if I have got you wrong, but you dont' swallow the OS do you??]

I'll repeat my statement that absolutely nothing invented by the fantasy movement can stand the slightest bit of scrutiny. It's 2009, almost 8 years after the 9/11 attacks, and you know next to nothing. You don't have a single fact to support irrational and baseless beliefs that you cling to despite all the evidence to the contrary.

There were no "CIA-sponsored Saudis." Bin Laden's group in Afghanistan was financed by Saudi sources, refused all American aid, and never cooperated with the CIA in any way. Some of the hijackers were selected by CAPPS for pre-flight screening, but they were allowed to board. You really don't see how the hijackers exploited gaping holes in airport security, although many terrorism experts warned that a disaster was inevitable. Your fantasy compels to pretend that the hijacker pilots had little skill, but they were certified pilots. Their plan didn't require them to perform the most difficult tasks, take-offs, landings, flying in inclement weather; they needed only to steer a plane into a very large target. There was no stand-down, and nobody was simulating planes being flown into the Pentagon. These ancient canards have been debunked repeatedly.

There is absolutely nothing "contradictory" about any of the video footage of the plane crashes. Merely saying so won't make it so.

[goldengoose]

Bjorkman actually submitted a paper to ASCE/The Journal of Engineering Mechanics on 2 February 2009. On 8 April 2009 the editor Ross Corotis of The Journal of Engineering Mechanics informed Bjorkman that paper was still under review. The paper is quite good. Do you want it published here?
Bjorkman never vanishes for a week. But he has other things to do sometimes. Skiing, tennis, .... work (?).



The paper is insane drivel. Bjorkman will surely be rejected by this journal. It is doubtful that he will inform us.

[goldengoose]

Corrected it for you.


You can never correct me. You are an ignorant, agenda-driven liar. I recall you smearing me as a Nazi. Tell us what you DON'T like about the Nazis. The vicious cretin "webfairy" always disappears when I ask her that question.

[bryan]

[btw apologies for ranting a bit, got caught up in the negativity of the moment - please put me straight if I have got you wrong, but you dont' swallow the OS do you??]

Let's suppose you spent 10 minutes typing that post.

You just wasted 10 minutes of your life, and you're never going to get it back! :(

[goldengoose]

Let's suppose you spent 10 minutes typing that post.

You just wasted 10 minutes of your life, and you're never going to get it back! :(


You've wasted years of your life promoting utter nonsense. You seem quite content with your ignorance.

[white horse]

You've wasted years of your life promoting utter nonsense. You seem quite content with your ignorance.

Who's promoting here? Asking questions many questions...

If you follow this at all you may notice I have never used the word proof in a positive sense in relation to 911.

My particular field of specialisation is the TV/video footage - it is way way dodgy. It prooves nothing. WHICH IS THE ENTIRE POINT!!! The video archive PROOVES NOTHING!!!

Still asking questions - not many answers.

TV/Video Fakery/NPT whatever you want to call it is all about the lack of proof.

Never has anyone shown me one SINGLE scrap of evidence that UA175 was in NY on that day. Period. Let's start there.

Discuss that.

What do you think hit the WTC? UA175? If you do where's your evidence?

[white horse]

Let's suppose you spent 10 minutes typing that post.

You just wasted 10 minutes of your life, and you're never going to get it back! :(

Yeah well thanks for that - I've just banked another 6! :mad:

[goldengoose]

Who's promoting here? Asking questions many questions...

If you follow this at all you may notice I have never used the word proof in a positive sense in relation to 911.

My particular field of specialisation is the TV/video footage - it is way way dodgy. It prooves nothing. WHICH IS THE ENTIRE POINT!!! The video archive PROOVES NOTHING!!!

Still asking questions - not many answers.

TV/Video Fakery/NPT whatever you want to call it is all about the lack of proof.

Never has anyone shown me one SINGLE scrap of evidence that UA175 was in NY on that day. Period. Let's start there.

Discuss that.

What do you think hit the WTC? UA175? If you do where's your evidence?


For some reason, the remains of passengers and crew found at the crash site by rescue workers and identified by DNA testing isn't evidence. Why not?
The account provided by air traffic controller Dave Bottiglia of his and his colleagues' reactions to Flight 175's rapid descent as they tracked it right to the doorstep of the WTC complex isn't evidence. The photos of aircraft wreckage isn't evidence. What would constitute evidence?


If you really work in TV video, then you know that video compositing expert Steven Wright is correct in his contention that the sort of real time compositing posited by fantasists is impossible.

Can we assume that your fantasy requires that the air traffic controllers, the forensic examiners, the rescue workers, the news teams at various networks, the amateurs who shot videos of the crash, and the airlines themselves be complicit in the mathematically impossible conspiracy?

[white horse]

For some reason, the remains of passengers and crew found at the crash site by rescue workers and identified by DNA testing isn't evidence. Why not?
The account provided by air traffic controller Dave Bottiglia of his and his colleagues' reactions to Flight 175's rapid descent as they tracked it right to the doorstep of the WTC complex isn't evidence. The photos of aircraft wreckage isn't evidence. What would constitute evidence?


If you really work in TV video, then you know that video compositing expert Steven Wright is correct in his contention that the sort of real time compositing posited by fantasists is impossible.


I'm not a video technician, I'm a historian, I deal in evaluating evidence of all tipes. So yeah, sometime I have to turn from a layman to an 'expert' to evaluate evidence, to do that I have to trust and accept expert testimony.

On video compositing; I have to bow down, I cannot give you a technical stance; I will say tho that I do consider that if this was an inside job of the magnitude that I believe is possible then their technology would be many years better than the best commercially available.


Can we assume that your fantasy requires that the air traffic controllers, the forensic examiners, the rescue workers, the news teams at various networks, the amateurs who shot videos of the crash, and the airlines themselves be complicit in the mathematically impossible conspiracy?

DNA samples? You shitting me? DNA samples, taken from where? Ground Zero? I have read about these. I'm not being purposefully obtues; with over 20yrs historian experience I find that hard to put on the 'proven' pile.

DNA samples surviving a plane crashing into a building and fires hot enough to melt steel - official story line??

The airtraffic control is another good one - If you are going down the road of an inside job that is probably the easiest bit of evidence ot fake.

If you theoretically allow that this was an inside job - all this evidence is left hanging;

Don't forget that earlier that morning they had simulated radar blips for their fabled exercises so successfully that when the attacks were taking place professionals were confused as to whetehr it was real or not.

------

DNA samples independantly verified;
Plane parts recovered and reconstructed with part serial numbers.
Video evidence from several differnet angles, independantly gathered and all showing the same thing.

You may stand up and say But we have those - but unfortunatley, we are close I give you that, but unfortunaltey every single aspect of this evidence can be placed somewhere between highly doubful and very suspect.

If you think we have these threee leements and just shrug and move on - they have won.

If instead you examine each aspect closer - no you do not find proof that the OS is a total lie - but neither do you find any aspect of the OS remotely provable, from any of those things you have mentioned.

So yeah, we could go round all night. Fact is, I don't believe them. Neither you or a jack booted policeman at my door is going to convince me.

[goldengoose]

I'm not a video technician, I'm a historian, I deal in evaluating evidence of all tipes. So yeah, sometime I have to turn from a layman to an 'expert' to evaluate evidence, to do that I have to trust and accept expert testimony.

On video compositing; I have to bow down, I cannot give you a technical stance; I will say tho that I do consider that if this was an inside job of the magnitude that I believe is possible then their technology would be many years better than the best commercially available.



DNA samples? You shitting me? DNA samples, taken from where? Ground Zero? I have read about these. I'm not being purposefully obtues; with over 20yrs historian experience I find that hard to put on the 'proven' pile.

DNA samples surviving a plane crashing into a building and fires hot enough to melt steel - official story line??

The airtraffic control is another good one - If you are going down the road of an inside job that is probably the easiest bit of evidence ot fake.

If you theoretically allow that this was an inside job - all this evidence is left hanging;

Don't forget that earlier that morning they had simulated radar blips for their fabled exercises so successfully that when the attacks were taking place professionals were confused as to whetehr it was real or not.

------

DNA samples independantly verified;
Plane parts recovered and reconstructed with part serial numbers.
Video evidence from several differnet angles, independantly gathered and all showing the same thing.

You may stand up and say But we have those - but unfortunatley, we are close I give you that, but unfortunaltey every single aspect of this evidence can be placed somewhere between highly doubful and very suspect.

If you think we have these threee leements and just shrug and move on - they have won.

If instead you examine each aspect closer - no you do not find proof that the OS is a total lie - but neither do you find any aspect of the OS remotely provable, from any of those things you have mentioned.

So yeah, we could go round all night. Fact is, I don't believe them. Neither you or a jack booted policeman at my door is going to convince me.


No, nothing could ever persuade you. You have chosen to place yourself outside reason and logic. No jack-booted policemen will ever appear at your door, except in the extremely unlikely event that twoofers gain political power.


The DNA samples were painstakingly gathered over a period of months. Some remains are still being identified. There were no fake radar blips. The sort of real time compositing posited by fantasists cannot be done.

No dialogue is possible because your mind is not open to actual evidence. Your myths bring you comfort, therefore you cling to them.

[bryan]

No, nothing could ever persuade you. You have chosen to place yourself outside reason and logic.

Speaking of logic, I have a couple of questions concerning some of the thinking that would have gone into the planning of the attacks. Here's the first question:

Why was there a 15 minute gap between the North Tower plane hit and the South Tower plane hit? Was it planned or did it just happen that way because of the departure times and the flight paths?

[goldengoose]

Speaking of logic, I have a couple of questions concerning some of the thinking that would have gone into the planning of the attacks. Here's the first question:

Why was there a 15 minute gap between the North Tower plane hit and the South Tower plane hit? Was it planned or did it just happen that way because of the departure times and the flight paths?


You could try asking the hijackers, but they're dead. I have no way of knowing the details of their plan.

[bryan]

You could try asking the hijackers, but they're dead. I have no way of knowing the details of their plan.

It's about using reason and logic to try to work out what happened that day. No surprise to hear that you have no interest in doing that.

[goldengoose]

It's about using reason and logic to try to work out what happened that day. No surprise to hear that you have no interest in doing that.


All right, let's use some logic. The hijackers want planes that are carrying lots of fuel. That suggests they should select planes flying coast-to-coast. They want their attacks to be coordinated, to hit their targets in a fairly tight time span, to avoid running into any counteraction that develops. So they have to pick two flights destined for the West Coast that are scheduled to depart as close to each other as possible.

Now, how hard was that?

[tabea_blumenschein]

DNA samples surviving a plane crashing into a building and fires hot enough to melt steel - official story line??

Name one investigator who said the fires were hot enough to melt steel - or needed to be.

[bryan]

All right, let's use some logic. The hijackers want planes that are carrying lots of fuel. That suggests they should select planes flying coast-to-coast. They want their attacks to be coordinated, to hit their targets in a fairly tight time span, to avoid running into any counteraction that develops. So they have to pick two flights destined for the West Coast that are scheduled to depart as close to each other as possible.

Now, how hard was that?

Do you not think the 15 minute gap might have been intentional, to give the media time to point their cameras ready for the second plane?

[stannrodd]

Do you not think the 15 minute gap might have been intentional, to give the media time to point their cameras ready for the second plane?

Only if you knew there was another attack coming but that would imply an inside knowledge.

If you were trying to avoid that suspicion (of an inside knowledge) then you would avoid laying a trail to suppose that there was .. YES !!

Agents have to be one step ahead .. so you have proven you are the agent of disinformation .. by attempting to lay that trail.

bryan you are but a babe in the woods. There were planes .. do you get that? .. we know that is true !

Your no plane trail is a dead duck !!

Stann

[bryan]

Only if you knew there was another attack coming but that would imply an inside knowledge.

If you were trying to avoid that suspicion (of an inside knowledge) then you would avoid laying a trail to suppose that there was .. YES !!

Agents have to be one step ahead .. so you have proven you are the agent of disinformation .. by attempting to lay that trail.

bryan you are but a babe in the woods. There were planes .. do you get that? .. we know that is true !

Your no plane trail is a dead duck !!

Stann

I was assuming Islamic suicide pilots for the sake of argument. Goldengoose realized that's what I was doing and answered accordingly. You, on the other hand, have posted irrelevant claptrap.

[white horse]

Name one investigator who said the fires were hot enough to melt steel - or needed to be.


---

Richard Ebeltoft structural engineer (Can't find the original piece, but this was quoted in the ARIZONA DAILY WILDCAT Wednesday September 12, 2001)

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/04/intense-heat-melted-steel-supports-in.html


Although the impact of the jetliners was strong, it was the heat from the explosion that most likely caused the buildings to collapse, experts say.

Richard Ebeltoft, a structural engineer and University of Arizona architecture lecturer, speculated that flames fueled by thousands of gallons of aviation fuel melted the buildings steel supports. Ebeltoft said steel loses half its strength when heated to temperatures of 700 to 1,000 degrees.

An exposition like this, he said, probably caused fires that burned at temperatures between 1,500 and 2,200 degrees.

---

John Hooper, principal engineer in the company that provided engineering advice when the World Trade Center was designed.

http://journals.iranscience.net:800/www.newscientist.com/www.newscientist.com/hottopics/usterror/usterror.jsp@id=ns99991281


Each tower was struck by a passenger aeroplane, hijacked by suicidal terrorists, but remained upright for nearly an hour. Eventually raging fires melted the supporting steel struts, but the time delay allowed hundreds of people to escape.


(He also said "Skyscrapers like the World Trade Center are not built to withstand direct hits by large aeroplanes" which is not what the builders of WTC have claimed - they have claimed the WTC was built to withstand multiple plane impacts)

---
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm

Structural engineer - Chris Wise

"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning."

"The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."



The buildings' construction manager, Hyman Brown, agreed that nothing could have saved them from the inferno. "The buildings would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it,"

One of the problems here is that like many of the other strand of the official story, off the cuff comments made by ill informed 'experts' in the days afterwards were run by the media as the official line. As there was no real independant inquiry there was no real offcial line; 'they' just let the picture build up from the most plausible sounding guff that people would swallow. The media would then use illustrations and digrams to help us swallow it.

Who's going to question the 'experts'? It's the same as the Al Qaeda line. Spouted out by the media and allowed to roll as the official line.

[heiwa]

---

Richard Ebeltoft structural engineer (Can't find the original piece, but this was quoted in the ARIZONA DAILY WILDCAT Wednesday September 12, 2001)

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/04/intense-heat-melted-steel-supports-in.html


---

John Hooper, principal engineer in the company that provided engineering advice when the World Trade Center was designed.

http://journals.iranscience.net:800/www.newscientist.com/www.newscientist.com/hottopics/usterror/usterror.jsp@id=ns99991281



(He also said "Skyscrapers like the World Trade Center are not built to withstand direct hits by large aeroplanes" which is not what the builders of WTC have claimed - they have claimed the WTC was built to withstand multiple plane impacts)

---
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm

Structural engineer - Chris Wise




One of the problems here is that like many of the other strand of the official story, off the cuff comments made by ill informed 'experts' in the days afterwards were run by the media as the official line. As there was no real independant inquiry there was no real offcial line; 'they' just let the picture build up from the most plausible sounding guff that people would swallow. The media would then use illustrations and digrams to help us swallow it.

Who's going to question the 'experts'? It's the same as the Al Qaeda line. Spouted out by the media and allowed to roll as the official line.

It is very simple. Making a big fire up top at 350 m level of a 410 m steel structure tower for any reason will not later produce a one-way crush down of the whole 410 m tower, e.g. because a 50-60 m bit of the top dropped on the big 350 m bottom part.
No steel structures of any kind collapses if you start a fire up top!

[goldengoose]

Do you not think the 15 minute gap might have been intentional, to give the media time to point their cameras ready for the second plane?


Yes, you're right. The hijackers should have been able to find flights that took off simultaneously.

You don't ever put an ounce of thought into the drivel you post, do you?

[goldengoose]

---

Richard Ebeltoft structural engineer (Can't find the original piece, but this was quoted in the ARIZONA DAILY WILDCAT Wednesday September 12, 2001)

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/04/intense-heat-melted-steel-supports-in.html


---

John Hooper, principal engineer in the company that provided engineering advice when the World Trade Center was designed.

http://journals.iranscience.net:800/www.newscientist.com/www.newscientist.com/hottopics/usterror/usterror.jsp@id=ns99991281



(He also said "Skyscrapers like the World Trade Center are not built to withstand direct hits by large aeroplanes" which is not what the builders of WTC have claimed - they have claimed the WTC was built to withstand multiple plane impacts)

---
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm

Structural engineer - Chris Wise




One of the problems here is that like many of the other strand of the official story, off the cuff comments made by ill informed 'experts' in the days afterwards were run by the media as the official line. As there was no real independant inquiry there was no real offcial line; 'they' just let the picture build up from the most plausible sounding guff that people would swallow. The media would then use illustrations and digrams to help us swallow it.

Who's going to question the 'experts'? It's the same as the Al Qaeda line. Spouted out by the media and allowed to roll as the official line.

Can we please stop the extremely silly and disingenuous crap about what people said in the 1960s? It was not possible then to run computer simulations of a commercial airliner hitting the towers. Everything they said was pure guesswork.

[bryan]

Yes, you're right. The hijackers should have been able to find flights that took off simultaneously.

The take-off times didn't really matter, since they were flying around for over an hour while the US Air Force were sleeping!

[white horse]

Can we please stop the extremely silly and disingenuous crap about what people said in the 1960s? It was not possible then to run computer simulations of a commercial airliner hitting the towers. Everything they said was pure guesswork.

No, they said this post Sept 2001.

[goldengoose]

The take-off times didn't really matter, since they were flying around for over an hour while the US Air Force were sleeping!



Wrong, as usual. The take-off times mattered very much to the hijackers--obviously! They did want to coordinate the attacks, you know.

Are you suggesting that the USAF should have attempted to shoot down hijacked domestic flights over heavily-populated metropolitan areas? Without knowing the hijackers' intentions? Really?

How loudly would Bush's rabid detractors have shrieked for his impeachment if he had taken such an unprecedented action?

[white horse]

Wrong, as usual. The take-off times mattered very much to the hijackers--obviously! They did want to coordinate the attacks, you know.

Are you suggesting that the USAF should have attempted to shoot down hijacked domestic flights over heavily-populated metropolitan areas? Without knowing the hijackers' intentions? Really?

How loudly would Bush's rabid detractors have shrieked for his impeachment if he had taken such an unprecedented action?

Hijackers?

[goldengoose]

Hijackers?

Yeah, the nineteen Arab-sounding names on the flight manifests.

[white horse]

Yeah, the nineteen Arab-sounding names on the flight manifests.

What the ones who, like the passport and the passengers DNA, managed to survive the impact of the tower, the resulting fireball and collapse, and make it back home?

[bryan]

Yeah, the nineteen Arab-sounding names on the flight manifests.

http://www.aldeilis.net/english/images/stories/911/noevidence.pdf (pdf download)

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Elias%20Davidsson%20-%20No%20Evidence%20of%20911%20Hijackers%20-%20Dynamic%20Duo%2028%20Oct%202008.mp3 (mp3 download)


There is no evidence that Muslims hijacked planes on 9/11
By Elias Davidsson
10 January 2008

While the names of all passengers, crew and alleged hijackers were publicized shortly after 9/11 in the media, the FBI and the airlines have consistently refused and continue to refuse to demonstrate that they possess authentic, original, passenger lists (flight manifests), of the four 9/11 flights. As the names of all victims and alleged hijackers have been publicized within days after 9/11, no plausible reason exists for refusing to confirm – by releasing the original, authentic, documents – information that already exists in the public domain, unless that information is bogus. The only plausible explanation for this refusal is that the release of the authentic passenger lists (if they at all exist) might prove that no Muslims boarded the four aicraft that crashed on 9/11. This would in turn destroy the official account about the events of September 11, an account which paved the road to the global “war on terrorism”, the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, and the PATRIOT Act.

[heiwa]

The paper is insane drivel. Bjorkman will surely be rejected by this journal. It is doubtful that he will inform us.

Are you one of the peers reviewing the paper submitted 3 February 2009 and, according to editor Ross Corotis and ASCE of Journal of Engineering Mechanics, still subject to peer review on 8 April, 2009? Ross apparently wants to publish, but he must await the peers.

[goldengoose]

What the ones who, like the passport and the passengers DNA, managed to survive the impact of the tower, the resulting fireball and collapse, and make it back home?


Your ancient hoax was exposed years ago. All of the hijackers were killed.

[goldengoose]

http://www.aldeilis.net/english/images/stories/911/noevidence.pdf (pdf download)

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Elias%20Davidsson%20-%20No%20Evidence%20of%20911%20Hijackers%20-%20Dynamic%20Duo%2028%20Oct%202008.mp3 (mp3 download)


Stop these idiotic lies. The America-hating fraud Elias Davidsson dissolved into a screeching, whining hissy fit on the far-left talk show CLOUT last May when I--yours truly--exposed his discredited falsehoods. There is no controversy about the passenger manifests. They were used by major newspapers the DAY AFTER THE ATTACKS to publish diagrams showing the seating positions of the hijackers. Conspiracy liars built their fantasy around a decision made by various news services to publish lists of VICTIMS. A perpetrator is not a victim--Duh.

Davidsson is a very silly liar.

http://911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

http://911myths.com/html/no_hijackers_on_the_manifests.html

[goldengoose]

Are you one of the peers reviewing the paper submitted 3 February 2009 and, according to editor Ross Corotis and ASCE of Journal of Engineering Mechanics, still subject to peer review on 8 April, 2009? Ross apparently wants to publish, but he must await the peers.


When the "peers" notice that you are an agenda-driven incompetent, what do you suppose they'll do?

Have you figured out yet why a punch does more damage than a tap? Why not?

[bryan]

http://911myths.com/html/no_hijackers_on_the_manifests.html

You can't be serious!!


If the airlines wanted to contact family members before releasing names, then this would also explain why the hijackers details would be held back. It would plainly take longer to get in touch with citizens of other countries, than the families of Americans.


You think they'd be worried about upsetting the hijackers' families?


Anyway, you haven't commented on the Elias Davidsson quote. Why won't the FBI or the airlines release the original manifests?

[goldengoose]

You can't be serious!!



You think they'd be worried about upsetting the hijackers' families?


Anyway, you haven't commented on the Elias Davidsson quote. Why won't the FBI or the airlines release the original manifests?


Why would either the FBI or the airlines "release" flight manifests? To whom would they "release" them? The major dailies had access to them. The FBI used the manifests in their investigation. What other purpose do the manifests serve? Daviddson got caught pretending that the CNN victims list was a manifest.

http://911myths.com/html/the_passengers.html

[killtown]

Still no rational explanation of how the no-planers who think some of a 767 would pierce, but just not 100% of one have been debunked.

[goldengoose]

Still no rational explanation of how the no-planers who think some of a 767 would pierce, but just not 100% of one have been debunked.


There is a rational reason why absolutely no aeronautical engineers, physicists, or structural engineers question the way Flight 175 entered the south tower. The plane broke through the windows and external columns, and was ground up inside the building.

[killtown]

There is a rational reason why absolutely no aeronautical engineers, physicists, or structural engineers question the way Flight 175 entered the south tower.
Yes, it's call fear of losing their jobs.

[deem]

Hey! if you havent already, check out these websites. Also theres a presentation by prof David RayGriffinon 14th April 2009 at The Tait building,Northampton Square, London. Subject:9/11:Time For A Second Look.http://ae911truth.org ;Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth,http://pl911truth.com concerns "Political leaders for 9/11 Truth.http://st911.com, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice,http://lawyersfor911truth.blogspot.com For; Lawyers for 9/11 truthhttp://mp911truth.org ; Medical Proffessionals for 9/11 Truth and lastly:http://firefightersfor911truth.org; Firefighters for 9/11 Truth.

[takhisis]

Ronald Wieck & Ryan Mackey Caught Lying and Manipulating
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWw8dm7XXgI

If a plane is "coming out of a power dive," the transition from straight down to horizontal would pull a lot of g force. If the plane comes apart flying 500+ mph on the horizontal, imagine what would happen if it were to make a turn, especially from vertical to horizontal. A Boeing 767 is designed as an "economy bus", not a fighter jet.

So, if a Boeing 767 came out of a power dive at a rate fast enough to have it horizontal at 540 mph (before wind resistance slowed it down), the plane would be destroyed.

Ryan Mackey essentially proves no planes! He stated he knows (or believes) it can't fly 540 mph.

Planes average around 700 mph , specially passanger planes so Ryan is deffenatly wrong sorry