response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 attacks

[Rum]

Yeah, like a big metal tube could ever fly, your a PAWN man, nothing but a pawn.

I haz siense!

[Ian]

The ultimate proof that George W. Bush wasn't in on it - he never would have let himself look like this much of an imbecile!



Here's another insightful video for Galaxian:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

[Coito ergo sum]

More cliche-ridden nonsense. Using not just smoke & mirrors, but also blindfolds! Galaxian's response in RED

Here is the "convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry which most of you put down to chance:
2) That WTC 1 & 2 were hit by non-commercial planes; as evident from the bulky add-on under their fuselage.
:

On to number 2 -
No, there were no bulky add ons. Your saying it doesn't make it so. What's your evidence?You could try using your eyes. Here's the photo pasted by you:


Look especially at the bottom, close-up.
They found parts of the commercial airliners at the scene of the world trade center collapse, and DNA of passengers.Did they indeed? Lot's of passenger bits. Even an undamaged passport from their suspect! But the 4 black boxes were missing...oh dear! How inconvenient (NOT). The flights did take off from commercial airports and they are gone. Pieces of the planes and the passengers were found at the WTC. There has been an allegation from Truther groups that an image of the undersigned of one of the planes on 9/11 contains a "military pod" underneath the fuselage. It doesn't though. It's a fairing for the landing gear.

CES your sophistry knows no bounds. Was your mentor Plato...or more likely St Thomas Aquinas. Just look at the photo!

There is no add-on to the fuselage.



That theory has been analysed in great detail and debunked here.

Galaxian sees more there than meets the eye. But, that's just my "sophistry" talking...lol

[Coito ergo sum]

I'd still like an explanation for why the Pentagon strike must've been a cruise missile, other than "I didn't see enough evidence of an airplane." I suppose I could talk about my former boss who was away from his office in the Pentagon when the plane hit; he literally saw chunks of burning airplane in his former office area. But why would Galaxian believe an eyewitness?
Galaxian, you're the one thinking like a sheep here, not us. I say that because you're approaching your analysis with the mind-set of a victim, reaching for explanations to show how the world could've been conned so well. (I could also go into your rabidly anti-American mind-set, but I'll just ignore that for now. Still, you might want to consider if your analysis could possibly have been tainted in any way by preconceived biases.)
Instead, try thinking like a leader - seeing the attack before it happened. You'll have to be a US leader for this, since your theories about cruise missiles and shoot-downs over Pennsylvania imply nothing else. Let's say you're involved in the 9/11 conspiracy, and you're about ready to initiate the attack. You've got a few suicide crews ready to hijack planes. As a bonus, you've even made sure that the damage in New York will be really bad because your men have been discreetly installing controlled demolition in the towers, since you figure horribly damaged towers alone won't cause enough public outrage; the buildings will have to come down. You've got phony information about Al Qaeda operatives living in the US for months, taking flying lessons and so on. You're 100% positive that there will be no leaks, no whistleblowers anywhere. Your deniability is set. The whole world will see these muslim lunatics fly those planes into these targets, and they'll never suspect you were behind it.
Now... at what point do you decide that you also need to launch a cruise missile into the Pentagon??
Please, also answer the following:
- If the whole world is going to see and know about hijacked aircraft flying into the towers, why would you risk exposure of a conspiracy by also adding a cruise missile?
- Would you really able to control every bit of information that comes out? If someone with a camera uploaded a photo of a cruise missile flying in the Washington area, could you really stop the image before it spread all over the net?
- What assurances do you have of full deniability?

Firstly, the paltry amount of information, photos, & surveillance tapes, the obfuscation, foot-dragging, & flimsy arguments used by officialdom are the main reasons why I, & many others, are rightly suspicious of the government & their agencies.

If all you've seen is a "paltry" amount of evidence, then you haven't even bothered to crack the spine of a book yet. There is a mountain of evidence.

One would have thought that with their 'sanity' compared to our 'madness'; with their access to all kinds of information, evidence, the finest minds that money can buy, compared to our voluntary, tiring work with no help, little access to restricted information; that they would have no trouble at all in demonstrating that we are all wrong.

Ah, yes. It's David vs. Goliath, so Goliath must have concocted and implemented a global conspiracy by which the United States attacked itself and murdered 3,000 of its own people and rocked its own economy to the core, in order to serve some undisclosed purpose. Hey, the Moon Hoaxers are guys in the basement too. Must mean men never walked on the Moon.

Secondly: Ian, you are trying to 'project' your motives, your thoughts, your strategies & rationale into the minds of ruthless psychopaths who have no compunction about what they do or how, so long as their aim is achieved.

You've already projected your thoughts and rationale onto their minds. The reality is, though, that you don't have any evidence that stands up to scrutiny. I've debunked the first 5 of your list. Yet, you keep hanging on to this "near free fall speed" nonsense and some idiotic claim that there were bulky attachments on the bottoms of the planes, when there were not.

You post pictures of CGI buildings falling. You post pictures of buildings being taken down in controlled demolitions that do not look at all like the falling WTC towers, except in the vaguest sense that two buildings falling down will fall "downward" and their structures will be destroyed in the process. You make ludicrous physics claims, like that buildings would normally tip over when hit by airplanes, and all that rot.

Your argument is a house of cards built on air.

You are also trying to get me to analyze their minds, connections, funding, etc.
I have never claimed to know their minds or modus operandi, only that they don't give a rat's arse about you or me or the lives of children, innocent civilians & so forth (read some of their statements & publicly available programs, & learn some history).
Now, you may consider yourself an expert in this field. But greater 'experts' than you were either incompetent or deliberately mischievous in leading America & several European countries & Australia into wars based on lies.
If your intelligence gathering is misused (as theirs was) do you have the balls to go into the street & to rallies to announce that publicly & loudly?

Sure. However, that's an evasion of the issue at hand. We're talking about the 9/11/01 attacks, not "intelligence gathering" in general.

Your colleagues didn't have the balls. Will you simply be hoodwinked by "Oh, we have access to other info that is heavily in the other direction"?. And, as an underling with limited privileges, you simply assume that your bosses DO know better?
For example; at WTC 1 & 2, flight recorders are found. Some lowly laborer takes it to his boss, who takes it to the overall supervisor (a plant). "Don't worry 'bout that Chuck, it's just an elevator control box. Here, I'll take it away to see which shaft it's from." How would YOU, as the lowly operative know, or even suspect, that your boss was a double agent? (double agent as in serving a different agenda). Would you refuse to hand it over? You'd lose your job, maybe even be arrested by security to enforce the supervisor's order. You'd achieve nothing, other than a smear that you're 'a crazy conspiracy theorist'.

You think that if a worker at a crash site finds an airliner's black box that he should not turn it over to his supervisor because he can't be sure his supervisor is not a double agent?

Ian, you assume too much...even more than me.

That's quite a lot.

I asked you elsewhere how you, as a naval officer, come to terms with the Gulf of Tonkin hoax which killed tens of thousands of US servicemen & a million+ SE Asians.

There were actually two Gulf of Tonkin incidents. One is not claimed to be a hoax (8/2/64). There was an alleged attack on 8/4/64 that was claimed by the captain of an American ship to have been an ambush by NV forces, but there apparently is no physical evidence, and review of the ships logs reveal that no such ambush occurred.

However, there is nothing for any of us to "come to terms with." Sometimes governments lie and sometimes they use and exaggerate events to suit their purposes. However, that doesn't mean there is any evidence that the towers did not fall down because they were hit by 2 commercial jetliners flown by a group of dedicated Muslim theocratic terrorists.

Or the USS Liberty attack, & other deceptions which used your comrades, & the public worldwide, as pawns of no particular worth. THAT is what you should worry about. Not Galaxian. I'll burn like the rest of the grass. I've been reconciled to that fate since I was 12 years old.

Just because you think the government sucks doesn't mean that 9/11/01 was an inside job.

[Ian]

Or the USS Liberty attack, & other deceptions which used your comrades, & the public worldwide, as pawns of no particular worth. THAT is what you should worry about. Not Galaxian. I'll burn like the rest of the grass. I've been reconciled to that fate since I was 12 years old.

Just because you think the government sucks doesn't mean that 9/11/01 was an inside job.

He's mentioned the USS Liberty incident several times to me before.

There's a few theories as to what happened: 1) Israel accidentally attacked the Liberty, 2) Israel intentionally attacked the Liberty, and 3) Lyndon Johnson knew about the attack before it happened and wanted an excuse to intervene in the 6-Day War on Israel's behalf, and then only didn't because there were survivors. I would bet just about anything that Galaxian buys into theory #3. (Nevermind that Israel's involvement in the attack vice Egypt's became obvious soon enough, or that by day 4 of the war Israel was already beating the snot out of the Arabs for days, or that Johnson was already up to his neck in Vietnam, etc.). Galaxian's logic is "If it's at all possible that the US government did something really sinister that the ignorant public doesn't know about, then that is the most likely explanation."

The US, by the way, never accepted Israel's official "accident" claim; in the end it accepted $13 million in compensatory damages.

[Coito ergo sum]

Or the USS Liberty attack, & other deceptions which used your comrades, & the public worldwide, as pawns of no particular worth. THAT is what you should worry about. Not Galaxian. I'll burn like the rest of the grass. I've been reconciled to that fate since I was 12 years old.

Just because you think the government sucks doesn't mean that 9/11/01 was an inside job.

He's mentioned the USS Liberty incident several times to me before.

There's a few theories as to what happened: 1) Israel accidentally attacked the Liberty, 2) Israel intentionally attacked the Liberty, and 3) Lyndon Johnson knew about the attack before it happened and wanted an excuse to intervene in the 6-Day War on Israel's behalf, and then only didn't because there were survivors. I would bet just about anything that Galaxian buys into theory #3. (Nevermind that Israel's involvement in the attack vice Egypt's became obvious soon enough, or that by day 4 of the war Israel was already beating the snot out of the Arabs for days, or that Johnson was already up to his neck in Vietnam, etc.). Galaxian's logic is "If it's at all possible that the US government did something really sinister that the ignorant public doesn't know about, then that is the most likely explanation."

The US, by the way, never accepted Israel's official "accident" claim; in the end it accepted $13 million in compensatory damages.

I'm not interested in widening the discussion to the USS Liberty. That could be done in another thread. Suffice to say that it doesn't make Galaxian's assertions true or false.

[Coito ergo sum]

6) That 3 towers, of 110 floors & 47 floors, fell within minutes or hours, supposedly due to a fire, even though that fire was low intensity, and secluded, and no tower in history had collapsed due to fire, even when the whole tower was engulfed in the conflagration.

1. ...not SOLELY due to a fire.
2. ...fire was not "low intensity."
3. ...the fires were not "secluded."
4. ...the towers were not just set on fire, but had been impacted and severely damage by airplanes flying into them at high rates of speed.

Here is a 198 page paper addressing a "9/11 Truther's" assertions that are similar to yours, including the temperature and size of the fires issue: http://www.911myths.com/drg_nist_review_1_1.pdf

[Galaxian]

6) That 3 towers, of 110 floors & 47 floors, fell within minutes or hours, supposedly due to a fire, even though that fire was low intensity, and secluded, and no tower in history had collapsed due to fire, even when the whole tower was engulfed in the conflagration.

1. ...not SOLELY due to a fire.
2. ...fire was not "low intensity."
3. ...the fires were not "secluded."
4. ...the towers were not just set on fire, but had been impacted and severely damage by airplanes flying into them at high rates of speed...

Not content with having lost the first 5 rejoinders. You now proceed to arm-wave over the sixth.
You're so obsessed with denying the bleedin' obvious to serve your masters' agenda that if you had any decency you'd be severely contrite by now. But decency is apparently not in your lexicon:
1) The collapses were allocated as being due to fire (NIST).
2) The fires were low intensity & of brief duration at any particular spot. As noted by the black smoke, paucity of visible flames, movement of burning areas, and reports from firemen that the fires were not an issue.
3) The fires were secluded, and often as a new fire emerged, an old one petered out.
4) Towers 1 & 2 had only selective, eccentric damage near the top that they hardly noticed; watch the videos & you'll see (I take that back, YOU won't see, 'cause you don't want to) that when the planes impacted the towers (especially the 2nd impact which has several good videos), the towers hardly budged; it was as if the plane hit a solid cliff. Tower 7 had patchy fires that also should have ensured that collapse would be haphazard & messy. But no, all 3 fall into neat concentric piles. Well, YOU swallow that official garbage, you're well able to.

So, you've FAILED in challenging my first 6 points. Want to keep going? Of course you do: you've got your 'ra-ra' cheerleaders wiggling their bums for you. Can't fore-go that titillating spectacle, can you?

[Rum]

6) That 3 towers, of 110 floors & 47 floors, fell within minutes or hours, supposedly due to a fire, even though that fire was low intensity, and secluded, and no tower in history had collapsed due to fire, even when the whole tower was engulfed in the conflagration.

1. ...not SOLELY due to a fire.
2. ...fire was not "low intensity."
3. ...the fires were not "secluded."
4. ...the towers were not just set on fire, but had been impacted and severely damage by airplanes flying into them at high rates of speed...

Not content with having lost the first 5 rejoinders. You now proceed to arm-wave over the sixth.
You're so obsessed with denying the bleedin' obvious to serve your masters' agenda that if you had any decency you'd be severely contrite by now. But decency is apparently not in your lexicon:
1) The collapses were allocated as being due to fire (NIST).
2) The fires were low intensity & of brief duration at any particular spot. As noted by the black smoke, paucity of visible flames, movement of burning areas, and reports from firemen that the fires were not an issue.
3) The fires were secluded, and often as a new fire emerged, an old one petered out.
4) Towers 1 & 2 had only selective, eccentric damage near the top that they hardly noticed; watch the videos & you'll see (I take that back, YOU won't see, 'cause you don't want to) that when the planes impacted the towers (especially the 2nd impact which has several good videos), the towers hardly budged; it was as if the plane hit a solid cliff. Tower 7 had patchy fires that also should have ensured that collapse would be haphazard & messy. But no, all 3 fall into neat concentric piles. Well, YOU swallow that official garbage, you're well able to.

So, you've FAILED in challenging my first 6 points. Want to keep going? Of course you do: you've got your 'ra-ra' cheerleaders wiggling their bums for you. Can't fore-go that titillating spectacle, can you?

[Thinking Aloud]

1) The collapses were allocated as being due to fire (NIST).

Hokay. As I've said before, I have no real interest in this debate, but can't help spot a few strange comments from both sides. Please don't shoot me!

2) The fires were low intensity & of brief duration at any particular spot. As noted by the black smoke, paucity of visible flames, movement of burning areas, and reports from firemen that the fires were not an issue.

I don't know how far up the structures the fire crews got - did they reach the impact areas before the collapse took place?

Seems a bit odd to say "fires were not an issue" when the amount of smoke and flame pouring out of both towers hinted slightly at there being a burning aeroplane in each one.

3) The fires were secluded, and often as a new fire emerged, an old one petered out.

Are we talking about the same thing here? I'm happy to accept that fires on less damaged floors may well have burned sporadically, but unless there's some serious optical illusions going on, both towers contained massive conflagrations. If they didn't, what was making all that smoke from the impact damage areas? Airliners fully laden with fuel are not known for their ability to extinguish themselves when they crash.

4) Towers 1 & 2 had only selective, eccentric damage near the top that they hardly noticed; watch the videos & you'll see (I take that back, YOU won't see, 'cause you don't want to) that when the planes impacted the towers (especially the 2nd impact which has several good videos), the towers hardly budged; it was as if the plane hit a solid cliff.

No - that's not true. This is what a plane hitting a a solid cliff looks like:

The plane disintegrates utterly on contact, vapourising some of the cliff in the process. The planes that flew into the WTC towers flew into the buildings as if the outer walls weren't there at all, leaving aeroplane-shaped holes, and got shredded by the internal latticework of the building's construction, which itself would have been subject to sideways stresses that it wasn't designed for. Of course the building didn't move. Why would it? The outer shell of the building is a light, mostly air-filled box supported by a latticework of support struts at its core.

By analogy, fire a bullet at something like a signpost, firmly anchored in the ground - the post will hardly move, but the bullet will either pass through, making holes, or become embedded in the post, leaving a dent.

Tower 7 had patchy fires that also should have ensured that collapse would be haphazard & messy. But no, all 3 fall into neat concentric piles. Well, YOU swallow that official garbage, you're well able to.

I don't know much about Tower 7.

I'm not sure how the twin towers could have fallen any differently. They didn't fall when the planes struck because the momentum of the plane was nowhere near sufficient to tip an entire building over. What the momentum clearly was sufficient to do was locally damage the core supports. This core structure would have been designed (hey look at me - instant expert) to support the weight of the building standing statically in place, and the sideways stresses of high winds. It would not have been designed to withstand a 500mph side impact over a small area.

If that core latticework was buckled or broken by the impact of the planes - and I'm happy to be shown that the core structure could withstand being hit by a 150 tonne bullet over a relatively small area - then it's ability to hold the weight of the building above would be seriously compromised. As soon as that structure gives way - and it only has to do so at the point of impact, the whole upper section of each building would begin to accelerate downwards. The core structure of the building is designed to hold it static in place - it isn't designed to retard and halt a significant section of moving building (which has a massive momentum as soon as it gets under motion - far more than the mass of the same structure static).

As soon things get in motion, that's it. The buildings came down - straight down, because that's the way gravity works. For them to fall anything other than straight down, some truly massive force would need to be applied sideways, or for some obstacle be placed to prevent an even collapse.

[Galaxian]

1) The collapses were allocated as being due to fire (NIST).

Hokay. As I've said before, I have no real interest in this debate, but can't help spot a few strange comments from both sides. Please don't shoot me!

2) The fires were low intensity & of brief duration at any particular spot. As noted by the black smoke, paucity of visible flames, movement of burning areas, and reports from firemen that the fires were not an issue.

I don't know how far up the structures the fire crews got - did they reach the impact areas before the collapse took place?

I don't know why I bother. I really don't. I post links & videos that people don't care to use. Then they ask the questions that those links/videos had already answered:
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 50#p447125
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxNy5zzbyL4

Seems a bit odd to say "fires were not an issue" when the amount of smoke and flame pouring out of both towers hinted slightly at there being a burning aeroplane in each one.

3) The fires were secluded, and often as a new fire emerged, an old one petered out.

Are we talking about the same thing here? I'm happy to accept that fires on less damaged floors may well have burned sporadically, but unless there's some serious optical illusions going on, both towers contained massive conflagrations. If they didn't, what was making all that smoke from the impact damage areas? Airliners fully laden with fuel are not known for their ability to extinguish themselves when they crash.

Are you sure that you're an impartial observer here? Didn't you read about the black smoke indicating low temperature?

4) Towers 1 & 2 had only selective, eccentric damage near the top that they hardly noticed; watch the videos & you'll see (I take that back, YOU won't see, 'cause you don't want to) that when the planes impacted the towers (especially the 2nd impact which has several good videos), the towers hardly budged; it was as if the plane hit a solid cliff.

No - that's not true. This is what a plane hitting a a solid cliff looks like:

The plane disintegrates utterly on contact, vapourising some of the cliff in the process. The planes that flew into the WTC towers flew into the buildings as if the outer walls weren't there at all, leaving aeroplane-shaped holes, and got shredded by the internal latticework of the building's construction, which itself would have been subject to sideways stresses that it wasn't designed for. Of course the building didn't move. Why would it? The outer shell of the building is a light, mostly air-filled box supported by a latticework of support struts at its core.
By analogy, fire a bullet at something like a signpost, firmly anchored in the ground - the post will hardly move, but the bullet will either pass through, making holes, or become embedded in the post, leaving a dent.

Thanks for posting that video of the plane hitting the wall at 500mph. Can CES see the bright (non)flash at the nose?
The plane's momentum was absorbed by the towers. They were robust enough not to even sway noticeably.

Tower 7 had patchy fires that also should have ensured that collapse would be haphazard & messy. But no, all 3 fall into neat concentric piles. Well, YOU swallow that official garbage, you're well able to.

I don't know much about Tower 7.
I'm not sure how the twin towers could have fallen any differently. They didn't fall when the planes struck because the momentum of the plane was nowhere near sufficient to tip an entire building over. What the momentum clearly was sufficient to do was locally damage the core supports. This core structure would have been designed (hey look at me - instant expert) to support the weight of the building standing statically in place, and the sideways stresses of high winds. It would not have been designed to withstand a 500mph side impact over a small area.

The impulse was dissipated by the steel structure, starting with the struck perimeter columns. The impact was near the top.
One tower starts to tip over at the top by 15 degrees, when, as soon as the handlers notice this they fire the charges below it, thus initiating vertical collapse.
A steel structure with a massive core acts like a giant sequoia. It is in a state of stable equilibrium. When it is damaged laterally, the lower portion remains in stable equilibrium, in which case the branch falls off (the top floors as clearly seen in a video), or it enters a state of unstable equilibrium in which case the whole thing topples over in a haphazard manner. (Take that from a veteran expert!) The towers were indeed designed to take hurricane strength wind loads. Do the calculations & you'll see that the plane impacts were within those parameters. I never said that the impact would tip them over. Merely that the eventual collapse, if it ever led to that, would have been messy.

If that core latticework was buckled or broken by the impact of the planes - and I'm happy to be shown that the core structure could withstand being hit by a 150 tonne bullet over a relatively small area - then it's ability to hold the weight of the building above would be seriously compromised. As soon as that structure gives way - and it only has to do so at the point of impact, the whole upper section of each building would begin to accelerate downwards. The core structure of the building is designed to hold it static in place - it isn't designed to retard and halt a significant section of moving building (which has a massive momentum as soon as it gets under motion - far more than the mass of the same structure static).
As soon things get in motion, that's it. The buildings came down - straight down, because that's the way gravity works. For them to fall anything other than straight down, some truly massive force would need to be applied sideways, or for some obstacle be placed to prevent an even collapse.

TA, don't let the general ratbaggery, arm-waving, populist posts here put you off. Investigate all 9/11 sites.

[Rum]

....... .....

[Tigger]

[...] I don't know why I bother. I really don't. [...]

I picked the best part out of all that. Nor do I.

[Ian]

I don't know why I bother. I really don't. I post links & videos that people don't care to use. Then they ask the questions that those links/videos had already answered:

We look at them. The problem is, you are a poor judge of which information is credible/objective. You're posting links containing dubious information from sources as subjective about this issue as you are.

don't let the general ratbaggery, arm-waving, populist posts here put you off. Investigate all 9/11 sites.

Same problem. There are plenty of sites which discuss in detail how the Apollo landings were all fake. Should we investigate all of them too?

[Rum]

Personally I think Ratz is all an elaborate hoax.