Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

sp1

Usa Pyhsics Proff Writes Paper Calling, Shows Many

Recommended Posts

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Accepted for publication:

Steven E. Jones, (2006). “Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?,” The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Research in Political Economy, Volume 23, P. Zarembka, editor, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006.

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

By Steven E. Jones

Department of Physics and Astronomy

Brigham Young University

Provo, UT 84604

ABSTRACT

In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.

....

CONCLUSIONS

I have called attention to glaring weaknesses in the “final” reports funded by the US government and shown evidences for a likely alternative hypothesis. In particular, the official theory lacks repeatability in that no actual models or buildings (before or since 9-11-01) have been observed to completely collapse due to the proposed fire-based mechanisms. On the other hand, dozens of buildings have been completely and symmetrically demolished through the use of pre-positioned explosives. The “explosive demolition” hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not “junk science.” It ought to be seriously, scientifically investigated and debated.

A truly independent, international panel would consider all viable hypotheses, including the pre-positioned-explosives theory, guided not by politicized notions and constraints, but rather by observations and calculations, to reach a scientific conclusion. Questioning (preferably under oath) of officials who approved the rapid removal and destruction of the WTC steel beams and columns before they could be properly analyzed – and others as outlined above – should proceed in the United States.

None of the government-funded studies have provided serious analyses of the explosive demolition hypothesis at all. Until the above steps are taken, the case for accusing ill-trained Muslims of causing all the destruction on 9-11-01 is far from compelling. It just does not add up.

And that fact should be of great concern to Americans and to all those threatened by American military and security units in the wake of the 9-11 events (Ryan, 2004). Use of powerful, pre-positioned explosives in the WTC buildings would imply an “inside job” (Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). Clearly, we must find out what really caused the WTC skyscrapers to collapse as they did.

To this end, NIST must release the 6,899 photographs and over 300 hours of video recordings – acquired mostly by private parties – which it admits to holding (NIST, 2005, p. 81). In particular, photos and analyses of the molten metal (probably not molten steel) observed in the basements of both Towers and WTC7 need to be brought forth to the international community of scientists and engineers immediately. Therefore, along with others, I call for the release of these and all relevant data for scrutiny by a cross-disciplinary, international team of researchers. The explosive-demolition hypothesis will be considered: all options will be on the table.

Publication to appear on this Journal Wbsite:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/bookseries/01617230

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Browsing the site, here's more from Steven E. Jones.

Mormon Scientist proves Christ visted America!

Jones was also the guy who made claims of cold fusion, I'm surprised he still has a job, frankly. I suppose he must have tenure.

Moral of the story: Don't study physics at Brigham Young University.

Conspiracy theories are born of paranoia and thrive on ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moral of the story: Don't study physics at Brigham Young University.

Conspiracy theories are born of paranoia and thrive on ignorance.

Yes i know what you mean, we all know that planes fold thire wings before impact and Bush has no links to the Saudi Royals and 100's of CCTV switch off as they are guarding the most important building in the world.

which UNI did you go too ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a more fuller argument to this debate at www.serendipity.li they present much the same argument. Me I am not convinced of the official story. Mainly because the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 which is dimensionally similar to the 757 which impacted. The slight differences in size and speed is not enough to overide the Engineering safety factors incorporated into any structure.

Of course a lot om Americans will fiercely oppose any 9/11 conspiracy as they cannot believe that any American Government will callously kill so many of their own people. I have a picture of the pentagon damage with a plane superimposed over it in actual dimensions.

aa77lookalike.jpg

post-2547-1132064531_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course a lot om Americans will fiercely oppose any 9/11 conspiracy as they cannot believe that any American Government will callously kill so many of their own people.

Apparently over 50% of the population of NY do not agree with much of the official story

I have a picture of the pentagon damage with a plane superimposed over it in actual dimensions.

I’ve seen a few of these too, no damage to the side of the building where the wings should had hit, not impact damage from the engines measuring 9ft round and coming in a fair few tons each and to cap it all the hole is too small for the fuselage to have entered the building, 16ft I thinks.

Don’t know if I agree with the results of a recent poll but it say that 94% of the UK population believe that the death of princess Di was a cover up and yet it still remains a conspiracy and officials are the first to point out the “Elvis on the moon connection”

Thing is I don’t think anyone will ever know for sure about the killing of a princess as it was all underground but the events of 9/11 are unfolding and there is so much supporting evidence, I don’t think they can keep the lid on it and Bush (AS NOT REPORTED BY THE MEDIA) is being taken to court and a large movement is gaining ground to have him impeached.

StarCrossed

I will take a look as I could be wrong. Hope it’s not just quoting misinformation put out by governments to discredit any reasoned debate. Will let you know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justice, Bush will not be impeached. I for one don't support his impeachment.

Don't get me wrong, I more than hate Bush. Vice President Dick Cheney, makes the shrub look like a boy scout.

The would would go from the frying pan, into the fire.

The words President Cheney...*shudder*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re the damage to the pentagon, I don't think you should expect the damage to correspond precisely to the cross sectional shape of the plane. Look at this damage,

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/01/06/tampa.crash/

clearly, the wings sheared off on impact. Obviously a Boeing is heavier, but the Pentagon is also more substantially constructed.

This picture of the pentagon damage (the one with the red outline )

http://www.8weekly.nl/index.php?art=458

shows to me that the weaker tips of the wings sheared off, just beyong the heavy engines which continued on to cause damage.

Re Diana

Diana died because she fell in with Al-Fayed's trashy son and entrusted herself to his boozed-up chauffeur. A Buckingham Palace driver would not have been drunk, would not have tried to outrun the paparazzi, would not have been speeding through a tunnel. And she wasn't wearing her seatbelt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re the damage to the pentagon, I don't think you should expect the damage to correspond precisely to the cross sectional shape of the plane. Look at this damage,

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/01/06/tampa.crash/

clearly, the wings sheared off on impact. Obviously a Boeing is heavier, but the Pentagon is also more substantially constructed.

If that was the case then large parts of the wing would have been discovered outside the pentagon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that was the case then large parts of the wing would have been discovered outside the pentagon.

The picture I showed was one from the serendipity website there are plenty more. Some showing the PEntagon wall before the collapse, which is interesting as there is no way a boeing could do that small amount of damage. Also the lawn infront is still in pristine condition, see the pics for yourself at Serendipity and click on the 9/11 demolition section.

Once you realise that the Pentagon was not hit by a boeing then it calls into doubt the restof the official 9/11 story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that was the case then large parts of the wing would have been discovered outside the pentagon.

Not necessarily, examine this footage of an F4 Phantom fighter plane test crash, ( there's an advert before the footage, that you can't avoid.) Particularly the footage from 30 sec onward.

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2677866

An aeroplane is mostly thin air, the building is more solid. The situation in the Pentagon wasn't identical to this, the Boeing was heavier, and the Pentagon is not a solid block of concrete, as in the Phantom crash, and the Boeing would have been travelling more slowly. On balance, I'm happy that the damage to the Pentagon is consistent with an impact by a 757.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zuzuspetals

So the wings can shear off can they ! Maybe you would like to explained to me the forces involved and what part kinetic energy plays in this.

Was the wings to be folded back whilst the main body was travelling at 500mph and only a few mm above the ground, being driven by a student pilot then the wings would need to fold inwards towards the main body of the plane at several thousand mph and that’s with 2 very large engines attached that still wanted to go forwards and a full load of petrol in each wing.

Do you not think it’s strange that only one of the hundreds of CCTV monitors covering he Pentagon were pointing in the right direction, trouble is the few frames that got released created more questions than answers, like where is the plane.

“clearly, the wings sheared off on impact”

Thanks for the link but after waiting for the adverts to load and watching the crash I didn’t see the wings fold up or shearing off (Can someone else confirm this in case i blinked please) and that’s without engines on them, don’t know if they had fuel in them.

It was once a conspiracy theory that the earth was round or moved around the sun but educated people did manage to work it out for themselves ! you really need to open the box for your own sake I thinks

Bit of home work for you.

1. What member of the Bushes family was on the board of directors for the security film that was supposed to be guarding the twin towers

2. prior to the 9/11 when was the twin towers last sold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of the F4 phantom crash footage was that the plane disintegrated into millions of tiny pieces, and refutes Giraffe Cat's statement "large parts of the wing would have been discovered outside the pentagon".

Your other statment, "the hole is too small for the fuselage to have entered the building, 16ft I thinks" is, I think proven incorrect by the picture I already posted pic

What I said about the wings shearing off explains why the serious damage to the Pentagon is not the full width of a Boeing, there is only minor damage around the area where the wingtips impacted. The vast bulk and mass of an plane is centred around the area where the wings join the fuselage, the lighter wing tips haven't the momentum or rigid strength to punch holes in the building, and would have 'snapped off' as the central part of the plane continued through the outer wall. That is what I mean by 'shearing off', and I mean at the moment of impact.

Do you not think it’s strange that only one of the hundreds of CCTV monitors covering he Pentagon were pointing in the right direction, trouble is the few frames that got released created more questions than answers, like where is the plane.

The plane, as I said, disintegrated. Why do you think, in this elaborate conspiracy you believe in, the US Goverment released those frames at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point of the F4 phantom crash footage was that the plane disintegrated into millions of tiny pieces, and refutes Giraffe Cat's statement "large parts of the wing would have been discovered outside the pentagon".

I can go with you on this bit, that the wings could disintegrate into millions of parts, small parts but fact remains that non (apart from one part) could be seen by the human eye on the outside of the building and if it all turned to dust then this would have left a thin film of silver over everything.

Did you notice that grass looking like it was covered by frost cus I don’t

Your other statment, "the hole is too small for the fuselage to have entered the building, 16ft I thinks" is, I think proven incorrect by the picture I already posted pic

But we agree that it would need to be a bigger hole to swallow the wings too after they snapped off

What I said about the wings shearing off explains why the serious damage to the Pentagon is not the full width of a Boeing, there is only minor damage around the area where the wingtips impacted.

So are you saying that only the light weight wingtips had the momentum to create damage, like many things about the whole official storey, it goes against the most simplest understanding of physics.

The vast bulk and mass of an plane is centred around the area where the wings join the fuselage, the lighter wing tips haven't the momentum or rigid strength to punch holes in the building,

Strange that wingtips on the planes that hit the twin towers could leave marks even if they did not penetrate the building, The engines certainly left marks and yet where these should have struck the pentagon we see no damage at all.

and would have 'snapped off' as the central part of the plane continued through the outer wall. That is what I mean by 'shearing off', and I mean at the moment of impact.

OK I’ll go with this, they snapped off, did not fold up neatly along the length of the plane and neatly tuck into the small hole as left by the fuselage but that’s at odds with the official story.

It’s quite simple

To smash the wings and engines to million of pieces would have left visible marks on the outside of the building and even with millions of pieces we would have seen evidence even if it was in the form of dust, we didn’t

Wings do not fold up in a tidy manner on impact and vanish without any trace into a tiny hole

Why do you think, in this elaborate conspiracy you believe in, the US Goverment released those frames at all?

Did you see them frames , did you see a plane on them frames, did you see the date on them frames.

It’s said that no one could pull off a conspiracy like this, I agree and they haven’t managed to pull it off.

The implications for the world is massive and this is why governments from around the world are keeping stum, ensuring the media dare not touch the subject but one bit at a time, even captured on film, the parts are coming together and it’s only a matter of time till all will know that the moon is not made from cheese and bush was an integral part off the events of 9/11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zuzuspetals, your assessments seem broadly reasonable to me.

Debris was on the lawn. Because of the imapact angle (off-square), more debris ended up on the left hand side (I think) of the impact site. Photos off the right hand side show relatively little, but as you can see in this photo link, there is much debris on the other side.

Please note: obviously there is one bit of debris in the centre of the shot, that the photographer was clearly framing, but you can see the huge amount of debris behind it and to the right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know we can trade pictures back and forth till houseprices come down, but common sense tells you that there is no way a hijacker with minimal flying training can hit the pentagon with such acuracy and high enough speed to"fold the wings in" :lol: without leaving any trace of an airplane.

Did you know the official story claims that all the DNA of the passengers was burnt up completely along with the plane which is why no wreckage was found? Amazing that 10,000 pounds of jet fuel has that much energy to vapourise a 757. Can we say 2nd law of thermdynamics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know we can trade pictures back and forth till houseprices come down, but common sense tells you that there is no way a hijacker with minimal flying training can hit the pentagon with such acuracy and high enough speed to"fold the wings in" :lol: without leaving any trace of an airplane.

You are kidding, right? If you've got sufficient skill to hit a landing strip, you've got sufficient skill to hit the pentagon. In fact it is easier to hit the building because when landing you have to arrive at a shallower angle than if you're trying to hit something. Most people are capable of landing a plane within a few lessons.

Flying a big plane is difficult because you need to know all of the safety drills, rules and regs and what to do in unusual situations. But sticking it on full throttle and pointing it at a building without worrying about the safety drills, rules and regs (and I don't think that was high on their priorities) is very easy indeed.

Did you know the official story claims that all the DNA of the passengers was burnt up completely along with the plane which is why no wreckage was found? Amazing that 10,000 pounds of jet fuel has that much energy to vapourise a 757. Can we say 2nd law of thermdynamics?

Why do you think no wreckage was found? There is clear debris on the lawn in the photo above. Landing gear, engines and parts of the fuselage, plus the black boxes were all found at the Pentagon. Of course, you can claim any evidence has been faked if you so wish. That way you can prove that we are all descended from martians if you want. But the balance of evidence points strongly towards an aircraft crash.

BTW what do you think happened to all those who lost their lives on that day? Do you think the government had them rounded up and shot? Or do you think they were in on it as well? Or perhaps they were taken away by the martians, who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Flying a big plane is difficult because you need to know all of the safety drills, rules and regs and what to do in unusual situations. But sticking it on full throttle and pointing it at a building without worrying about the safety drills, rules and regs (and I don't think that was high on their priorities) is very easy indeed.

If you think that locating the Pentagon building whilst flying at 500mph above the clouds is easy, let alone pulling off a very sharp turn so you can hit the unoccupied section of the building then you are mistaken.

Some highly respected pilots have said that they would find it very difficult to fly a few feet above the ground for the last few 100 meters or so before hitting the Pentagon. (see official story)

They must had been good pilots to have hit so many lamp posts and got them to fail in the opposite direction to which the plane was flying.

“Or perhaps they were taken away by the martians”

What the same martians that made the earth round, or the earth rotate around the sun

Why not throw in the bit about Elvis living on the moon.

Fact is few people believe this Elvis thing but many question the events of the 9/11. Bush and many members of congress had the motive (oil & Saudi Royals), they certainly have 100’s if not 1000’s of CCTV around the Pentagon so if we are all wrong then why not simply publish these images.

I came across a conspiracy that 99% of all skyscrapers are unsafe as 3 modern building came down in one day and these were not under founded during construction like many local authority council flats. One wasn’t even hit by a plane.

Must had been freak weather conditions I thinks cus we have not hand any investigation into how safe our buildings are.

Recovery and identification of almost all passengers from flight 77

So, actually, the DNA was there. Nothing like lying through your teeth to bolster an argument. Let me guess... it's all fake propaganda!!!

Lets turn our attention to the DNA from which most of the passengers were eventually identified ?

It’s true, apparently lots of human material did turn up but little came from the Pentagon as sniffed dogs on the day could not locate the bodies, some say it’s a bit like what happened to princess Di’s driver and his blood sample, the state can do what they like and few would know let alone report otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think that locating the Pentagon building whilst flying at 500mph above the clouds is easy, let alone pulling off a very sharp turn so you can hit the unoccupied section of the building then you are mistaken.

Flying a plane is easy. I know, I do it regularly. Yes, navigating your way from the ground - even in clear visible light - is difficult, in clouds incredibly difficult, without full instrumentation training (which, AFAIK, the hijackers did not have). But that didn't matter - the method they used was well publicised, and a trick both I and many other pilots use. They had hand held GPS receivers, programmed in with the co-ordinates of where they are going. I use a Garmin e-trek when flying, which I program with beacons etc. You can either give it a map ref, or in the case of the hijackers, they actually visited the WTC to programme in the location automatically (less scope for error), and I suspect they would have done a similar thing near to the pentagon. As you are flying, the handheld GPS points an arrow towards the waypoint, with a distance and a current velocity. All you have to do is point the plane to align with the arrow. Frankly, a moron could do this.

Some highly respected pilots have said that they would find it very difficult to fly a few feet above the ground for the last few 100 meters or so before hitting the Pentagon. (see official story)

I haven't seen any claim like this, and since the last claim about the "official story" by a conspiracy theorist was a pack of lies I'm not inclined to waste the time trying to find it. To fly a few feet above the ground is tricky in such a large plane, but again I haven't seen any evidence to suggest this was the case, and to fly with a reasonable slide slope into the bottom of the building would be well within anyone's skills. This could still hit lampposts.

They must had been good pilots to have hit so many lamp posts and got them to fail in the opposite direction to which the plane was flying.

Oh, let me guess, (NB: I have to guess because you've given no supporting evidence whatsoever) someone managed to find a photo that "proves" this (even though every other photo shows exactly the opposite). Again no supporting evidence. Yawn. Plus there are independent witnesses who saw the plane hitting the lampposts.

What the same martians that made the earth round, or the earth rotate around the sun

Why not throw in the bit about Elvis living on the moon.

Fact is few people believe this Elvis thing but many question the events of the 9/11.

Very weak argument. The 9/11 conspiracy bull is a mixture of cranks, publicity seekers and politically motivated morons. The Elvis line just had the former two, plus that was nearly thirty years ago so the publicity seekers have long given up on that argument. The basic idea is fallacious anyway, for example, "Intelligent Design" is has a large following but still a complete crock of $hit. So quite a crap argument on all levels, really.

Bush and many members of congress had the motive (oil & Saudi Royals), they certainly have 100’s if not 1000’s of CCTV around the Pentagon so if we are all wrong then why not simply publish these images.

What, have you counted the CCTVs? Do you think they all point skywards, in exactly the direction the plane came in? Do you think they all operate at 20Hz frame rate?

CCTVs aren't actually there to spot planes (believe it or not), they are there to spot people and loitering vehicles, which is why they generally operate at slow frame rates, and point from high up (to avoid being sabotaged or vandalised) down to the ground (since that is where the threat they are interested in is located). So no, it doesn't surprise me that CCTV footage of the plane is not available. But I don't need to see a video because there are literally hundreds of independent eyewitnesses in Washington (see link for a couple of dozen that were reported in the media - including left wing media, hardly "pro-Bush")

Must had been freak weather conditions I thinks cus we have not hand any investigation into how safe our buildings are.

What a dumb comment. Even if we did find out that buildings were not safe from aircraft impact, do you really think they'd all be pulled down and rebuilt? The lessons learned have been widely investigated by civil engineers and taken into account for new buildings.

Lets turn our attention to the DNA from which most of the passengers were eventually identified ?

It’s true, apparently lots of human material did turn up but little came from the Pentagon as sniffed dogs on the day could not locate the bodies

Oh right, so I've disproven one outright lie, so we don't say "sorry, we were wrong", you just switch stories ad infinitum. Why not save time and just go for the unfalsifiable bull? The DNA recognition was underway within hours of the impact, so bodies were recovered immediately. One person from the flight was not dead (but mortally wounded) and taken straight to a hospital in Washington from the crash scene. So yes, passengers from the flight were immediately found and idenitified at the crash scene.

, some say it’s a bit like what happened to princess Di’s driver and his blood sample, the state can do what they like and few would know let alone report otherwise.

No, seriously, you're not paranoid, they are out to get you :rolleyes::unsure::D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI Rapid Descent according to some flying types the only pilots who use a handheld GPS are newbie single engine types who cannot use a roadmap to follow roads and Aussie outback bush pilots so they can give an accurate position in case of difficultiy. You see what blows you out of the water quicker than the Bismarck is that airliners navigate by radio beacons. GPS cannot keep up with an accurate fix due to the flying speed.

So for your next conspiracy debunking attempt, wander off to Iraq and prove that Saddam had WMD. Tony Blair sure could do with the help on that one. While you are at it take zuzuspetals with you so you can stroke each others ego and love spuds.

If you cannot prove there was WMD then growl has got you two billed on the next card at the Callouseum on the forthcoming Troll Fights.

You are the weakest links--Goodbye :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“CCTVs aren't actually there to spot planes (believe it or not), they are there to spot people and loitering vehicles”

this is true and that why the Pentagon has a load of SAMS and even with the 1 hour lead time after the first crash were unable to defend the pentagon. Strange don’t you think and even stranger that the interceptor planes ended up being even further away from the 757’s then they were when the interceptors first took off.

“which is why they generally operate at slow frame rates, and point from high up (to avoid being sabotaged or vandalised)”

yes we have lots of vandals walking around the grounds of the Pentagon don’t we and was you to look you would discover that the roof is garded by a CCTV camera about 100 ft apart. That’s hundreds just for the roof alone.

“Do you think they all operate at 20Hz frame rate?”

don’t know but do you think the videos removed from commercial premises by the FBI in less than an hour after the attack worked at these speeds.

“But I don't need to see a video because there are literally hundreds of independent eyewitnesses in Washington (see link for a couple of dozen that were reported in the media - including left wing media, hardly "pro-Bush")”

but I can point you to load of witnesses that did not see a plane and more importantly hear a plane. Can you imagine how loud a jets is when flying a few feet about a motorway.

“What a dumb comment. Even if we did find out that buildings were not safe from aircraft impact, do you really think they'd all be pulled down and rebuilt? The lessons learned have been widely investigated by civil engineers and taken into account for new buildings.”

You call me dumb !

Number one WT7 was not hit by a plane, two the impact did not destroy the buildings else they would have fell down there and then, three what about the millions of other sky scrapers around the world that can supposable implode due to fires.

Seem like you forget that only 3 steel structured building have ever collapsed due to fire in this manner. CAN YOU GUESS WHICH ONES THEY ARE ! and you think I’m dumb.

“So yes, passengers from the flight were immediately found and idenitified at the crash scene.”

So lets get this right then

Despite the plane impacting so hard that no major parts could be recognised (apart from engine parts that were too small to have come from a passenger plane) someone managed to live and be taken to hospital

“No, seriously, you're not paranoid, they are out to get you”

I can see that, they’ve got you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI Rapid Descent according to some flying types the only pilots who use a handheld GPS are newbie single engine types who cannot use a roadmap to follow roads and Aussie outback bush pilots so they can give an accurate position in case of difficultiy. You see what blows you out of the water quicker than the Bismarck is that airliners navigate by radio beacons. GPS cannot keep up with an accurate fix due to the flying speed.

Yes, professional pilots use radio beacons etc. But these weren't professional pilots. They weren't adhering to the rules and regulations of flying safely. They were newbie single engine types. So my description fits the events perfectly. Your description of what commercial/professional pilots do is irrelevant.

GPS gives an adequate fix for flying into a building. It won't be accurate to the 30 feet or whatever it needs to be, but so what? It will be good to probably 100 feet across-track and say 400 feet along-track, that would be plenty accurate enough to crash into a building (as it will give sufficient accuracy to get a visual, and then use visual to strike the building)

The problem with all of your arguments is you are saying "a professional pilot would do this, but that is difficult, so it can't be done" rather than thinking outside such narrow lines. We aren't asking the question "how difficult is this to do along the narrow CAA rules", we're asking the question "how difficult is this if the people doing it just do as they please". When you've worked out the difference between those two we can have a sensible debate, instead of the stupid one we're having now.

So for your next conspiracy debunking attempt, wander off to Iraq and prove that Saddam had WMD. Tony Blair sure could do with the help on that one. While you are at it take zuzuspetals with you so you can stroke each others ego and love spuds.

Is this the best argument you have? If so, you've already lost.

If you cannot prove there was WMD then growl has got you two billed on the next card at the Callouseum on the forthcoming Troll Fights.

Where have I mentioned, at any time, WMD? This is the strawman to end all strawmen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is true and that why the Pentagon has a load of SAMS and even with the 1 hour lead time after the first crash were unable to defend the pentagon. Strange don’t you think and even stranger that the interceptor planes ended up being even further away from the 757’s then they were when the interceptors first took off.

The problems tracking the aircraft are well known and documented. The civil radar struggled to track the plane because the radar transponder was switched off. Military radar at the time had remarkably poor coverage within US airspace. I do not know what military protection the US have at the pentagon and I suspect from your comment neither do you. If they did have something, they would not even be used outside of wartime. Firing SAMS in Washington is like having a policeman fire live rounds into a crowd of people. Pretty stupid.

yes we have lots of vandals walking around the grounds of the Pentagon don’t we and was you to look you would discover that the roof is garded by a CCTV camera about 100 ft apart. That’s hundreds just for the roof alone.

No, we don't have lots of vandals walking around the grounds of the pentagon, in part because of the CCTV. Duh!

don’t know but do you think the videos removed from commercial premises by the FBI in less than an hour after the attack worked at these speeds.

Depends on what the CCTV are for. Probably, yes. Almost all CCTV I've come across is slow frame rate.

but I can point you to load of witnesses that did not see a plane and more importantly hear a plane. Can you imagine how loud a jets is when flying a few feet about a motorway.

Of course there will be people who didn't see it. Is that really the best you've got? I remember an IRA bomb went off near where I lived in London once. Everyone in my house heard it, except me, because I was shut in a room with loud music on. Two people in my house heard it, but I didn't therefore it obviously didn't happen, then did it?

You call me dumb !

No, I didn't call you dumb. I said one of your comments was dumb. Which is very different. Everyone is entitled to make a mistake, although you seem to be making an artform from it.

Number one WT7 was not hit by a plane, two the impact did not destroy the buildings else they would have fell down there and then, three what about the millions of other sky scrapers around the world that can supposable implode due to fires.

Yes, yes, picky, it was the fire that collapsed the buildings, but fire alone can't destroy the buildings it needs the fireproofing to be torn from the structure, which is why it needed the plane to crash into it. But you've completely ignored my point that we wouldn't be making changes to existing buildings anyway. Typical conspiracy argument, argue in circles.

Despite the plane impacting so hard that no major parts could be recognised (apart from engine parts that were too small to have come from a passenger plane) someone managed to live and be taken to hospital

Is this an experiment to see how many lies you can fit in to one sentence? Major parts of the plane were recognised and confirmed as parts of a Boeing 757. Your statement "someone managed to live" is hugely naive. Nobody lived, but people take different lengths of time to die. In some cases, only some small bits of body tissue were ever recovered. Some people, complete bodies were found. Different people in different parts of the plane would have had different levels of padding. I have no idea what state the person who took the longest to die was in, but they were kept alive long enough to get to hospital. The odds are slim, but not impossible. Therefore, as evidence to support a conspiracy theory, it is very weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'm bored of this now and not going to post any more on the topic after this post.

It is always possible to create unfalsifiable theories as to what happened for any historic event, and when there is political motivation to do so. The unfalsifiable nature comes from simply claiming any contrary evidence was part of a big secret conspiracy, and using a mixture of lies and half-truths and irrelevant points to create what barely appears to be a credible argument, that collapses as soon as you dig into it.

What makes the biggest difference to me, is that I have seen the aftermath of missile strikes, and it looks nothing like the damage done to the pentagon. I tried to find some other examples on the web, but the only half decent one I could find was photo number 4 here, showing a missile strike on a wall in Iraq. The damage caused is about the same diameter as the missile itself, perhaps a foot or so in diameter in this example.

Coupled with independent eye witnesses who saw and heard the passenger jet, confirming it was an American Airlines plane, a commercial passenger jet, and the witnesses ranged from commercial pilots, to journalists, to everyday folk from Washington. The balance of evidence is quite clear what happened.

Some people would not be persuaded of the events here, even if we could build a time machine, take them back and force them to watch 189 people being killed. But we can't, and I'm not going to waste any more time and effort on this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.