WTC Head Structural Engineer John Skilling

[BenBurch]

Sounds fine for the prototype, actually. As usual for early WW2 aircraft, the performance dropped significantly when it got loaded down with stuff like self-sealing tanks, armour plate for crew protection, higher bombloads, more guns and anything else needed to survive in combat.

Dave

I think I just said that. :D

[BenBurch]

DC, those are max speeds and when flying over friendly territory, a pilot generally will not even come close to those speeds.

I said THAT too! :P

[DC]

DC, those are max speeds and when flying over friendly territory, a pilot generally will not even come close to those speeds.

did they fly faster or slower above enemy terretory?

and the impact was around 200 MPH. not to far away from the 272 MPH.

[Dave Rogers]

And, of course, in case nobody mentioned it yet, the B-25 was likely to have been going much slower than cruising speed because it was climbing when it hit the ESB.

Dave

[Almo]

I have a master's in physics. When the buildings were hit, the people I worked with asked me if I thought the buildings would fall. I said, "No. If they survived the initial impact of those huge planes, they'll stand." Imagine my shock as they crumbled.

I was wrong. But when it was explained to me why they fell, I said to myself, "Oh. I hadn't thought of that." But it made sense to me immediately. I fail to understand why people need this to be an inside job.

[BenBurch]

And, of course, in case nobody mentioned it yet, the B-25 was likely to have been going much slower than cruising speed because it was climbing when it hit the ESB.

Dave

I think I said THAT as well. :D

[BenBurch]

I have a master's in physics. When the buildings were hit, the people I worked with asked me if I thought the buildings would fall. I said, "No. If they survived the initial impact of those huge planes, they'll stand." Imagine my shock as they crumbled.

I was wrong. But when it was explained to me why they fell, I said to myself, "Oh. I hadn't thought of that." But it made sense to me immediately. I fail to understand why people need this to be an inside job.

I knew the steel wouldn't make it. I just thought we'd have three hours.

[A W Smith]

I have a master's in physics. When the buildings were hit, the people I worked with asked me if I thought the buildings would fall. I said, "No. If they survived the initial impact of those huge planes, they'll stand." Imagine my shock as they crumbled.

I was wrong. But when it was explained to me why they fell, I said to myself, "Oh. I hadn't thought of that." But it made sense to me immediately. I fail to understand why people need this to be an inside job.


Wasn't there an engineer, or contractor or demolition guy on the Jersey side of the Hudson that tried to contact them to warn them that the towers were going to collapse in his opinion? there was an interview somewhere but i haven't seen it in awhile.

[lapman]

did they fly faster or slower above enemy terretory?What would you do?

and the impact was around 200 MPH. not to far away from the 272 MPH.But it's much closer to 180.

[DC]

I have a master's in physics. When the buildings were hit, the people I worked with asked me if I thought the buildings would fall. I said, "No. If they survived the initial impact of those huge planes, they'll stand." Imagine my shock as they crumbled.

I was wrong. But when it was explained to me why they fell, I said to myself, "Oh. I hadn't thought of that." But it made sense to me immediately. I fail to understand why people need this to be an inside job.

i still have troubles with it.

[DC]

What would you do?
But it's much closer to 180.

hey its you that pointed out that those are speed limits for friendly territory, so i guess you know the speed limits for enemy territory.

aslong i can i would stick to the limits i got told by the manufactorer.
and if needed to try to survive, i would go over them.

but i dont know what your point was by pointing out that it was for friendly territory.

yes its closer to 180. but it makes no sence they would have used 180 when the accident that gave them the idea was already faster.
i think they simply took max speed of the boggest plane of the time, the 707.
they found out that fires would be the biggest problem, that turned out to be correct, they also thaught the structure would survive the fires, turned out to be not correct.

[BenBurch]

Wasn't there an engineer, or contractor or demolition guy on the Jersey side of the Hudson that tried to contact them to warn them that the towers were going to collapse in his opinion? there was an interview somewhere but i haven't seen it in awhile.

You know, I recall that too, but I absolutely cannot google it up.

[BenBurch]

hey its you that pointed out that those are speed limits for friendly territory, so i guess you know the speed limits for enemy territory. ...

On many aircraft there was a throttle setting called "War Emergency Power" which was a fully-open throttle. It was typical that there was a "gate" on the throttle that was a strip of soft metal that you would actually have to break to put the throttle to the wall.

In evading pursuit you could do anything at all with your aircraft; The Army Air Corps would recommend procedures, of course, but nobody would ever call you to account for damage to your craft resulting from evading.

[lapman]

hey its you that pointed out that those are speed limits for friendly territory, so i guess you know the speed limits for enemy territory.I'm speaking based on common sense as a pilot and talking to several bomber pilots who flew in WWII. Over enemy territory you generally sped up unless the mission profile was near fuel limitations. German AA was pretty damn good and you didn't want to linger in the area if you could help it.

aslong i can i would stick to the limits i got told by the manufactorer.
and if needed to try to survive, i would go over them. You generally stick to what's most efficient for the specific aircraft you are flying.

but i dont know what your point was by pointing out that it was for friendly territory.Over friendly territory, a pilot would generally fly at the most efficient cruise speeds to conserve fuel and keep to the time schedule. Military aircraft are not known for their fuel efficiency. e.g, IIRC, The F4U-Corsair cruised at 61 gal/hr, but max speed used 281 gal/hr.

yes its closer to 180. but it makes no sence they would have used 180 when the accident that gave them the idea was already faster.Not really. When the B-25 broke through the clouds, it was already below the skyline of the city. The pilot was trying to climb out and accelerated. With the towers so high above the skyline, the towers would more likely to be still be in the clouds/fog and the aircraft would still be at approach speed. No pilot in their right mind would be flying anywhere near cruise speeds at low altitude in ILS conditions when trying to find the airport.

i think they simply took max speed of the boggest plane of the time, the 707.
they found out that fires would be the biggest problem, that turned out to be correct, they also thaught the structure would survive the fires, turned out to be not correct.Stop using hindsight as a basis for your reasoning. You have yet to provide anything close to a legitimate reason why they would have considered the 600mph speed in the 1960's.

[DC]

max landing gear speed for the B-25 was 150-170 MPH. so why was he flying faster than this in the fog, above NY when he was searching for a airport?

and why would Skilling assume that other pilots would not do this.

so in fact Skilling did not know how fast a 707 would fly in the fog above NY when looking for airport.

so i would say for Skilling it was the best to take max speed.


and he was right, the impact damage was not that heavy at all.
the fires was.

[beachnut]

did they fly faster or slower above enemy terretory?

and the impact was around 200 MPH. not to far away from the 272 MPH.
I like your signature, you advertise I am correct again. You did blindly use Boeing because it fit you higher speed kick you are on. But you have no idea what you are saying. Your sig is correct, you blindly follow Boeing, just like you blindly follow 9/11 truth ideas.

Skilling never said 600 mph. Robertson like Boeing said 300, said 180 mph. The port authority said 600 mph. Robertson so said slow-flying in the 80s he told this to people again. You must of missed that.

You are still quibbling over speed but have not said why? You can say why it means anything.


If there is no meaning to this 180 and 600 mph impact stuff then it is typical 9/11 truth junk; I love this photo, it is the perfect summary for the substance in the 9/11 truth movement.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904670cd1dc0fcb.jpg

Questions you have not answered!
Why is Boeing saying 300 plus when the top speed at 13,000 feet is 272? or is it, Failure? Is Boeing correct and why (please do not use the dives speed again, I can take any plane and get you fantastic speeds and possible death in a dive, try a level flight speed that does not destory engines or airframe)?

What does the impact study mean, no matter what the speed was? or, What is the goal or idea for 9/11 truth on this topic?

[lapman]

max landing gear speed for the B-25 was 150-170 MPH. so why was he flying faster than this in the fog, above NY when he was searching for a airport? There is no indication of how fast he was flying when he broke through the clouds. His landing gear and flaps weren't deployed yet as far as I can tell.

and why would Skilling assume that other pilots would not do this.
Again, why wouldn't he? Remember, we're talking about to very different eras.

so in fact Skilling did not know how fast a 707 would fly in the fog above NY when looking for airport. Again, what possible reason would any pilot fly at 600mph in the fog while looking for the airport?


so i would say for Skilling it was the best to take max speed.In hindsight, you are correct. But at the time of the design, you are way beyond wrong.

and he was right, the impact damage was not that heavy at all.
the fires was.Wrong. The impact damage was very heavy. Just not enough to cause the collapse, but heavy enough for the fires to weaken the undamaged support structures to the point of collapse in a fairly short period of time.

[Loss Leader]

and the impact was around 200 MPH. not to far away from the 272 MPH.



Yeah, because being hit by a car going 11 miles per hour is exactly the same as being hit by a car going 83 miles per hour.

[BenBurch]

Yeah, because being hit by a car going 11 miles per hour is exactly the same as being hit by a car going 83 miles per hour.

Perfect.

:dl:

[DC]

Yeah, because being hit by a car going 11 miles per hour is exactly the same as being hit by a car going 83 miles per hour.

its indeed not the same, so why would Skilling used that 11 mph instead of the 83 mph.

[Almo]

I knew the steel wouldn't make it. I just thought we'd have three hours.

That's the depressing part; even people with some idea of the impending heat problem weren't prepared for how little time the emergency teams had.

[DC]

That's the depressing part; even people with some idea of the impending heat problem weren't prepared for how little time the emergency teams had.

not even the Firefighters that reached the impact zone did realise that. they thaught they could fight the fires.

[BenBurch]

That's the depressing part; even people with some idea of the impending heat problem weren't prepared for how little time the emergency teams had.

It calls into question the fire resistance times of ALL existing buildings.

[lapman]

not even the Firefighters that reached the impact zone did realise that. they thaught they could fight the fires.
Umm, they were 2 floors shy of the main impact zone and fire.

[DGM]

It calls into question the fire resistance times of ALL existing buildings.
All you need to do is look a building 7 to see how inherently safe buildings are from fire (to the occupants that is). The towers damage compromised all the fire protection, they were doomed by the event not the design.

[uk_dave]

The thing is, if the building is on fire, get out as quickly and safely as possible. In all probability the undamaged fireproofing is only going to be rated for a maximum of 4 hours. Seems like a long time, but it's not when you consider that firefighting crews have to arrive, set up and start to fight the fires.

It all comes down to $ & £

[Viper Daimao]

Isn't saying skilling was the lead engineer like saying bill gates was the project manager for windows xp?

[DC]

Isn't saying skilling was the lead engineer like saying bill gates was the project manager for windows xp?

well atleast Skilling had alot knowledge about engineering.
and Bill Gates has no clue about computers, he is a marketing genius.

[beachnut]

well atleast Skilling had alot knowledge about engineering.
and Bill Gates has no clue about computers, he is a marketing genius.
You have as much knowledge on Bill Gates as you do 9/11. Stundie stuff

He wrote code, he started the company from nothing. Research it next time.

No wonder you have no clue about Skilling or Robertson. Effectively calling Robertson a liar. Cool

[Loss Leader]

its indeed not the same, so why would Skilling used that 11 mph instead of the 83 mph.


When you're lost in a dense fog, traveling on local roads and looking for an address, are you more likely to drive 11 mph or 83?

[BenBurch]

You have as much knowledge on Bill Gates as you do 9/11. Stundie stuff

He wrote code. Research it next time.

No wonder you have no clue about Skilling or Robertson. Effectively calling Robertson a liar. Cool

Indeed!

I have a Tandy Model 102 here that HE wrote all the code for!

And I also have a paper tape of Altair 8K BASIC, another Bill Gates creation.

He wrote the original Altair BASIC is a very brief period of time, debugged it on a mainframe simulator, and then pitched them on it; And had it running on their hardware in about a day. (And given how absolutely flakey MITS' hardware was that early, that was almost miraculous.)

[DC]

When you're lost in a dense fog, traveling on local roads and looking for an address, are you more likely to drive 11 mph or 83?

why wasnt the pilot of the B-25 flying with the lading speed?
why was he 30-50 mph above his landing speed?

[beachnut]

why wasnt the pilot of the B-25 flying with the lading speed?
why was he 30-50 mph above his landing speed?
Because Bill Gates was ...

Are you going to correct your Bill Gates error?

Or is this like Robertson, you said it was so, so you are right kind of thing.

He was not landing! He was lost; they told him to land, but he said he needed go go somewhere else.

You do not understand it was 1945, things have changed, and only small planes will be doing things agains the law like the B-25. It was stupid what he was doing.

But since airliners below 1000 feet are going to land, they are at 180 mph. If they are not coming down to land they are above 3,000 feet, and at speeds of 220 mph, unless they are late configuring for landing. Do you lack knowledge on flying, just like engineering?

Darn, who cares we are talking about impacts of 18 to 40 pounds of TNT, of kinetic energy!

What does it mean? What is your purpose to have a 600 mph impact? What would it prove?

[lapman]

why wasnt the pilot of the B-25 flying with the lading speed?
why was he 30-50 mph above his landing speed?
Was he in or out of the clouds when he traveled that speed?

[DC]

Was he in or out of the clouds when he traveled that speed?

it was fog afaik

[BenBurch]

it was fog afaik

Well, you are utterly wrong. There was a very low ceiling with fog below that.

The airport told him he could not see the TOP of the ESB, which sets a limit on the height of the ceiling.

Are you quite done making things up yet?

[dudalb]

Leaving out the question of speed, comparing the weight and size of B-25 with a modern Jumbo Jet Airliner is like comparing a MoPed to a Mack Truck.
And then there is the whole issue that the Empire State building construction was totally different then the WTCs.
Frankly of all the horrible analogies that the Twoofers use, the Empire State Building/WTC collision is one of the dumbest.
DC does not seem as nasty as the normal Twoofer, but he got to to stop letting his quite
justifable dislike for the Bush Administration overpower logic and evidence.

[DC]

Leaving out the question of speed, comparing the weight and size of B-25 with a modern Jumbo Jet Airliner is like comparing a MoPed to a Mack Truck.
And then there is the whole issue that the Empire State building construction was totally different then the WTCs.
Frankly of all the horrible analogies that the Twoofers use, the Empire State Building/WTC collision is one of the dumbest.
DC does not seem as nasty as the normal Twoofer, but he got to to stop letting his quite
justifable dislike for the Bush Administration overpower logic and evidence.

no

oc the impacts are not compareble.
but that WTC analysis was based on that accident afaik, that gave them the idea to do it.
but there is some confusion about the speed they used in that Analysis.
robertson claims it is 180 MPH, and i think that is nonsence, cause even the B-25 in 1945 impacted already with more than 180 MPH.
and the Whitepaper from 1964 said they used 600 MPH.
what is the max speed of a 707. and i think they used that.
cause that is a real worstcase scenario.
but mainly because the towers took the impacts very well, just the fires caused the problem. or more precisely the fireproofing.

[lapman]

it was fog afaik
As Ben said, you are wrong. The pilot saw that he was below the roof line of the skyscrapers and need to get out of there. So, any pilot would speed up to maneuvering speed since performing a lot of maneuvering at landing speed is very dangerous due to being so close to stall speed and the control surfaces are not as effective. This would not be the same scenario as was contemplated with the WTC.

I haven't been able to find when Mode C was required on transponders. Anyone know that?

[Dog Town]

You need to be corrected on an error here. The buildings were not designed to withstand either of these impacts. The impact survivability studies were conducted after the structure had been designed, and played no part in the design of the building.

Why does DC ignore this? 180 was a number that was deemed survivable. After the fact, of design! Not a speed used to design safety factors!
Correct?

[DC]

As Ben said, you are wrong. The pilot saw that he was below the roof line of the skyscrapers and need to get out of there. So, any pilot would speed up to maneuvering speed since performing a lot of maneuvering at landing speed is very dangerous due to being so close to stall speed and the control surfaces are not as effective. This would not be the same scenario as was contemplated with the WTC.

I haven't been able to find when Mode C was required on transponders. Anyone know that?

oh

and that would be the reason they did not take the minimum speed of 180 MPH in theyr analysis.

[lapman]

but there is some confusion about the speed they used in that Analysis.
robertson claims it is 180 MPH, and i think that is nonsence, cause even the B-25 in 1945 impacted already with more than 180 MPH.
and the Whitepaper from 1964 said they used 600 MPH.
what is the max speed of a 707. and i think they used that.
cause that is a real worstcase scenario.
According to who? You have yet to give anything close to a legitimate reason why they would consider that the worst case scenario. Your infantile "because that's the max speed" reasoning is nowhere close to legitimate. There has to be a reason why an aircraft would be going that speed at that altitude to even consider it. So, what is your legitimate reason why a large airliner would be going 600mph below 2000 feet AGL?

[beachnut]

no

oc the impacts are not compareble.
but that WTC analysis was based on that accident afaik, that gave them the idea to do it.
but there is some confusion about the speed they used in that Analysis.
robertson claims it is 180 MPH, and i think that is nonsence, cause even the B-25 in 1945 impacted already with more than 180 MPH.
and the Whitepaper from 1964 said they used 600 MPH.
what is the max speed of a 707. and i think they used that.
cause that is a real worstcase scenario.
but mainly because the towers took the impacts very well, just the fires caused the problem. or more precisely the fireproofing.
600 mph top speed above 27,000 feet. Oops how tall were the towers? The did not use 600 mph because the tower were not 27,000 feet tall. Easy question.


I guess because the speed below 1000 feet was 180. Otherwise the plane would be above 3,000 feet flying 200 mph and more. But below 1000 feet, you are on approach, or you would no be on approach and you would be 3,000 feet or above.

You ask easy questions. Make up some hard ones. Robertson said 180, he was responsible, port authority said 600. Why, did they look it up like your sig says, you trusted Boeing, so did they. Mistakes; like bill gates.

The only time I was over 180 mph below 1000 feet was taking off, or a fly by, or in the WAR.

[Dog Town]

oh

and that would be the reason they did not take the minimum speed of 180 MPH in theyr analysis.

See post above this quote!

[beachnut]

well atleast Skilling had alot knowledge about engineering.
and Bill Gates has no clue about computers, he is a marketing genius.
Did you ever fix your error on this?

Looks like a faulty analogy.

And what does this 600 mph mean for 9/11 truth?
What is your goal to have 600 mph mean?

Meaning? Explain or admit failure to state an idea of what it means.

[Loss Leader]

As Ben said, you are wrong. The pilot saw that he was below the roof line of the skyscrapers and need to get out of there. So, any pilot would speed up to maneuvering speed since performing a lot of maneuvering at landing speed is very dangerous due to being so close to stall speed and the control surfaces are not as effective. This would not be the same scenario as was contemplated with the WTC.


Not to mention the fact that just the simple act of speeding up would naturally cause the aircraft to climb. My silly flight simulator game taught me that in the first lesson - climb and descend using the power.

[BenBurch]

As Ben said, you are wrong. The pilot saw that he was below the roof line of the skyscrapers and need to get out of there. So, any pilot would speed up to maneuvering speed since performing a lot of maneuvering at landing speed is very dangerous due to being so close to stall speed and the control surfaces are not as effective. This would not be the same scenario as was contemplated with the WTC.

I haven't been able to find when Mode C was required on transponders. Anyone know that?

IIRC; Mid 70s for commercial aircraft. Mid-80s TCAS "upside-down wedding cake" zones were closed to aircraft without them. (Didn't look that up but I think its at least close.)

[gumboot]

according to this document :
http://www.b25.net/images/b25tcds.pdf

Glide or Dive speed limits = 340 MPH
level flight or Climb speed limit = 272 MPH


Um, those are not performance specifications.

[DC]

Um, those are not performance specifications.

oh, what is it then?

[gumboot]

Regarding the B-25... he wasn't trying to land at all, he was en route to New Jersey, having decided not to land due to the fog. He was flying in cloud when he couldn't see the top of the building, so dropped below the cloud cover to determine his bearings, and to his shock and surprise found himself flying amongst the buildings of Manhattan.

He barely missed the Chrysler Building, dodged a few others, and began to climb to get above the buildings but was too slow and hit the ESB.

[gumboot]

oh, what is it then?


They're certification limits. Probably for safety reasons. In other words exceeding those speeds damages the airframe.

[DC]

They're certification limits. Probably for safety reasons. In other words exceeding those speeds damages the airframe.

thats how i understood them.

[DC]

Regarding the B-25... he wasn't trying to land at all, he was en route to New Jersey, having decided not to land due to the fog. He was flying in cloud when he couldn't see the top of the building, so dropped below the cloud cover to determine his bearings, and to his shock and surprise found himself flying amongst the buildings of Manhattan.

He barely missed the Chrysler Building, dodged a few others, and began to climb to get above the buildings but was too slow and hit the ESB.

why did Robertson then assume an 707 low on fuel lost in fog seeking to land?
makes no sence.

the used a 707 fully loaded and at top speed in their analysis.

[gumboot]

thats how i understood them.


Then why did you even bring them up?

[DC]

Then why did you even bring them up?

as backup for the Max speed. and it backed it up.

[gumboot]

why did Robertson then assume an 707 low on fuel lost in fog seeking to land?
makes no sence.


Yes it does. In 1945 (during a war) military aircraft would have had quite a bit of leeway in their operations.

In the 1970's with an increase in civil air traffic quite a few rules were put in place regarding the safe operation of aircraft.

So while in 1945 it was possible to have a military aircraft flying at building level at cruise speed, in the 1970's it was not possible to have a civil aircraft flying at building level at cruise speed.

(Legally speaking, of course).



the used a 707 fully loaded and at top speed in their analysis.

People put far too much weight in their analysis. It doesn't matter what they analysed. What matters is what happened on 9/11.

[DC]

.....





People put far too much weight in their analysis. It doesn't matter what they analysed. What matters is what happened on 9/11.

i agree on that, its indeed not really important.
it does prove nothing.
but it shows the hypocritical thinking of some JREFers.

[Minadin]

How so? We're not depending on any prior studies to demonstrate our case. The entire line of thought here is in response to a 'truther' position.

[DC]

Robertsons word is considered a fact without any backup.
just cause he was the titular chief engineer. (his words)
i have to accept his word.

when i accept the word of the NIST Chief investigator, Dr. Sanders. and use his collapse times, i get atacked. 11 and 9 seconds.....

also chiefs can be wrong. but only when his word does not sweat the Conspiracy-Deniers.

[Minadin]

I don't think you understand. Conspiracy theorists are asserting that the towers were designed to withstand 600+ MPH collisions from jumbo jetliners. The burden of proof is upon them.

Reality is on our side in that they did NOT withstand the impacts; the buildings collapsed. IF the engineers turn out to be wrong, it's still not contradictory to our position.

[DC]

its claim against claim, no side has evidence, thats the point.

White paper from 1964 claims 600 MPH
Robertson claims it was 180MPH, low fuel lost in fog, fires not considered etc.
contradicts Skilling (Fire considered) and DeMartini (Fully loaded)

some Conspiracy-Deniers are cherrypickers.

[Minadin]

No. Our side has no claim. We present evidence in contradiction to the conspiracy theorist position that the buildings were designed for 600 MPH (900 KPH) collisions from Jumbo jets. That might include the Robertson claim, but is not limited to it.

For instance, it might also include that there is no conceivable reason for jumbo jets to be flying at such a speed at so low an altitude. Or, that such a collision would be completely unprecedented. Or, that based on how the building engineering field works, that structural engineers wouldn't be considering the implications for the fire protection or vice versa.

[DC]

thats no evidence, the only thing that would be evidence, is the calculations. but aslong it is fiting the Conspiracy.Deniers theory, also speculations are considered evidence.

atleast i am honest, and admit i have no evidence. :)

[Brainache]

thats no evidence, the only thing that would be evidence, is the calculations. but aslong it is fiting the Conspiracy.Deniers theory, also speculations are considered evidence.

atleast i am honest, and admit i have no evidence. :)

You have less than zero evidence. You have a completely irrational position which you refuse to examine critically.

[DC]

i think alot Conspiracy Deniers are in denial. a shame.

[Brainache]

i think alot Conspiracy Deniers are in denial. a shame.

I deny the existence of elves, unicorns, Santa Claus, Zeus, Apollo and Thor, does that mean I'm in denial?

[DC]

I deny the existence of elves, unicorns, Santa Claus, Zeus, Apollo and Thor, does that mean I'm in denial?

Unicorns arent that unrealistic maybe :)

but oc thats not what i ment.

[Brainache]

Unicorns arent that unrealistic maybe :)

but oc thats not what i ment.

So did you mean that to not believe in an impossible conspiracy theory which has never even been defined and which disregards mountains of evidence compiled by thousands of investigators and also disregards the confessions of the actual perpetrators is to be in denial?

If that isn't what you mean, maybe you could try to explain...

[DC]

So did you mean that to not believe in an impossible conspiracy theory which has never even been defined and which disregards mountains of evidence compiled by thousands of investigators and also disregards the confessions of the actual perpetrators is to be in denial?

If that isn't what you mean, maybe you could try to explain...

well you do belive an impossible theory.

[Brainache]

well you do belive an impossible theory.

If you could demonstrate that what I believe is impossible, I would change my mind. So far no one has shown that what I believe is impossible.

Away you go Dick...

Here, I'll get you started:
Dear Brainache, the generally accepted account of what happened on 9/11 is impossible because...[insert actual answer here].

[DC]

If you could demonstrate that what I believe is impossible, I would change my mind. So far no one has shown that what I believe is impossible.

Away you go Dick...

Here, I'll get you started:
Dear Brainache, the generally accepted account of what happened on 9/11 is impossible because...[insert actual answer here].

there for we have to wait till the Official theory is completed.
we still wait for WTC7 report. in a few months we maybe know more.

[BenBurch]

i think alot Conspiracy Deniers are in denial. a shame.

We ask you and ask you and ask you to back up that assertion, and then you say things, and then we CHECK those things you say against provable facts, and they are all wrong.

But we are in Denial; We still hold tight to the belief that showing you your errors matters to you or that when show that you are trying to support a tissue of lies that you will change course.

Icebergs ahead, captain! And you order all engines flank speed.

[lapman]

We ask you and ask you and ask you to back up that assertion, and then you say things, and then we CHECK those things you say against provable facts, and they are all wrong.

But we are in Denial; We still hold tight to the belief that showing you your errors matters to you or that when show that you are trying to support a tissue of lies that you will change course.

Icebergs ahead, captain! And you order all engines flank speed.
I agree, Ben. I have asked repeatedly for DC to post anything close to a legitimate reason why, in the 1960's they would even consider the max speed. So far, is completely asinine reasons are:
1. The buildings withstood the initial crash. (proof by hindsight)
2. The B25 wasn't traveling at landing speed even though he was trying to maneuver out of the city.
3. It makes sense. (though he can't really explain why)
4. He can't think of a reason why the airliner would be trying to land even though there are airports nearby. :rolleyes:

[BenBurch]

there for we have to wait till the Official theory is completed.
we still wait for WTC7 report. in a few months we maybe know more.

That might be fine if any of us here were touting an "Official" theory.

I reached these conclusions on my own while TRYING to find something to pin on the Bush Goons. Only, *I* am honest enough to admit there is not a single thing there. Honestly is really kind of fun, just for your information.

I believe we all here have reached similar conclusions about WTC 7 as well. I don't need to see the NIST report. I think I already know what happened there, but wonder if they will ever agree with me that 12000 gallons of fuel got pumped into the building by the Solomon Brothers generator system.

But its like this; ANY steel building involved in fire from 9:30 AM to 5 PM and the fire is not fought is doomed. They are absolutely not designed for that. ANY steel building with HUGE bulges during such an event is already failing. ANY building as stupidly cantilevered over another as this one was should never have gotten approval. That is almost ASKING for grief.

[Jonnyclueless]

there for we have to wait till the Official theory is completed.
we still wait for WTC7 report. in a few months we maybe know more.

Can you provide us a link to this "official theory"? thanks!

[Stellafane]

i think alot Conspiracy Deniers are in denial. a shame.


Come off it. Your "arguments" are being systematically annihilated, and you know it and don't like it. So that makes us "in denial"? What the hell are we supposed to do, take your word for everything without question? You've yet to show that you have any real evidence at all to back up your claims, or that you even know what you're talking about or are willing to acknowledge when you're very clearly wrong.

Yeah, we're in denial all right. We deny you your wish to spout off with impunity whatever drivel pops into your head. Well, guess what? I'm also denied that same wish, as is ever member here. That's how a skeptic forum works. If you don't like it, I'm sure there's plenty of other forums out there where you'll be welcomed with open arms, where no one will question anything you post no matter how crazy or unsubstantiated, as long as it conforms with their demented little fantasies. Of course, you'll be hanging with lunatics and morons, but that's the price you'll have to pay I guess.

[Stellafane]

there for we have to wait till the Official theory is completed.
we still wait for WTC7 report. in a few months we maybe know more.

So the "official theory" is impossible -- but we have to wait until the WTC7 report to know why it's impossible.

OK, sure.

Meanwhile, a more likely scenario is that the WTC was loaded up with explosives for some utterly unknown reason, using invisible and soundless demolition technology, and these explosives were just sitting there when by some massive coincidence some hijackers flew planes into the towers and miraculously failed to set them off somehow, so whoever installed the explosives figured this would be as good a time as any to complete the demolition, only they waited a few hours for some reason before causing everything to come crashing down, for...what? Who knows? For the hell of it, I guess. Conspirators work in mysterious ways apparently

Denial, thy name is Truther.

[Brainache]

So the "official theory" is impossible -- but we have to wait until the WTC7 report to know why it's impossible.

OK, sure.

Meanwhile, a more likely scenario is that the WTC was loaded up with explosives for some utterly unknown reason, using invisible and soundless demolition technology, and these explosives were just sitting there when by some massive coincidence some hijackers flew planes into the towers and miraculously failed to set them off somehow, so whoever installed the explosives figured this would be as good a time as any to complete the demolition, only they waited a few hours for some reason before causing everything to come crashing down, for...what? Who knows? For the hell of it, I guess. Conspirators work in mysterious ways apparently

Denial, thy name is Truther.

Thanks Stellafane. You said it much better than I could.

So Dick, any reason for saying that what I believe is impossible?

Any reason for saying that what you believe is possible?

[LashL]

Wasn't there an engineer, or contractor or demolition guy on the Jersey side of the Hudson that tried to contact them to warn them that the towers were going to collapse in his opinion? there was an interview somewhere but i haven't seen it in awhile.


You know, I recall that too, but I absolutely cannot google it up.


If I recall correctly, it was Mark Loizeaux who said in an interview that after he saw the second airplane impact on television, and the monstrous damage that was inflicted, he tried to reach various people in emergency response agencies to tell them that he thought the buildings were in danger of imminent collapse.

But it's been a long time since I've seen the newspaper stories on that, and I cannot remember any more details than that off the top of my head.

[gumboot]

as backup for the Max speed. and it backed it up.


No it doesn't. You clearly don't even understand these two things at all do you?

[gumboot]

If I recall correctly, it was Mark Loizeaux who said in an interview that after he saw the second airplane impact on television, and the monstrous damage that was inflicted, he tried to reach various people in emergency response agencies to tell them that he thought the buildings were in danger of imminent collapse.

But it's been a long time since I've seen the newspaper stories on that, and I cannot remember any more details than that off the top of my head.


That was Professor Ray Dougherty of New York University
(He's a professor of linguistics but also has prior engineering training)

My Thayer School engineering training came back, and I realized that with that intensity of heat in a building in which the steel girders were insulated with asbestos, it had to collapse within one hour. I called the fire department, police, etc. and told them the building was guaranteed to collapse. I was told that 911 was only for emergencies, and I should call somewhere else.

Ray C. Dougherty, Professor of Linguistics, New York University
Email to his Dartmouth College alumni mailing list, 11 September 2001

There's also other cases though:

Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking. There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower.

Interview with Assistant Chief Joseph Callan
Conducted by NYC Fire Marshall Michael Starace, 2 November 2002

I was in a discussion with Mr. Rotanz and I believe it was a representative from the Department of Buildings, but I’m not sure. Some engineer type person, and several of us were huddled talking in the lobby and it was brought to my attention, it was believed that the structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite significant and they were very confident that the building’s stability was compromised and they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse.

Interview with EMS Division Chief John Peruggia
Conducted by Ron Castorina, 25 October, 2001

And of course everyone is familiar with the NYPD aviation unit's reports of bowing in the structure and liklihood of imminent collapse.

[BenBurch]

If I recall correctly, it was Mark Loizeaux who said in an interview that after he saw the second airplane impact on television, and the monstrous damage that was inflicted, he tried to reach various people in emergency response agencies to tell them that he thought the buildings were in danger of imminent collapse.

But it's been a long time since I've seen the newspaper stories on that, and I cannot remember any more details than that off the top of my head.

The police helicopter in the air at the time radioed that the building was going to collapse about 15 minutes before it did, but communications did not get that through to the firefighters, or so I've read.

[LashL]

That was Professor Ray Dougherty of New York University
(He's a professor of linguistics but also has prior engineering training)

There's also other cases though:


I wasn't aware of Mr. Dougherty's account. Thanks. But I am reasonably sure that Mark Loizeaux also said that he and his brother (Doug, I think) discussed the probability of collapse after seeing the events on television, and that Mark tried to call emergency personnel - not via 911 but rather that he tried to call people he knew in emergency services - to warn them. I recall that there were links posted at DU about it several years ago, but I cannot locate them now.

So, I think it's a completely separate incident than that of Mr. Dougherty (particularly since I'd never heard Mr. Dougherty's account so I could not have confused the two).

And of course everyone is familiar with the NYPD aviation unit's reports of bowing in the structure and liklihood of imminent collapse.


Yes, of course.

[LashL]

The police helicopter in the air at the time radioed that the building was going to collapse about 15 minutes before it did, but communications did not get that through to the firefighters, or so I've read.

I think that was regarding the north tower, after the south tower had already collapsed, but I'll have to check.

[ETA: Yes, that was the NYPD pilot of Aviation 14, Tim Hayes, at 10:07 who gave the warning, "About fifteen floors down from the top, it looks like it's glowing red. It's inevitable." Then, a moment later, NYPD pilot of Aviation 6, reported, "I don't think this has too much longer to go. I would evacuate all the people within the area of that second building." The police dispatcher relayed and repeated the warning to evacuate several times but it appears that the firefighters in the north tower could not hear the messages being transmitted.]

There was also an engineer from the Department of Buildings who told John Peruggia (FDNY) prior to the collapse of either tower that the structural damage to both was immense and that the stability of both was compromised. Mr. Peruggia then sent an aide named Rich Zarillo to tell Chief Ganci, but no sooner than Mr. Zarillo reached Chief Ganci and relayed the message, the south tower collapsed.

[BenBurch]

So, why?

Why do they keep up this disgusting lie?

They act like the towers were just FINE and then totally unexpectedly, WHOOSH. And that is just so far from the case. They trumpet that they have proven all their bilge and they haven't proven even the things not central to the case?

And it goes back to the question I asked here like in January;

Are they stupid?

Are they liars?

Are they insane?

Or is it that all of them are some combination of the above and the smart ones who are only liars are cleaning up giving the insane and the idiots their Mission Impossible dose?

[applecorped]

It is what it is, sad huh? No respect, no remorse, no love lost. They died, the government did it. Feel good? No, I didn't think so.

[LashL]

And it goes back to the question I asked here like in January;

Are they stupid?

Are they liars?

Are they insane?

Or is it that all of them are some combination of the above and the smart ones who are only liars are cleaning up giving the insane and the idiots their Mission Impossible dose?



In a word, yes.

[gumboot]

I wasn't aware of Mr. Dougherty's account. Thanks. But I am reasonably sure that Mark Loizeaux also said that he and his brother (Doug, I think) discussed the probability of collapse after seeing the events on television, and that Mark tried to call emergency personnel - not via 911 but rather that he tried to call people he knew in emergency services - to warn them. I recall that there were links posted at DU about it several years ago, but I cannot locate them now.

So, I think it's a completely separate incident than that of Mr. Dougherty (particularly since I'd never heard Mr. Dougherty's account so I could not have confused the two).



That wouldn't surprise me. And it wouldn't surprise me if there's many other examples of the same thing that we're unaware of.

[gumboot]

Okay, so to summarise this thread...

In 1993 John Skilling (who was not the Head Structural Engineer for the WTC) said in an interview that they considered a lot of different scenarios that might affect the WTC towers, including what would happen if an aircraft hit the building.

Meanwhile Les Robertson (who was the Head Structural Engineer for the WTC) claims that he and some other engineers under him (i.e. not Skilling) had done an analysis of a Boeing 707 hitting the WTC at low speed, lost in fog, looking for an airport, etc and had concluded that the buildings would survive.

The Port Authority, wanting to divert criticism about the WTC, made a claim in the 60's or 70's that a study had shown the WTC could survive the impact of a 707 travelling at 600 MPH.

More recently Les Robertson (who conducted the study) claims the 600MPH claim is false.

No documentation of this study has ever surfaced to determine the matter.

All of this, apparently, has some sort of bearing on the events of 9/11 in which Boeing 767s hit the towers at high speed.

NIST investigated this specific event and conducted rigorous analysis - certainly substantially more in depth than that conducted by Robertson and aided by both imperical evidence and forty years of advancements in engineering knowledge and structure and fire modelling technology.

Meanwhile, someone's going on about an event that happened in 1945 which involved a different building and a different aircraft, under vastly different aviation conditions (for starters the FAA didn't exist in 1945 but did when Robertson allegedly conducted his study) for which no detailed building performance analysis has been forthcoming.

The overall relevance of the discussion is the September 11 terrorist attacks.

As far as I can tell there's three elements here:

1. An event happened in 1945 which bares only the most basic resemblance to the 9/11 attacks (a plane hit a building and there was a fire) and is essentially irrelevant.

2. A study allegedly was conducted about a theoretical event (a plane hitting the WTC) and the person who claims to have conducted the study disagrees regarding parameters of the study with other people who did not conduct the study. No evidence that the study even occured exists, other than the word of these people.

3. NIST conducted a detailed study of an actual event (a plane hitting the WTC) and the contents and conclusions of this study are public knowledge and verifiable.

So in conclusion, can anyone involved in this discussion here please tell me exactly why I should give an ounce of bat droppings about points 1 or 2 given that we have point 3?

I mean here's really what you're saying:

A car smashes into a wall. A study is conducted of what happened and the scientific results of this study are released. The study is thorough and scientifically sound, and verified by other independent less exhaustive studies.

Previously the guy that built the car claims to have conducted a study of what would happen if the car hit a wall, but no evidence of the study exists and we're not really sure what the conditions of that study were.

Once upon a time someone rode a horse into a fence.

And apparently all three of these points have the same validity when considering what happened when the car smashed into the wall.

I mean seriously... WTF

[SpitfireIX]

I wasn't aware of Mr. Dougherty's account. Thanks. But I am reasonably sure that Mark Loizeaux also said that he and his brother (Doug, I think) discussed the probability of collapse after seeing the events on television, and that Mark tried to call emergency personnel - not via 911 but rather that he tried to call people he knew in emergency services - to warn them. I recall that there were links posted at DU about it several years ago, but I cannot locate them now.

So, I think it's a completely separate incident than that of Mr. Dougherty (particularly since I'd never heard Mr. Dougherty's account so I could not have confused the two).




Yes, of course.


New Yorker article (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/thetowerbuilder%3Anewyorkerportraitoflesli), November 19, 2001:

Among the dozens of people I have spoken to recently who are experts in the construction of tall buildings (and many of whom witnessed the events of September 11th as they unfolded), only one said that he knew immediately, upon learning, from TV, of the planes' hitting the buildings, that the towers were going to fall. This was Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition Incorporated, a Maryland-based family business that specializes in reducing tall buildings to manageable pieces of rubble. "Within a nanosecond," he told me. "I said, 'It's coming down. And the second tower will fall first, because it was hit lower down.' "

Before September 11th, the largest building ever to be imploded by accident or design was the J. L. Hudson department store, in Detroit, with 2.2 million square feet of floor space, which C.D.I. "dropped" on October 24, 1998. To do their work, Mark Loizeaux and his brother Doug need to understand the same forces and formulas that structural engineers study, but instead of using that knowledge to erect buildings they use it to take them down. They are structural undertakers, which may explain why Mark, when confronted with the spectacle of the crippled buildings, lacked the sentiment that builders feel for their creations—that innate sympathy which helped blind the engineers of the World Trade towers to the reality of what was about to occur. "I thought, Somebody's got to tell the Fire Department to get out of there," Loizeaux told me. "I picked up the phone, dialled 411, got the number, and tried it—busy. So I called the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management"—which was in 7 World Trade. "All circuits were busy. I couldn't get through." [bolding mine]


Note: I could not find the original article in The New Yorker's archives. I'll check next time I'm at the library.

[BenBurch]

That must have felt horrible, being unable to reach anybody.

[Stellafane]

Okay, so to summarise this thread...

In 1993 John Skilling (who was not the Head Structural Engineer for the WTC) said in an interview that they considered a lot of different scenarios that might affect the WTC towers, including what would happen if an aircraft hit the building.

Meanwhile Les Robertson (who was the Head Structural Engineer for the WTC) claims that he and some other engineers under him (i.e. not Skilling) had done an analysis of a Boeing 707 hitting the WTC at low speed, lost in fog, looking for an airport, etc and had concluded that the buildings would survive.

The Port Authority, wanting to divert criticism about the WTC, made a claim in the 60's or 70's that a study had shown the WTC could survive the impact of a 707 travelling at 600 MPH.

More recently Les Robertson (who conducted the study) claims the 600MPH claim is false.

No documentation of this study has ever surfaced to determine the matter.

All of this, apparently, has some sort of bearing on the events of 9/11 in which Boeing 767s hit the towers at high speed.

NIST investigated this specific event and conducted rigorous analysis - certainly substantially more in depth than that conducted by Robertson and aided by both imperical evidence and forty years of advancements in engineering knowledge and structure and fire modelling technology.

Meanwhile, someone's going on about an event that happened in 1945 which involved a different building and a different aircraft, under vastly different aviation conditions (for starters the FAA didn't exist in 1945 but did when Robertson allegedly conducted his study) for which no detailed building performance analysis has been forthcoming.

The overall relevance of the discussion is the September 11 terrorist attacks.

As far as I can tell there's three elements here:

1. An event happened in 1945 which bares only the most basic resemblance to the 9/11 attacks (a plane hit a building and there was a fire) and is essentially irrelevant.

2. A study allegedly was conducted about a theoretical event (a plane hitting the WTC) and the person who claims to have conducted the study disagrees regarding parameters of the study with other people who did not conduct the study. No evidence that the study even occured exists, other than the word of these people.

3. NIST conducted a detailed study of an actual event (a plane hitting the WTC) and the contents and conclusions of this study are public knowledge and verifiable.

So in conclusion, can anyone involved in this discussion here please tell me exactly why I should give an ounce of bat droppings about points 1 or 2 given that we have point 3?

I mean here's really what you're saying:

A car smashes into a wall. A study is conducted of what happened and the scientific results of this study are released. The study is thorough and scientifically sound, and verified by other independent less exhaustive studies.

Previously the guy that built the car claims to have conducted a study of what would happen if the car hit a wall, but no evidence of the study exists and we're not really sure what the conditions of that study were.

Once upon a time someone rode a horse into a fence.

And apparently all three of these points have the same validity when considering what happened when the car smashed into the wall.

I mean seriously... WTF

WTF indeed. And yet, this passes as "evidence" in the strange, strange world in which truthers dwell.

Here's the thing I really don't get. I can sort of understand finding yourself living the kind of life where you feel you have no relevance or importance, so you're driven to seek excitement and significance in what most of us would consider unhealthy places. Thus some are drawn to conspiracy theories such as 9/11. And to maintain their membership and standing within this little community, they want, perhaps need to believe that a stray pixel, ambiguous comment, or irrelevant fact actually means something and somehow outweighs the mountains of evidence that indicate their conspiracy is false. OK, whatever helps you get through the day, I guess.

But for the life of me, why do they come here to a skeptics forum of all places, and post this incredibly stupid crap? What can CTers possibly hope to get out of this? Even they must know it's just going to be thrown back into their faces over and over again, in the most humiliating fashion possible. I'll admit, I enjoy goofing on CTers as much as the next person (probably more), but sometimes what I feel is more akin to a mild form of frustrated anger, to see people, some of whom appear reasonably intelligent and articulate, wasting their time and effort on such a mindlessly stupid and insane cause. Is it possible that they simply have no clue at all how they appear? Or is this sort of public humiliation part of the deal, and CTers are the equivalent of intellectual maschocists?

[BenBurch]

Stellafane, I think they are trying to practice counting coup on us to become stars back home...

(Off Topic, I direct you to the glass polishing thread in the science category...)

[Jonnyclueless]

So, why?

Why do they keep up this disgusting lie?

They act like the towers were just FINE and then totally unexpectedly, WHOOSH. And that is just so far from the case. They trumpet that they have proven all their bilge and they haven't proven even the things not central to the case?

And it goes back to the question I asked here like in January;

Are they stupid?

Are they liars?

Are they insane?

Or is it that all of them are some combination of the above and the smart ones who are only liars are cleaning up giving the insane and the idiots their Mission Impossible dose?

Same reason kids join and stay in gangs. It's where they feel they belong and are a part of something. Maybe its a bad thing, but they feel accepted and that means more to them than being right.

[LashL]

New Yorker article (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/thetowerbuilder%3Anewyorkerportraitoflesli), November 19, 2001:

Note: I could not find the original article in The New Yorker's archives. I'll check next time I'm at the library.



Thank you, Spitfire!

[SpitfireIX]

Thank you, Spitfire!


You can thank me by making sure I get a few hours in the hot tub with a couple of members of the NWO Bikini Squad next time it's your turn to organize the monthly shill meeting at Club NWO. ;)

[BenBurch]

You can thank me by making sure I get a few hours in the hot tub with a couple of members of the NWO Bikini Squad next time it's your turn to organize the monthly shill meeting at Club NWO. ;)

OK, though we do also have the MILF Squad. I find experience trumps youthful energy any day...

[beachnut]

there for we have to wait till the Official theory is completed.
we still wait for WTC7 report. in a few months we maybe know more.
There is no official theory, there is only what happen. You missed it, and have embraced the anti-intellectual 911 truth movement of false information and failed ideas. This is the total of your quest to date.

So as you attack an official story, the events of 9/11 stand on their own. You have failed to understand it 6 years ago, and seem to be diverging on a quest of fantasy.

BTW, WTC7 is not a smoking gun for anything and the false information specialist of 9/11 truth. WTC7 did what all buildings do when fires are not fought. They are destroyed. Check it out, that is what steel does in fires.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/woodbeambentsteel-full.jpg
9/11 truth is unable to use physics, engineering, rational thought, logical thought, fact, or evidence to come to logical conclusions. When those who believe 9/11 truth gain knowledge, experience and maturity they may stop believing in lies and false information; what do you think.

Intelligent, rational people do not have to wait. Unfought fires give you destruction. 9/11 truth is a bunch of people selling DVD of truth for 15 bucks, or people too challenged to connect the dots that do not exist.

[beachnut]

Okay, so to summarise this thread...

In 1993 John Skilling (who was not the Head Structural Engineer for the WTC) said in an interview that they considered a lot of different scenarios that might affect the WTC towers, including what would happen if an aircraft hit the building.

Meanwhile Les Robertson (who was the Head Structural Engineer for the WTC) claims that he and some other engineers under him (i.e. not Skilling) had done an analysis of a Boeing 707 hitting the WTC at low speed, lost in fog, looking for an airport, etc and had concluded that the buildings would survive.

The Port Authority, wanting to divert criticism about the WTC, made a claim in the 60's or 70's that a study had shown the WTC could survive the impact of a 707 travelling at 600 MPH.

More recently Les Robertson (who conducted the study) claims the 600MPH claim is false.

No documentation of this study has ever surfaced to determine the matter.

All of this, apparently, has some sort of bearing on the events of 9/11 in which Boeing 767s hit the towers at high speed.

NIST investigated this specific event and conducted rigorous analysis - certainly substantially more in depth than that conducted by Robertson and aided by both imperical evidence and forty years of advancements in engineering knowledge and structure and fire modelling technology.

Meanwhile, someone's going on about an event that happened in 1945 which involved a different building and a different aircraft, under vastly different aviation conditions (for starters the FAA didn't exist in 1945 but did when Robertson allegedly conducted his study) for which no detailed building performance analysis has been forthcoming.

The overall relevance of the discussion is the September 11 terrorist attacks.

As far as I can tell there's three elements here:

1. An event happened in 1945 which bares only the most basic resemblance to the 9/11 attacks (a plane hit a building and there was a fire) and is essentially irrelevant.

2. A study allegedly was conducted about a theoretical event (a plane hitting the WTC) and the person who claims to have conducted the study disagrees regarding parameters of the study with other people who did not conduct the study. No evidence that the study even occured exists, other than the word of these people.

3. NIST conducted a detailed study of an actual event (a plane hitting the WTC) and the contents and conclusions of this study are public knowledge and verifiable.

So in conclusion, can anyone involved in this discussion here please tell me exactly why I should give an ounce of bat droppings about points 1 or 2 given that we have point 3?

I mean here's really what you're saying:

A car smashes into a wall. A study is conducted of what happened and the scientific results of this study are released. The study is thorough and scientifically sound, and verified by other independent less exhaustive studies.

Previously the guy that built the car claims to have conducted a study of what would happen if the car hit a wall, but no evidence of the study exists and we're not really sure what the conditions of that study were.

Once upon a time someone rode a horse into a fence.

And apparently all three of these points have the same validity when considering what happened when the car smashed into the wall.

I mean seriously... WTF
You are correct; what does it mean? Not one truther can say what it means or why they waste time on this point while not tying it to any rational ideas.

The fact is many of the statements used by 9/11 truth are not even verified to mean what 9/11 truth twist them to be. When you take the slow-flying plane, and the strength of the WTC shell, you get minor damage; and thus the fires would be the only problem; but no major damage to the core of the WTC can be done because the kinetic energy is not there.

As for knocking over the WTC, gee, they can survive a hurricane, it would take a really fast plane to knock over the WTC! So an impact to start global collapse may be 10 times greater than the events of 9/11, but an impact to destroy the WTC at 470 mph, with fire over some time, is possible, and was demonstrate on 9/11.

But your post sums up the whole thread! Good job; but why would 9/11 truth supply a clear goal of what this idea/point means? They lack the ability to use math and physics, why would logic not be included in their challenged areas?

[gumboot]

You can thank me by making sure I get a few hours in the hot tub with a couple of members of the NWO Bikini Squad next time it's your turn to organize the monthly shill meeting at Club NWO. ;)


There's a NWO Bikini Squad?

Goddammit I miss out on everything! :mad:

[SpitfireIX]

There's a NWO Bikini Squad?

Goddammit I miss out on everything! :mad:


Well, if you came to the meetings more often, you'd know. Yeah, I know, the flight is such a pain and all, yada, yada. But I think they're supposed to start using one of the "retired" Concordes to fly agents from Oz starting in a month or two. If you haven't been on one yet, they're kind of cramped compared with the L-1011s (the cabin was a lot smaller to begin with, and it needs twice as many chemtrail dispensers because it flies twice as fast), but it can seat about 20 agents reasonably comfortably. So maybe you and Phantomwolf could hop a flight to the secret airfield in Tazmania and catch it. Be forewarned, though, they might put you to work; I heard something about their having to stop and move Amelia Earhart's plane again; the revisionists are getting too close.

Oh, and if you're really nice to LashL, maybe she'll sign you up for an hour or two in the hot tub with a bikini-squadder. After I'm done, of course. :p

[DC]

No it doesn't. You clearly don't even understand these two things at all do you?

explain, what does said paper say then?
are they wrong?