Morgan Reynolds and Rick Rajter Release Their No-Plane Paper

[Brainster]

It was apparently rejected at Steven Jones' Journal of Nine-Eleven Studies, and while it is tempting to joke that at least Jones has some standards, I do believe this particular bit of crackpottery (http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=exploding_the_airliner_crash_myth) would fit in nicely with the rest of the pieces published. Note particularly the amazing depth of evidence provided on Flight 93.

[Gravy]

What horrible human beings.

[Housefly]

I stopped reading around the time they started talking about the Road Runner. He thinks the Pentagon was fake because there was no silhouette but he thinks the WTC was fake because there was a silhouette?

If it gets good later on, tell Rick and Morgan that I'm sorry.

[StoneWT]

They objected to virtually everything, and had plenty of specific objections (read (http://www.nomoregames.net/911/exploding_the_airliner_crash_myth/REVR&R3.pdf) here (http://www.nomoregames.net/911/exploding_the_airliner_crash_myth/REVR&R4.pdf)). However, we found little merit in their objections, especially for a paper that must cover a great deal of controversial ground without an encyclopedia of proof on behalf of every proposition and conclusion.



Amid Salter’s unprofessional attacks on No-Big-Boeing researchers, we encourage you to pick through his paper in search of scientific merit in the Salter defense of the government/media Big-Boeing WTC crash stories.


Geez, Morgan Reynolds is a crackpot.

[Childlike Empress]

Morgan O. Reynolds is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX.

He served as chief economist for the United States Department of Labor during 2001–2002, George W. Bush's first term. [...]

Reynolds is the author of Power and Privilege: Labor Unions in America (New York: Universe Books, 1984), a critique of labor unions in the United States. In the book, Reynolds blames labor unions for exacerbating unemployment and inflation.

Reynolds is also the author of the book Making America Poorer: The Cost of Labor Law (Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 1987), a book which advocates greatly reducing the level of labor regulation. In the book, Reynolds argues that labor unions have special legal privileges and immunities that ought to be revoked, and that labor unions have generally had a negative economic impact on the United States. Reynolds also offers evidence to support the claim that minimum wage laws exacerbate unemployment.

For W.H. Hutt: An Economist For the Long Run (Chicago: Regnery Books, 1986), a festschrift in honor of W.H. Hutt, Reynolds contributed an essay and served as editor.

It seems to be clear: This person isn't insane. Why do we find him, who took a strong position against workers rights for all of his career, now as "a part of" a grass roots movement attacking other members of it and presenting absurd theories on FoxNews?

There has to be a better explanation than "nuts".

[Zep]

I'm beginning to think that there should be an Ability License required for using word-processor software or internet access - if you're too looney, you can't have it.

[Childlike Empress]

Why did he leave the bush administration? Any insights?

[Childlike Empress]

No answer. Please think about it, folks. I can't believe that critical thinkers who are aware of history don't see what is happening here.

[W6102LA]

"Somethings need to be believed before they can be seen". Saw this on a sign outside a church on my way to a shop just an hour or so ago, i think this must be the principal the CT's must work with in order to come up with these theorys

[Garb]

No answer. Please think about it, folks. I can't believe that critical thinkers who are aware of history don't see what is happening here.

Stop being so impatient.

[Loss Leader]

Why did he leave the bush administration? Any insights?

Offhand, I would say that he was part of the general cleaning of house that the Bush Administration went through around the first midterm elections. Bush fired just about every economist on his staff after a disasterous downturn in the economy and strong belief by the electorate that his economic policies were, well, insane.

I'm sorry, I can't find any independent support for the above.

[Gravy]

It seems to be clear: This person isn't insane. Why do we find him, who took a strong position against workers rights for all of his career, now as "a part of" a grass roots movement attacking other members of it and presenting absurd theories on FoxNews?

There has to be a better explanation than "nuts".Well, just because he may not have been nuts in the past (and I'm not saying he wasn't), doesn't mean he couldn't have gone nuts since. Some mental problems take time to develop. I don't know anything about his past behavior. It would be interesting to know when this irrational streak became manifest.

[Childlike Empress]

Offhand, I would say that he was part of the general cleaning of house that the Bush Administration went through around the first midterm elections. Bush fired just about every economist on his staff after a disasterous downturn in the economy and strong belief by the electorate that his economic policies were, well, insane.

I'm sorry, I can't find any independent support for the above.

Wikipedia says he was the chief economist. Aren't there feature articles on his resignment (i did a quick investigoogling and found nothing)?

[Childlike Empress]

Gravy, that is an extremely ignorant statement. Do you really want to make me believe it?

[Gravy]

No answer. Please think about it, folks. I can't believe that critical thinkers who are aware of history don't see what is happening here.What is happening here?

[Gravy]

Gravy, that is an extremely ignorant statement. Do you really want to make me believe it?What's ignorant about my statement? I honestly don't know.

[Loss Leader]

What's ignorant about my statement? I honestly don't know.

Don;t mind Gravy. He's upset because he knows it's November 2 and pretty soon there will be another Language Award winner. It's sad, really.

Nominate this post!

[Childlike Empress]

What's ignorant about my statement? I honestly don't know.

A base line of your argument is that the conspiracy theorists are completely wrong because they take Operation Northwoods and other incidents as an indication that the US Government might sacrifice their own citizens for "higher" purposes. And now you want to make me believe that Morgan Reynolds went nuts right in time to "support" the 911 Skeptics? I think "ignorant" is a term in favor of you - we should name it "hypocricy" as it is.

[Gravy]

A base line of your argument is that the conspiracy theorists are completely wrong because they take Operation Northwoods and other incidents as an indication that the US Government might sacrifice their own citizens for "higher" purposes. And now you want to make me believe that Morgan Reynolds went nuts right in time to "support" the 911 Skeptics? I think "ignorant" is a term in favor of you - we should name it "hypocricy" as it is.
1) That is not a base line of my argument. Evidence is.

2) :confused:

I still have no idea what you're talking about.

[Childlike Empress]

I asked for an explanation for Reynolds's behaviour. A top official of the last Bush Administration spreads absurd theories about 911 on Fox News. You chimed in and told me that it is possible that Reynolds just in time went nuts. I told you that this is a weak explanation if you apply the standard of evidence that you demand from others to yourself.

What part of that did you not understand?

[R.Mackey]

It seems to be clear: This person isn't insane. Why do we find him, who took a strong position against workers rights for all of his career, now as "a part of" a grass roots movement attacking other members of it and presenting absurd theories on FoxNews?

There has to be a better explanation than "nuts".
Rather than disparage "critical thinkers" everywhere, perhaps you'd like to tell us what you think?

Going solely by the basis of the paper presented here, Mr. Reynolds is publicly promoting a shameful (c.f. Roadrunner graphics) and laughable (shot down by Steven Jones) position. Either idiocy or willfull deception, I don't know which. That much is not really open for debate. But I haven't made any judgment about the rest of the man's character, not yet anyway.

[beachnut]

Newtonian laws of motion combined with physical evidence prove no Boeing airliners crashed on September 11, 2001 at any of the four designated sites. The government's story is a provable, gigantic lie although various possibilities remain open about what really happened.

Newtonian laws! WOW - they used laws they do not understand to prove they do not understand them.

Can MIT remove Rick's degree?

rife with injuries (to his brain?) during his undergraduate years, Rick's determination led him to such accomplishments as MVP of the indoor track team,

sorry, how did he graduate from MIT with any degree and write a paper with an insane person?

Okay, who knows this clown?

Why would the Scholar turn down a paper? This one fits as well as any of their flying pig papers do.

Has anyone out there seen a piece of straw in a telelphone pole?

[beachnut]

Why did he leave the bush administration? Any insights?

he is nuts

[Kent1]

A base line of your argument is that the conspiracy theorists are completely wrong because they take Operation Northwoods and other incidents as an indication that the US Government might sacrifice their own citizens for "higher" purposes. And now you want to make me believe that Morgan Reynolds went nuts right in time to "support" the 911 Skeptics? I think "ignorant" is a term in favor of you - we should name it "hypocricy" as it is.

That's the problem with the truth movement. One man's genius is another man's spook. All of the big players are for the most part crazy(or at the very least has some mental instability). James Fetzer would certainlly qualify. Steven Jones and Griffin have papers full of simple stupid holes and sloppy errors. If you want to be taken seriously why continue to make these mistakes.

Go over to the Liberty Forum where Morgan Reynolds had one of his first interviews. Shill remarks are tossed all over. "Alex Jones is a shill" on one forum, Mike Rivero a shill because he believes a plane hit the Pentagon. Paul Thompson was accused at his latest showing of being to soft.
Honestly if I wanted to be a shill I would come up with a more plausible, not something that boarders on flat earth.

The real problem is paranoia rules the Truth movement!

[Childlike Empress]

Either idiocy or willfull deception

Yeah, who knows? I was not the one making fun of Reynolds, R.. I'm the one who tries to put a perspective on it. You are intelligent enough to figure out why i didn't say "he is a con artist". And you are intelligent enough to see why i say it now ;)

@the others: please simply answer my questions: Why did Reynold leave the Bush Administration and why does he spread these laughable theories now? I demanded a better answer than "he just went nuts" and i still do.

[R.Mackey]

Yeah, who knows? I was not the one making fun of Reynolds, R.. I'm the one who tries to put a perspective on it. You are intelligent enough to figure out why i didn't say "he is a con artist". And you are intelligent enough to see why i say it now ;)

@the others: please simply answer my qustions: Why did Reynold leave the Bush Administration and why does he spread these laughable theories now? I demanded a better answer than "he just went nuts" and i still do.
Be that as it may, if you're "demanding" an answer, I'd like to hear your ideas.

I honestly don't know. The human brain is a complex and mysterious thing.

[Crungy]

I stopped reading around the time they started talking about the Road Runner. He thinks the Pentagon was fake because there was no silhouette but he thinks the WTC was fake because there was a silhouette?

From everyone's favorite USG stooge Alexander Cockburn....

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn09092006.html

One notorious “deductive” leap involves flight 77, which on 9/11 ended up crashing into the Pentagon. There are photos of the impact of the “object” -- i.e., the Boeing 757, flight 77 -- that seem to show the sort of hole a missile might make. Ergo, the nuts assert, it WAS a missile and a 757 didn’t hit the Pentagon. As regards the hole, my brother Andrew -- writing a book about Rumsfeld and the DoD during his tenure -- has seen photos taken within 30 minutes of Pentagon impact clearly showing outline of entire plane including wings. This was visible momentarily when the smoke blew away

[Kochanski]

Childish, if you have ideas share them.

If you have answers give them.

Stop posing questions from your "Ivory Tower" and picking the replies apart for sport.

Time to put up or shut up dear.

[Kent1]

Yeah, who knows? I was not the one making fun of Reynolds, R.. I'm the one who tries to put a perspective on it. You are intelligent enough to figure out why i didn't say "he is a con artist". And you are intelligent enough to see why i say it now ;)

@the others: please simply answer my questions: Why did Reynold leave the Bush Administration and why does he spread these laughable theories now? I demanded a better answer than "he just went nuts" and i still do.

Sorry....but he's nuts. Im off for a while...

[Crungy]

Be that as it may, if you're "demanding" an answer, I'd like to hear your ideas.

I honestly don't know. The human brain is a complex and mysterious thing.

True. Late stage mental deterioration is not at all uncommon. The implication that his mental collapse is directly related to one's preconceived pet conspiracy theory is not a position I endorse. I read and heard enough about his beliefs to say that he coo coo for coco puffs. Why? I'll leave that to the mental health experts, not the CTers working backwards from their "theory".

[Gravy]

I asked for an explanation for Reynolds's behaviour. A top official of the last Bush Administration spreads absurd theories about 911 on Fox News. You chimed in and told me that it is possible that Reynolds just in time went nuts. I told you that this is a weak explanation if you apply the standard of evidence that you demand from others to yourself.

What part of that did you not understand?I don't attempt to explain Reynolds' behavior, because I have nothing on which to base an explanation. I merely pointed out that he may actually be nuts. I didn't say that he was nuts, nor did I say that he "just in time" did anything. That's your misrepresentation of my words.

So, you're suggesting that Reynolds is attempting to take political potshots at the Bush administration by saying that no airliners were involved in the attacks of 9/11?

Is that rational? If he has an axe to grind, wouldn't the rational thing be to say "I was Chief Economist in W's Labor Department, and here's a list of the lousy things I saw the administration do..."? Childlike, do you think that his "no planes" position makes the Bush administration look bad, and not Morgan Reynolds? And if that is his intent, is that position in any way rational?

Or would that be a very, very nutty way for a person to imagine that they are taking revenge on an enemy?

[mortimer]

Here's a story that briefly describes Reynolds' time in the White House:

http://911review.com/boulderweekly/markup/coverstory.html

[Childlike Empress]

Childish, if you have ideas share them..

If you want to adress me, say "Empress", please.

R., so you take Gravy's line and tell me that Reynoldys went nuts? You don't think it is obvious or even possible that he does a COINTELPRO-Job? Of course i don't have the right to "demand" answers but i am interested in your honest impression on this.

@Gravy: I think his behaviour is rational and the outcome of it is exactly what he intents.

edit: thanks mortimer

[Gravy]

I demanded a better answer than "he just went nuts" and i still do.It is not rational to demand from us an answer about the behavior of a person we know little about.

[Gravy]

@Gravy: I think his behaviour is rational and the outcome of it is exactly what he intents.Ah. So now "no planes" is a rational position. Sorry, but I'm getting off at this exit. See ya later.

[R.Mackey]

R., so you take Gravy's line and tell me that Reynoldys went nuts? You don't think it is obvious or even possible that he does a COINTELPRO-Job? Of course i don't have the right to "demand" answers but i am interested in your honest impression on this.
I said no such thing. I said I honestly didn't know. He might be nuts, or he might have a complex motivation.

Please, as much as I dislike others putting words in my mouth, I would avoid putting them in yours. Would you care to elaborate your thoughts so that we don't have to guess? Thanks.

[Gravy]

Here's a story that briefly describes Reynolds' time in the White House:

http://911review.com/boulderweekly/markup/coverstory.htmlI'm back to drop one of Reynolds' kids off at the pool:
"That's one hypothesis you have to entertain," he says with a chuckle. "There's no wreckage from all four crashes."(Gravy averts his eyes and backs slowly away...)

[Childlike Empress]

Ah. So now "no planes" is a rational position. Sorry, but I'm getting off at this exit. See ya later.

Pathetic.

R., I gave you two hints so far - i indirectly said that he is "a con artist" and asked you if you don't think that he might do a "CONITELPRO-Job". Isn't that clear enough?

[mortimer]

One more possibility. He could just be an attention whore.

[R.Mackey]

Pathetic.

R., I gave you two hints so far - i indirectly said that he is "a con artist" and asked you if you don't think that he might do a "CONITELPRO-Job". Isn't that clear enough?

C'mon, it's a simple question. Is there some reason why you won't tell us what you think? Stutter? Confidentiality agreement?

I can't give you an honest impression if all you give me is hints. So, please, let's hear it.

[alexg]

I find it harder to believe that a rational Reynolds would trash his professional and personal reputation in service of a pathetically weak conintelpro job than I do that he simply is/went nuts.

ETA He does look a little old. Maybe he retired due to age, the same age that is causing some dementia?

[Kochanski]

Pathetic.

R., I gave you two hints so far - i indirectly said that he is "a con artist" and asked you if you don't think that he might do a "CONITELPRO-Job". Isn't that clear enough?

Childish, this is not a game of 20 questions. If you have something to say, say it. Stop dancing around and trying to sound deep and all knowing.

Or is the Empress is afraid she will be exposed as being as nekked as the Emperor?

[Childlike Empress]

C'mon, it's a simple question. Is there some reason why you won't tell us what you think? Stutter? Confidentiality agreement?

I can't give you an honest impression if all you give me is hints. So, please, let's hear it.

Why do you play dumb, R.? Read what i wrote: I think that there is no better explanation of Reynolds behaviour than that he is a COINTELPRO-Artist. I asked for better explanations. Nothing so far. Making fun of his deluded statements is really not the type of answer i expect from "critical thinkers".

[R.Mackey]

Why do you play dumb, R.? Read what i wrote: I think that there is no better explanation of Reynolds behaviour than that he is a COINTELPRO-Artist. I asked for better explanations. Nothing so far. Making fun of his deluded statements is really not the type of answer i expect from "critical thinkers".

That's not a very detailed description.

Why do you think this?

What motivates him to do this?

What is his ultimate goal?

Why are you so reluctant to answer?

[Childlike Empress]

Reluctant to answer what? He makes his [rule8] statements to discredit all 911 Skeptics. He gets invited to Murdochs's Fox News and gets the oppurtunity to spread his BS. You (this forum) parrots it and spreads the news about how deluded the "movement" is. What is so difficult to understand about this? Did you ever read something about how the few defend their privileges against the many? Historically?

[R.Mackey]

Reluctant to answer what? He makes his [rule8] statements to discredit all 911 Skeptics. He gets invited to Murdochs's Fox News and gets the oppurtunity to spread his BS. You (this forum) parrots it and spreads the news about how deluded the "movement" is. What is so difficult to understand about this? Did you ever read something about how the few defend their privileges against the many? Historically?

So you're suggesting that "911 Skeptics," i.e. those who posit a Government conspiracy, are such a grave threat to the United States Government, that the Government is undertaking a concerted campaign specifically to discredit them? And that Reynolds is part of this scheme?

Like I said, I don't want to put words in your mouth, and it would be much easier if you'd just say it instead of making me guess. But is that basically correct?

[Childlike Empress]

Yes. Not exactly to the current government, but to the "Powers that be".

[R.Mackey]

Fine.

This raises many follow-up questions, but unless you're willing to expound, I'll have to ask them one at a time.

If there is a COINTELPRO scheme going on, surely it is bigger than just one person, e.g. Reynolds. Notably, his co-author. is Ratjer also COINTELPRO?

How about former associates like Steven Jones?

Who is in the COINTELPRO scheme, and who isn't? How can you tell?

[alexg]

Why do you play dumb, R.? Read what i wrote: I think that there is no better explanation of Reynolds behaviour than that he is a COINTELPRO-Artist. I asked for better explanations. Nothing so far. Making fun of his deluded statements is really not the type of answer i expect from "critical thinkers".

He sounds like a sincere CTist to me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkpOsUmp-9w&mode=related&search=
His main arguments seem to be that WTC 7 was a CD becuase it looked like a CD to him and of course that since 911 insured his re-election it therefore follows that Bush did it.
He's like the rest of the CT crowd who seem to think it's 'just obvious' that the official version is phony. 'How could 19 young muslims do all that?' I could see him leaping to the conclusion that no Boeings were injured in the filming of 911.

Unlike Steven Jones this guy's field is not hard science. He's just an economist. His arguments reflect this lack of technical expertise.

[beachnut]

These two guys have zero. They are nuts. If you believe on thing they have you may be nuts. Or I missed something. (based on reading their paper and finding no facts to support their ideas, and see a video with the same ideas)

Funny how they have to ignore the thousands of people who saw the second plane hit the WTC.

These guys will be in purgatory calculating why they never died.

They even use stuff from other crazy CT nuts. They use the can't hit the ground cause you are going to fast ground effect lie.

This other guy seems to be new. Finally found a new nut. Richard Rajter, is he new?

I hope I can just say they are nuts based on reading their paper. It that okay?

[Roger_Harris]

Why do you play dumb, R.? Read what i wrote: I think that there is no better explanation of Reynolds behaviour than that he is a COINTELPRO-Artist. I asked for better explanations. Nothing so far. Making fun of his deluded statements is really not the type of answer i expect from "critical thinkers".

OK, based on his apparent current state of mind, my guess is that he was asked to resign because his behavior was getting noticeably irrational.

[beachnut]

He gets invited to Murdochs's Fox News and gets the oppurtunity to spread his BS.

You (this forum) parrots it and spreads the news about how deluded the "movement" is. What is so difficult to understand about this? Did you ever read something about how the few defend their privileges against the many? Historically?

Unless I have missed something the entire movement is deluded.

Explosives - deluded
WTC7 inside job - deluded
No planes - deluded
93 shot down - deluded
no terrorist - deluded
terrorist can't fly - deluded
WTC can't fail like they did - deluded
NORAD stood down - deluded
Most protected airspace in the world - deluded
missiles - deluded
squibs - deluded

got any good ones that are not deluded and have actual proof?

You do not have to parrot anything unless you are deluded.

[Gravy]

He gets invited to Murdochs's Fox News and gets the oppurtunity to spread his BS.So did Dylan Avery. FOX aired his segment four times. LTW cites that as their big break into mainstream media. You can speculate that FOX was using Avery to make the truthers look stupid, but do you have a case that he's a Cointelpro agent? Or is it more likely that TV producers like controversial stories because they attract viewers?

[Gravy]

Richard Rajter, is he new?We've been aware of him for a few months. Screw Loose Change (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/07/holocaust-deniers-and-9-11-truth.html) has the goods on him. He's a Holocaust denier. Surprise, surprise.

[Childlike Empress]

Fine.

This raises many follow-up questions, but unless you're willing to expound, I'll have to ask them one at a time.

If there is a COINTELPRO scheme going on, surely it is bigger than just one person, e.g. Reynolds. Notably, his co-author. is Ratjer also COINTELPRO?

How about former associates like Steven Jones?

Who is in the COINTELPRO scheme, and who isn't? How can you tell?

If you were sincerely interested in the topic and your attitude wouldn't be to deconstruct the BS* of a little object of studies like me, you would know that i don't have an answer to your questons.

I still want to know how you explain Reynold's morphing from an anti-workers-right economist to a person who not only supports some 911 CTs - which i appreciate in the case of Ray McGovern and others - but spread silliest delusions so obvious false that even the hardcore conspiracists have problems with him.

Questions about me are not relevant to this discussion but if you honestly wanna understand my position, i urge you to read this book: Edward Bernays - Propaganda (http://militant.org/files/propaganda.pdf)

*Believe System

[Childlike Empress]

So did Dylan Avery. FOX aired his segment four times. LTW cites that as their big break into mainstream media. You can speculate that FOX was using Avery to make the truthers look stupid, but do you have a case that he's a Cointelpro agent? Or is it more likely that TV producers like controversial stories because they attract viewers?

Reynolds is a professional. :rolleyes:

[R.Mackey]

If you were sincerely interested in the topic and your attitude wouldn't be to deconstruct the BS* of a little object of studies like me, you would know that i don't have an answer to your questons.
So... you're saying you can't tell who is COINTELPRO and who isn't? It's just speculation, then?

Fine, let me try a different tack, then. Why do you believe there is a COINTELPRO scheme underway to discredit the Sept. 11th conspiracy theorists? What convinced you that there is one? Surely you have some basis for this opinion.


I still want to know how you explain Reynold's morphing from an anti-workers-right economist to a person who not only supports some 911 CTs - which i appreciate in the case of Ray McGovern and others - but spread silliest delusions so obvious false that even the hardcore conspiracists have problems with him.
It's a reasonable question. But you will accept that there are other possibilities, yes? I can think of several, some that involve mental illness and some that do not.

[Childlike Empress]

Nonpartisan observation, R.

[Gravy]

Reynolds is a professional. :rolleyes:How about Steven Jones, a conservative who turned rabidly anti-Bush? Cointelpro?

[R.Mackey]

Nonpartisan observation, R.

Please, explain.

[Childlike Empress]

How about Steven Jones, a conservative who turned rabidly anti-Bush? Cointelpro?

What do you think?

[Childlike Empress]

Please, explain.

Judy Woods Billiard-Ball Paper convinced me of an ongoing COINTELPRO-scheme. I hope you like that answer but i think it's clear that my impression is subjective, hence irrelevant, isn't it?

[alexg]

If you were sincerely interested in the topic and your attitude wouldn't be to deconstruct the BS* of a little object of studies like me, you would know that i don't have an answer to your questons.

I still want to know how you explain Reynold's morphing from an anti-workers-right economist to a person who not only supports some 911 CTs - which i appreciate in the case of Ray McGovern and others - but spread silliest delusions so obvious false that even the hardcore conspiracists have problems with him.

Questions about me are not relevant to this discussion but if you honestly wanna understand my position, i urge you to read this book: Edward Bernays - Propaganda (http://militant.org/files/propaganda.pdf)

*Believe System

So the fact that a conservative economist and Bush appointee becomes a cter is not the problem, correct? Let's be clear about this one. There could be other conservatives who have lost faith in the Bush admin. for one reason or another. This fact alone is hardly suspicious.

It's the 'silliness' of the no-plane theory that bothers you, correct? Reynolds seems to be a smart guy, an accomplished academic, and such people don't promote silly theories, unless of course they have an ulterior motive, correct?

I would suggest to you that the no-plane theory is not SO much sillier than the other CTs out there. Fake cell calls, no plane at Pentagon, nukes, drones, remote-controlled Boeings, it's all pretty wacky. Only LIHOP seems remotely reasonable to me. Yet there are a smattering of academics and 'serious' intellectuals that hold all the above mentioned positions. Reynolds is not a hard scientist/ technical/mechanical type, he's an economist. His theories may simply reflect this lack of technical expertise. Furthermore you seem to know nothing about him or his mental state but are assuming much about it based on knowing only the bare outline of his credentials. I assure you there are nuts all over the place - high places too.

[R.Mackey]

Judy Woods Billiard-Ball Paper convinced me of an ongoing COINTELPRO-scheme. I hope you like that answer but i think it's clear that my impression is subjective, hence irrelevant, isn't it?

Well, it's definitely not the answer I expected. Please, tell me more. How did Judy Woods's ridiculous paper convince you of a COINTELPRO scheme? I read it, and that was not what came to my mind.

[Gravy]

What do you think?I'm asking you because you've stated an opinion that Reynolds is a disinfo agent. You must have some angle on who is and who isn't working undercover for the USG. Otherwise you're just making that up, right?

Morgan Reynolds, maintaining his "deep cover":

Then there's Morgan O. Reynolds, appointed by George W. Bush as chief economist at the Labor Department. He left in 2002 and doesn't think much of his former boss; he describes President Bush as a "dysfunctional creep," not to mention a "possible war criminal." –Washington Post (http://www.oilempire.us/washington-post.html)

:rolleyes:

[uk_dave]

Childlike Empress,

How do you explain those handful of scientists who dispute anthropogenic global warming and recieve funding from oil companies via certain right wing organisations?

Are we to assume that they are actually a cunning plot by the scientific consensus to discredit the (already) discredited bush enviroment policy and at the same time con the oil companies into coughing up some money?

Or can we rightly claim that they are more idealogically driven than scientifically driven, or that they see a way of obtaining funding and tenure by going against the mainstream, or that maybe they just aren't very good scientists?

Could the same be true of the 911 'scholars'?

IF at the end of the day they are a cunning ploy by the USG to divide the CT movement and make it look bad in the public eye, then their success is more down to the weakness of the CT movement than any skill on the part of the USG.

If the CT is damaged by these scholars then the CT should distance themselves from them. The fact that many within the CT are willing to believe these whacky theories speaks volumes about the mindset of the CT'ers.

[Trigood]

So the fact that a conservative economist and Bush appointee becomes a cter is not the problem, correct? Let's be clear about this one. There could be other conservatives who have lost faith in the Bush admin. for one reason or another. This fact alone is hardly suspicious.
I may be wrong, but my reading of the Empress is that she finds his conversion from free-market voodoo economist to Bush-hating CTist suspicious. (apologies to the Empress if I'm wrong)

I think what the Empress is saying is that she finds it difficult to believe that such a hard-core conservative would suddenly 'switch to the other side,' thus, she believes him to be a double (COINTELPRO) agent. (once again, apologies to the E. if I am wrong)

My problem with finding double agents lurking in the shadows everywhere is how fine-grained this conspiracy would be. Bush/Wolfie/Cheney didn't need COINTELPRO; they just went out and brazenly lied about the intelligence, and got everything they wanted, because the googly-eyed, star-struck mainstream media just swallowed it all and regurgitated it out to the public, with fancy graphics.

COINTELPRO? They don't need no stinkin' COINTELPRO!

Just one person's $.02, highly devalued in this economy.

[Childlike Empress]

I assure you there are nuts all over the place - high places too.

For sure. In case of Reynolds not only his theories but his aggressive attitude make me sceptic.

@R.: This paper is so stupid that anyone who has the slightest clue on what is going on in engineering sees that is is BS*. This woman is either braindead or has different motives. She still is active so i think braindead is not an option.

Cu, folks - perhaps someone finds a better explanation for Reynolds behaviour until i wake up again.

* Bullsh!t

[uk_dave]

During the cold war, within the intelligence community, there was a condition commonly known as 'sick think'

This has now transfered into the CT community

Though in some cases the 'think' part has been dropped.

[Childlike Empress]

I may be wrong, but my reading of the Empress is that she finds his conversion from free-market voodoo economist to Bush-hating CTist suspicious. (apologies to the Empress if I'm wrong)

I think what the Empress is saying is that she finds it difficult to believe that such a hard-core conservative would suddenly 'switch to the other side,' thus, she believes him to be a double (COINTELPRO) agent. (once again, apologies to the E. if I am wrong)

My problem with finding double agents lurking in the shadows everywhere is how fine-grained this conspiracy would be. Bush/Wolfie/Cheney didn't need COINTELPRO; they just went out and brazenly lied about the intelligence, and got everything they wanted, because the googly-eyed, star-struck mainstream media just swallowed it all and regurgitated it out to the public, with fancy graphics.

COINTELPRO? They don't need no stinkin' COINTELPRO!

Just one person's $.02, highly devalued in this economy.

I think it is difficult to believe that a person with Reynolds vita turns into a raving lunatic all of a sudden. And i don't agree with you that no COINTELPRO was needed.

[R.Mackey]

For sure. In case of Reynolds not only his theories but his aggressive attitude make me sceptic.

@R.: This paper is so stupid that anyone who has the slightest clue on what is going on in engineering sees that is is BS*. This woman is either braindead or has different motives. She still is active so i think braindead is not an option.
Well, sure, I agree with that. In fact, I'd say virtually every Conspiracy Theorist paper is transparently false to anyone with a modicum of scientific training. I can only think of a couple that required any real scrutiny, out of the admittedly small cross-section I've examined.

There are many "different motives," though. Some I'd like you to think about:


Profit (off of paranoiacs who believe any conspiracy theory)
Partisan political agenda ("bring our troops home at any cost")
Feeling of membership and belonging in a select group (who ARE mad)


And there's my favorite:


She just wasn't that good a scientist to begin with (dentists and economists talking about complex structural problems)


I'm sure there are plenty of other possibilities.

So, what do you think of them? How does COINTELPRO stack up against these possibilities in your opinion? How do you propose we find out which is the truth?

[JamesB]

As a professor once told me, the difference between a scientific theory and a conspiracy theory is scientific theories have a predictable outcome. You can actually take an input and predict an outcome to it. Conspiracy theories are set up so that they get the outcome they want, no matter what the inputs are.

If the evidence supports a conspiracy theory, then it proves the CT.

If there is no evidence to support the conspiracy theory, then that is because there is a coverup.

If the evidence disproves a conspiracy theory, then it is fake.

If a member of the conspiracy theory community does something rational, then conspiracy theorists are rational.

If a member of the conspiracy theory community does something irrational or stupid, then they are a disinformation agent.

No matter what the situation, based on their "logic", they win. Heads I win, tails you lose.

[Trigood]

Morgan Reynolds, maintaining his "deep cover":

Then there's Morgan O. Reynolds, appointed by George W. Bush as chief economist at the Labor Department. He left in 2002 and doesn't think much of his former boss; he describes President Bush as a "dysfunctional creep," not to mention a "possible war criminal."
Actually, such a posture would ingratiate him with leftists in the CT movement.

And it would seem that the majority of the CT movement is made up of leftists (excepting Alex Jones and some of his flock, and probably some other anomalous groups I'm forgetting about).

However, as I said in my previous post, it's just too complicated for me to believe. The don't need to divide the left, let alone the CT movement, both of which fracture on their own constantly.

COINTELPRO "worked" (somewhat; I'm not totally familiar with the history) in the '60s and early '70s because they were infiltrating a true, grassroots movement that stood for something and had real, if minimal, power, and was getting increasing attention in the MSM.

The CTers are not and have not. Why bother? The MSM has been in line with the neo-cons just fine. Why bother?

Of course, now things are getting really interesting, with people turning against the war and the Republican culture of corruption. Isn't that a Chinese curse or something, 'may you live in interesting times?' LOL...

[uk_dave]

And it would seem that the majority of the CT movement is made up of leftists

That's a bold claim.

The heart of the conspiracy paranoia seems (to me) to be an abiding feeling that some evil (in the religious sense) force is plotting behind the scenes to enslave us all.

The right of centre mindset is very prone to this paranoia, which is why those such as alex jones are adopted by the new generation of CT'ers.

CT is a matter of faith just the same as religion, and it has the same bigotry and racism as the worst examples of religion.

By no means is CT a majority left of centre pursuit.

[Trigood]

I think it is difficult to believe that a person with Reynolds vita turns into a raving lunatic all of a sudden. And i don't agree with you that no COINTELPRO was needed.
I've explained why I don't think it was needed (no fine-tuning needed to invade Iraq, sheeple all lined up anyway, etc.).

Can you explain why you believe COINTELPRO was (or rather, is still) needed?

More specifically, what does the Bush administration (or whatever faction within it we're discussing) need to pull the wool over our eyes about in order to get something they've not already gotten?

[Trigood]

That's a bold claim.

The heart of the conspiracy paranoia seems (to me) to be an abiding feeling that some evil (in the religious sense) force is plotting behind the scenes to enslave us all.

The right of centre mindset is very prone to this paranoia, which is why those such as alex jones are adopted by the new generation of CT'ers.

CT is a matter of faith just the same as religion, and it has the same bigotry and racism as the worst examples of religion.

By no means is CT a majority left of centre pursuit.
Maybe you're right. Maybe it's just the circles I run in, LOL...

And thanks, Dave, this is my 15th post!

(Now, do I enter the realms of paradise? LOL...)

[Scientologist]

Holy crap, I am trying so hard to not be insulting in this post. I am literally holding it in and grinding my teeth together..

Childlike, there is also the minute chance that you are that hot chick in your avatar so I don't want to offend you too much just in case there's a chance we may play "Hide the Salami" in the future.

However, you need to step back from your monitor and take a good look at what you are suggesting. Its truly insane.

Take a walk and sip a fine wine. Enjoy your life and escape from this awful paranoia that is gripping you.

[ktesibios]

Umm, the Reynolds publications mentioned upstream suggest that he was already practiced at the fine art of starting with an ideologically-driven conclusion and then trying to hammer and file the data to fit it.

That's a skill that every aspiring CTist needs to develop- and a habit of thinking nicely calculated to help one become a CTist.

IMHO, speculating about his mental heath is pointless. "Insane" is a legal, not a scientific concept, and you don't have to be suffering from a rcognized mental illness to be a crackpot.

[Brainster]

A base line of your argument is that the conspiracy theorists are completely wrong because they take Operation Northwoods and other incidents as an indication that the US Government might sacrifice their own citizens for "higher" purposes. And now you want to make me believe that Morgan Reynolds went nuts right in time to "support" the 911 Skeptics? I think "ignorant" is a term in favor of you - we should name it "hypocricy" as it is.

He seems a Texan who went nutso over the Kennedy Assassination but had enough on the ball to publish some fairly conservative economic books, so he got an administration job and then went bonkers on 9-11. He's more a libertarian than a conservative, although of course the fact that he's a nut on 9-11 overshadows everything.

[Childlike Empress]

Holy crap, I am trying so hard to not be insulting in this post. I am literally holding it in and grinding my teeth together..

Childlike, there is also the minute chance that you are that hot chick in your avatar so I don't want to offend you too much just in case there's a chance we may play "Hide the Salami" in the future.

However, you need to step back from your monitor and take a good look at what you are suggesting. Its truly insane.

Take a walk and sip a fine wine. Enjoy your life and escape from this awful paranoia that is gripping you.

No, you are wrong. Did you know that tourette patients can take a great advantage of smoking marihuana?

[Miss Anthrope]

If you want to adress me, say "Empress", please.

R., so you take Gravy's line and tell me that Reynoldys went nuts? You don't think it is obvious or even possible that he does a COINTELPRO-Job? Of course i don't have the right to "demand" answers but i am interested in your honest impression on this.

@Gravy: I think his behaviour is rational and the outcome of it is exactly what he intents.

edit: thanks mortimer

I'm asking nicely, is english your first language?

[Gravy]

No, you are wrong. Did you know that tourette patients can take a great advantage of smoking marihuana?C'mon, Scientologist, that is funny. 30 seconds ago I was thinking, "Is there any discussion that he can't shoehorn a sexual comment into?" We've had pork, now salami (all beef, no doubt). What's next on the menu? :D

[Childlike Empress]

@Miss Anthrope: Somesing to att to se topick, Miss? The anzwer is no.

[Gravy]

I'm asking nicely, is english your first language?
In case she's away I'll answer. No, it isn't. I believe German is. By the way, English is capitalized.:)

[TruthSeeker1234]

Morgan Reynolds is a free market economist. Whether you agree or not, there is a very well developed literature which asserts that unregulated free market is the most productive and just economic system, including for poor people and "workers".

If any of you are interested, there are a wealth of great lectures freely available on the Mises Universtiy site.

http://www.mises.org/media.aspx

IMHO, Murray Rothbard was the greatest economics genius of all time.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Now, if any of you actually want to critique Reynolds/Rajter, you should comment on the thrust of their thesis:

A 767 at 500 mph has around 4 billion joules of KE. Based on the (very slight) deceleration of the plane entering the building, they calculate that only a small amount of that was used, leaving 3.8 billion joules still available. How then does the aircraft enter the building so effortlessly, yet does not exit?

[W6102LA]

Now, if any of you actually want to critique Reynolds/Rajter, you should comment on the thrust of their thesis:

A 767 at 500 mph has around 4 billion joules of KE. Based on the (very slight) deceleration of the plane entering the building, they calculate that only a small amount of that was used, leaving 3.8 billion joules still available. How then does the aircraft enter the building so effortlessly, yet does not exit?
So you're saying 100's of eyewitnesses on the scene saw something other than a 767 hit the building ?

[uk_dave]

Now, if any of you actually want to critique Reynolds/Rajter, you should comment on the thrust of their thesis:

A 767 at 500 mph has around 4 billion joules of KE. Based on the (very slight) deceleration of the plane entering the building, they calculate that only a small amount of that was used, leaving 3.8 billion joules still available. How then does the aircraft enter the building so effortlessly, yet does not exit?


ermmmmm perhaps the rest of that energy was used to destroy the building?

It's just a thought. Put it in the background for a while...

[boloboffin]

Therefore, we present our analysis below for your critical review with the product warning that our analysis has failed to achieve the highly sought-after “Journal of 9/11 Studies” seal of approval.

Aw, poor guys. Here ya go:

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/J911Seal.jpg

[TruthSeeker1234]

So you're saying 100's of eyewitnesses on the scene saw something other than a 767 hit the building ?

Me personally? I don't know about the planes. There is evidence for planes, videos, eyewitnesses, a few (very few) plane parts.

But the NoPlaners have a point. How can an aluminum aircraft enter a steel building so effortlessly, and, even if it could, how can it then stop inside the building? Why were no NTSB investigations done on any of the 4 9/11 flights? Where are all the serial-numbered parts?

I'll listen.

[W6102LA]

There is evidence for planes, videos, eyewitnesses, a few (very few) plane parts.
Oh well..i'm convinced.

Bye

[TruthSeeker1234]

ermmmmm perhaps the rest of that energy was used to destroy the building?

It's just a thought. Put it in the background for a while...

Dave, I'm restraining myself not to insult you. Please study the evidence. The buildings were not destroyed until 1 hour, and 1 1/2 hours after the impacts.

The damage that was done to WTC2 by the impact used up a tiny amount of the KE, based on the deceleration. If more KE was used damaging the building, why was there not more deceleration?

[uk_dave]

It's ok truthseeker, you can insult me as much as you like, I won't lose any sleep over it :D

Oh and BTW, would YOU have wanted to work in those buildings immediately after the impact of the planes?

They were destroyed when the planes hit.

[chipmunk stew]

The damage that was done to WTC2 by the impact used up a tiny amount of the KE, based on the deceleration. If more KE was used damaging the building, why was there not more deceleration?
You're asking this about an event that took micro-seconds, based on calculations using interpretations of low-quality images derived from video with a frame-rate of unknown accuracy.

It's also based on the plane as a solid mass and assumes that the tail should have decelerated at the same rate as the nose. In fact, we should expect that each piece of the plane experienced very little deceleration until it came in contact with the building, at which point it experienced very rapid deceleration.

I know you must have seen this before:
X697yZBCN8w
As you can see, the tail experiences very little deceleration until it hits the wall, even though the nose has already rapidly decelerated.

[Gravy]

Me personally? I don't know about the planes. There is evidence for planes, videos, eyewitnesses, a few (very few) plane parts.How many plane parts were recovered? I expect your answer, with sources, today.

But the NoPlaners have a point. How can an aluminum aircraft enter a steel building so effortlessly, and, even if it could, how can it then stop inside the building? Effortlessly? According to what standards? And as you know, much of the planes and their occupants did not stop inside the buildings.

Agreed, TruthSeeker1234?


Why were no NTSB investigations done on any of the 4 9/11 flights? As you know, in criminal cases involving aircraft in the US, the FBI is the lead investigative agency. The NTSB was at every crash scene, and handled the "black boxes."

Agreed, TruthSeeker1234?


Where are all the serial-numbered parts?You tell us. What has your investigation revealed about the disposition of the plane parts?

I'll listen.Why will you listen to no-planers, but not to us when we refute your blazingly ignorant claims?

[Loss Leader]

Me personally? I don't know about the planes. There is evidence for planes, videos, eyewitnesses, a few (very few) plane parts.

But the NoPlaners have a point.

How can the NoPlaners have a point? Either there were planes or there weren't. There can't be a smidgen of plane or intermittent essences of plane. And since the WTC and Pentagon crashes each had hundreds if not thousands of witnesses (WTC2 had, perhaps, millions), I'm not certain what point you're actually willing to concede to the NoPlaners.

Perhaps what you meant to say is: The NoPlaners are obviously loons and nothing but prejudice against the "government" keeps me from admitting it.

[JamesB]

Me personally? I don't know about the planes. There is evidence for planes, videos, eyewitnesses, a few (very few) plane parts.

But the NoPlaners have a point. How can an aluminum aircraft enter a steel building so effortlessly, and, even if it could, how can it then stop inside the building? Why were no NTSB investigations done on any of the 4 9/11 flights? Where are all the serial-numbered parts?

I'll listen.


The NTSB did do an investigation. Remember those black boxes you all were saying proved a plane didn't hit the lightpoles?

You know, you guys really should get together and agree on a story sometime.

[beachnut]

Aw, poor guys. Here ya go:

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/J911Seal.jpg

Is that the new WTC with 150 foot floors, and 2 foot rebar? and 20 foot thick cement floors.

What is the scale and who is the dolt who built that model?

I was laughing when I saw that scale model. almost 200 feet betweet floors, 20 foot thick concrete floors, lost of windows,

I want to see the 110 story versions. Rising to over 10,000 feet, come to WTC dolt village, where you office will have 100 foot ceilings!!!

hurry offices are going fast

[TruthSeeker1234]

You're asking this about an event that took micro-seconds, based on calculations using interpretations of low-quality images derived from video with a frame-rate of unknown accuracy.

It's also based on the plane as a solid mass and assumes that the tail should have decelerated at the same rate as the nose. In fact, we should expect that each piece of the plane experienced very little deceleration until it came in contact with the building, at which point it experienced very rapid deceleration.

I know you must have seen this before:
X697yZBCN8w
As you can see, the tail experiences very little deceleration until it hits the wall, even though the nose has already rapidly decelerated.

Yes, I've seen this video. Looks like 100% of that plane stayed outside the wall. With WTC, 100% of the plane went inside. We observe the exact opposite thing happening. Why?

[Crungy]

Yes, I've seen this video. Looks like 100% of that plane stayed outside the wall. With WTC, 100% of the plane went inside. We observe the exact opposite thing happening. Why?

Hmmm? Could different exterior building materials play a slight part in it? :confused:

[apathoid]

Yes, I've seen this video. Looks like 100% of that plane stayed outside the wall. With WTC, 100% of the plane went inside. We observe the exact opposite thing happening. Why?

Obviously, the planes were made of titanium, the wings leading edges were razor sharp and the nose was depleted uranium....Dude, either you are a "no-planer" or a "no-planers are [rule8]ing nuts" person. There cant be any ground in between. Which are you?
To me, its obvious. But since there may be a brain cell or two operating normally upstairs, you know that the beatings you've taken in the past will not even begin to compare to ones you'll get for coming out of the closet on this issue......

[chipmunk stew]

Yes, I've seen this video. Looks like 100% of that plane stayed outside the wall. With WTC, 100% of the plane went inside. We observe the exact opposite thing happening. Why?
Engage that brain of yours and lay out some hypotheses. Things to consider: What was the purpose of the test? What was the purpose and construction of the test wall? What was the purpose and construction of the WTC wall?

But that's a separate exercise.

The observation pertinent to the current discussion is that the rear of the plane did not measurably decelerate until it impacted the wall. What does that tell you about Reynolds & Rajter's analysis of the deceleration of the WTC plane?

[TellyKNeasuss]

The damage that was done to WTC2 by the impact used up a tiny amount of the KE, based on the deceleration. If more KE was used damaging the building, why was there not more deceleration?

Where in the paper does it discuss the amount of KE that went into damaging the building? Where in the paper does it discuss the breaking up of the airplane? Where in the paper does it discuss the effects of hitting the core? Of crashing into floors? This paper would only make sense if the WTC was a large, empty cardboard box.

[T.A.M.]

Just when I thought the well on insane theories and papers on such were running dry, along comes this to give me laughter over the weekend. Thanks Brainster, for hooking me up wiht a well needed laughfest.

So far, 3 paragraphs in, this is my favorite bit:

Reynolds paper quote:


Once we breach this fortification, a complete rout will swiftly follow. The public will find out that Katie Couric, Peter Jennings Charles Gibson and the beloved leadership of corporate media were accessories to mass murder.


TAM:D :D :D :D

[beachnut]

Yes, I've seen this video. Looks like 100% of that plane stayed outside the wall. With WTC, 100% of the plane went inside. We observe the exact opposite thing happening. Why?

You have picked dolts to do your math, and your thinking. They failed to model the WTC and plane correctly. Where is the calculation of full throttle engines? Where is the 80,000 pounds of thrust accelerating the AIRCRAFT into the building? No wonder the front section is pushed into the WTC there are two engines still burning and turning!!! Why do they ignore the planes acceleration? Duh?

CT to the bone, they dig up secret skin aircraft; tell you of the plane of many colors. WOW, a secret plane was used, yet all the guys working on the secret plane never missed it. Thousands of workers made a plane to kill us, in our own country. If these two are not nuts, then who is. First he says no plane but then we have secret color changing planes, and planes that fly by tricking everyone. WHAT? I thought it was no plane? What is the real story here?

You need to read this paper again it is funny. (funniest momemet; the nut bars at Scholars will not take the nut bar paper?!@?@#?@)

A paper wrong my events, simple proof is as it was shown on 9/11. No math needed.

A plane doing over 770 feet per second hit the WTC that was 200 feet thick. It was all over in less than a second.

If you say these things can not happen how did they? What are you going to use to show what visually happen?

These clowns talk about one video. How do they explain all the eyes. Some people identified the plane by the company paint scheme. (oh it was the top secrete changing color aircraft from hanger 54)

"""On 9/11 we had four astonishing, unverified and uninvestigated crashes. … Big Boeings did not crash as advertised.11 """
And they use PrisonPlanet as a source! WOW, now we know it is true as Alex Jones is.

Fact, the four crashes were not accidents, there is no accident investigation. Four crimes. FBI used the NTSB to look at the things they are experts at. So the conclusion of these NOPLANE/NOBRAIN guys is wrong from sentence one.

Use all of these guys junk. Will you get the Pulitzer Prize with this, if it was true??. Hold your breath. (please the top ten peer reviewers for this paper, any criteria)

[JamesB]

Just when I thought the well on insane theories and papers on such were running dry, along comes this to give me laughter over the weekend. Thanks Brainster, for hooking me up wiht a well needed laughfest.

So far, 3 paragraphs in, this is my favorite bit:

Reynolds paper quote:



TAM:D :D :D :D

I knew that &*$@# Katie Couric was behind it! Her and her damn perkiness!

[MikeW]

Once again, in this paper, Ezra Aviles gets ignored by the "no planers" & instead they pretend no-one got a clear look at anything. Here's why.

From a window on the 61st floor in the north tower, Ezra Aviles had seen everything. He knew it was no bomb. His window faced north, and he saw the plane tearing through the skies, heading straight for the tower. It had crashed into the building over his head-how far, he was not sure. In fact, its lower wing cut the ceiling of the 93rd floor, and its right wing had ripped across the 98th floor, at the very moment that Patricia Massari was speaking to her husband about her home pregnancy test.

Aviles worked for the Port Authority. He dialed five numbers, leaving identical messages, describing what he saw, and telling everyone up the chain of command to begin the evacuation. He called one colleague, John Paczkowski, but reached his voice mail. "It seems to be an American Airlines jetliner came in from the northern direction, toward-from the Empire State Building, toward us," Aviles said. He ticked through a list of notifications-he had called the police and the public affairs office, and had beeped the chief operating officer for the agency. "Smoke is beginning to come, so I think I'm gonna start bailing outta here, man.... Don't come near the building if you're outside. Pieces are coming down, man. Bye."
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780805076820&displayonly=EXC&z=y

And when I say "ignored", I really mean it. I did a quick browse through the Google returns for "Ezra Aviles" and didn't notice a single CT site on the list. Oh well, I suppose it's a good thing in a way: they'd only chalk this up to the "voice morphing technology.

[Gravy]

Once again, in this paper, Ezra Aviles gets ignored by the "no planers" & instead they pretend no-one got a clear look at anything. Here's why.

And when I say "ignored", I really mean it. I did a quick browse through the Google returns for "Ezra Aviles" and didn't notice a single CT site on the list. Oh well, I suppose it's a good thing in a way: they'd only chalk this up to the "voice morphing technology.And confirmation that Aviles did as he said:

In the Port Authority Office of Public Safety, Assistant Director Michael Scott received one of Aviles’ calls:

I received a telephone call from my good friend Ezra Aviles of the Office of Policy & Planning who said an aircraft had just struck the North Tower at a location above his office which was located on the north side of the 61st floor. In our discussion he was very calm and stated he saw the logo on the aircraft (American Airlines) as it approached the building. In further dialog it became clear that this was not a small commercial aircraft but a full size passenger aircraft. He stated he was contacting me to notify Public Safety officially and would make a few other calls, depart the tower and come over to the PATC “to help us out.”

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports01.pdf Page 2

[Pardalis]

Judy Woods Billiard-Ball Paper convinced me of an ongoing COINTELPRO-scheme. I hope you like that answer but i think it's clear that my impression is subjective, hence irrelevant, isn't it?

I say the entire "Truth Movement" is a disruptive intelligence scheme lead by Iran.

And I have as much proof as you have. None.

Just a gut feeling.

[Housefly]

Why would the government bother witha long, complicated cointel scheme? Why not just spend years planning a ridiculously complicated way to kill all the conspiracy theorists, preferably leaving a trail of evidence that points directly at them and accidentally telling every journalist in the world that they did it?

It worked on 9/11.

[beachnut]

Judy Woods Billiard-Ball Paper convinced me of an ongoing COINTELPRO-scheme. I hope you like that answer but i think it's clear that my impression is subjective, hence irrelevant, isn't it?

Maybe I missed something.

Does anyone believe Judy Woods' Pool-Ball paper?

I put her paper in with Reynolds and her Beam Weapon paper taking shape as we talk; go copy it before Bush has it taken down! HURRY!!. They should be married so we will have an endless supply of really nutty people in the future. Why should this be the only generation of mindless CT experts.

Judy Woods paper is the opposite of real momentum. She is a fool who has wasted my time and hers.

Who has not found her use momentum to be junk. When the mass of the top overcomes the structure below to failure, there is not time out! The new mass move at a velocity based on the new mass with the impact of the old mass momentum minus energy to make the failure happen. NO STOPPING.

To simplify the problem you can use each floor (ie this is where the CT crowd mistakes a model for a pancake theory, but it was just a way to study energy) as resistance. When you calculate each floor failing and moving on with a mass velocity, no stopping. You only have about a 10 percent decrease in what a free fall would be. Judy Woods, stop and go would not happen. If the towers were to stop falling, they would stop.

It took 30 seconds or so for the last 70 story piece of core in WTC to finish collapsing. Much more complex than a simple model calculation.

Judy balls stop and go action, are not what would happen. She needs help in more than physics.

Not that it is related but her latest theory, since her balls are off, is a beam weapon. No wonder the power went down on 9/11, her beam weapon sucked up all the power;

Balls and Beam weapons. Does she have a family, where are they?; her cat will not commit her!!!!

[azazal]

Just finished trying to read through the "paper"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/azazal/Misc/stupid.jpg

[TellyKNeasuss]

It seems to be clear: This person isn't insane. Why do we find him, who took a strong position against workers rights for all of his career, now as "a part of" a grass roots movement attacking other members of it and presenting absurd theories on FoxNews?

There has to be a better explanation than "nuts".

Your theory depends on the assumption that Morgan Reynolds actually believes what he says. Have you considered the possibility that he is lying to promote a political agenda?

Your theory also depends on the assumption that Morgan Reynolds is able to evaluate the evidence about 9/11. He might simply be so into his political agenda that he can't comprehend any explanation other than what fits his bias. Education does not guarentee objectivity.

[AWPrime]

Mmmm insanity.

[Childlike Empress]

And I have as much proof as you have. None.
True. ;) :)

Maybe I missed something. [...] NO STOPPING.

I don't know if you think that i believe it. If so, you missed something. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who seem to believe it. TruthSeeker1234 for example.

She is some kind of engineer so she should know that it doesn't work like she describes. Suspicious to me.

Your theory depends on the assumption that Morgan Reynolds actually believes what he says. Have you considered the possibility that he is lying to promote a political agenda?

Your theory also depends on the assumption that Morgan Reynolds is able to evaluate the evidence about 9/11. He might simply be so into his political agenda that he can't comprehend any explanation other than what fits his bias. Education does not guarentee objectivity.

If he is in it simply to make some money out of the 911 CTs (eta: or to forward his political agenda), why doesn't he focus on things he has knowledge about? Why not write a book about some "funny" insider stories and the reason why he (pretends to) think the administration is capable of mass murder of their own citizens? This would be a bestseller, i guess.

Why focus on these far out theories instead?

[TellyKNeasuss]

If he is in it simply to make some money out of the 911 CTs (eta: or to forward his political agenda), why doesn't he focus on things he has knowledge about? Why not write a book about some "funny" insider stories and the reason why he (pretends to) think the administration is capable of mass murder of their own citizens? This would be a bestseller, i guess.

Why focus on these far out theories instead?


The bigger the lie ...? A discussion of stock trading isn't nearly as "sexy" as an essay about how the WTC was demolished by explosives, the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile, etc., and it wouldn't garner a whole lot of attention. Not to mention that the insider trading charge is only indirect evidence of a conspiracy.

Not that you're necessarily wrong, but there are alternate theories that fit the evidence equally as well. And, IMHO, are more plausible (why didn't the Bush Admin. try a similar tactic with Iraqi WMD?).

[Scientologist]

What's next on the menu? :D

Sausage in a blanket?

:D

[Roger_Harris]

Why focus on these far out theories instead?

That much has already been explained: he's a nut. Which also explains why he might have been asked to resign (which you didn't respond to), which also could explain why he's carrying a grudge against the government.

You are the one who invited speculation on this topic, only to reject every guess that makes more sense than the one you're offering. Stupid game; I quit.

[Alt+F4]

“Ongoing searches of birth, death and marriage records suggest many passenger names were fake. Families of crash victims remain oddly silent …”

Reynolds makes this ridiculous claim based on the fact that most victims name don’t appear in the Social Security Death Index. He doesn’t realize that that database only contains the names of deceased persons who were receiving benefits from Social Security.

I think Reynolds is neither nuts or a disinfo guy. He’s just really, really stupid, dumb, moronic. I agree with the poster who said “education doesn’t make you smart”. Going to college and working for the government doesn’t mean a person has any intelligence or common sense.

[Trigood]

Umm, the Reynolds publications mentioned upstream suggest that he was already practiced at the fine art of starting with an ideologically-driven conclusion and then trying to hammer and file the data to fit it.
Exactly.

Anyone who can argue that labor unions are too "powerful" and "privileged," and that the minimum wage hurts workers is, at best, an extreme ideologue, and at worst, a few rakes short of a lawn crew.

Shifting his allegiance from the Cato Institute to the conspiracy circuit doesn't seem all that big a shift to me.

No big mystery there, in my mind.

[Alt+F4]

Anyone who can argue that labor unions are too "powerful" and "privileged," and that the minimum wage hurts workers is, at best, an extreme ideologue, and at worst, a few rakes short of a lawn crew.


I'm in a union and if my boss had his way he'd pay me in kittens.

[T.A.M.]

The best part is this paper was co-written by a neo-nazi with a college education, Rajter. If you think Reynolds is an idiot, you should listen to this guy ramble.

TAM

[Alt+F4]

The best part is this paper was co-written by a neo-nazi with a college education, Rajter. If you think Reynolds is an idiot, you should listen to this guy ramble.

Hey, let's not forget that Joseph Goebbels had a PhD.

[uk_dave]

....a few rakes short of a lawn crew.


I need to remember that one, and use it in polite conversation.

[Pipirr]

I found it very hard to find that paper amusing. As entertaining as CTists can be, bless 'em, this time one could almost hear the glee in Morgan and Rick's voices as they worked out their Roadrunner argument, and it's nauseating. You know, I wasn't there in New York five years ago. I personally don't know any Americans. But I felt 9/11 like a hit to the gut. I remember that. Reading crap like this, I remember it again. Horrible human beings, indeed.

No planes? Goddammit...

[twinstead]

No planes? Goddammit...

We can find some left-handed comfort in the fact that even most CTs think the no planers are idiots...

[Roger_Harris]

We can find some left-handed comfort in the fact that even most CTs think the no planers are idiots...

But that seems to be a fairly recent development. For a long time, there seemed to be tacit approval of anything and everything the "truth movement" could come up with, apparently because it was all considered useful to sucker more gullible and credulous people into the paranoia cult. (Witness LC. I've seen people on CT forums say they don't care if LC is BS, as long as it gets people to "question the OCT.")

[TruthSeeker1234]

I originally thought "no plane" theories were nuts. If someone will explain how Reynolds and Rajter are wrong, I will go back to thinking that. Until then, I am open minded. The evidence is that the plane on the videos doesn't slow down much, if at all. This is troubling. If the plane spent so little energy entering the building, why doesn't it exit?

Are their numbers wrong? Please, nothing would make me more comfy than going back to being a plane-hugger. Please convince me. With logic and reasoning, not insults and ad-hominems.

[Skibum]

If the plane spent so little energy entering the building, why doesn't it exit?


they did exit, though not in one piece. Many pieces of the planes were found that had traveled through the buildings.

[TruthSeeker1234]

they did exit, though not in one piece. Many pieces of the planes were found that had traveled through the buildings.
Well, that would explain it then. The aluminum planes sliced through the steel framed buildings, and came out the other side.

I've seen the video where a "nosecone" or something seems to exit WTC2. Is that what you mean? Or is there more?

[Skibum]

I've seen the video where a "nosecone" or something seems to exit WTC2. Is that what you mean? Or is there more?

A number of parts came out the other side, mostly heavier parts, and unfortunately a few passengers as well IIRC.

[TruthSeeker1234]

A number of parts came out the other side, mostly heavier parts, and unfortunately a few passengers as well IIRC.

This would prove it to me. Passengers. Yes. Passengers exited the building and came out the other side. Hmmmmmm. Ok.

Really?

[Gravy]

Well, that would explain it then. The aluminum planes sliced through the steel framed buildings, and came out the other side.

I've seen the video where a "nosecone" or something seems to exit WTC2. Is that what you mean? Or is there more?You're probebly referring to the engine that wound up three blocks north at Church & Murray Streets. Obviously the nose cone would have been destroyed on impact. Thousands of pieces of plane and its contents were scattered over a wide area. I'm sure you've seen some photographs of these things. What is difficlut to understand? Can an airliner flying at 4-500 knots break a window? Think about it.

This would prove it to me. Passengers. Yes. Passengers exited the building and came out the other side. Hmmmmmm. Ok.

Really?Pieces. Get it? Many of the hundereds of remains found on top of 130 Liberty were less than an inch in size. Larger body parts of passengers and building occupants were strewn everywhere.

Please think before you post crap like this. It is ignorant and undignified.

[Pipirr]

No planes. Dude, seriously. You really need to be convinced about the planes?

We can have different reactions, opinions and questions about 9/11, that much is clear from reading threads like this one. But furrowing our troubled brows and wishing really hard that what happened just wasn't so, that there were no planes; trying to wish 9/11 was completely different to what it really was; this is getting beyond the scope of rational discourse.

[T.A.M.]

This would prove it to me. Passengers. Yes. Passengers exited the building and came out the other side. Hmmmmmm. Ok.

Really?

You what really annoys me about the tone of this post, is it implies that there is some common knowledge about collisions of high speed objects that all humans should know, and that this prohibits parts, including human remains, from exiting the other side of a building that the plane hit. Hence the impression from your tone, is you are smart and we are all dumb for suggesting it.

If you are so smart, and have this knowledge, explain to me why plane parts, even human remains, would not come out on the other side. If there is a part of the plane, made of metal, and what not, that could have been hurled through the building, could it not, in smaller pieces, made it through the other side. Noone said that entire human skeletons passed through did they??

Come on, I want your science proving that parts, including human remains, could not pass through.

While your at it, where is the scientific proof that ONLY PRESET EXPLOSIVES could have caused the collapses of the WTCs. NOTICE I SAID "ONLY".

I am sick of people without any background in an area professing like they are experts in said field.

TAM

[Alt+F4]

If someone will explain how Reynolds and Rajter are wrong, I will go back to thinking that.

I saw the second plane hit the south tower (btw, New Yorkers never called those buildings WTC 1 & 2) with my own eyes, not on television. That's enough proof for me.

[Bell]

I originally thought "no plane" theories were nuts. If someone will explain how Reynolds and Rajter are wrong, I will go back to thinking that. Until then, I am open minded. The evidence is that the plane on the videos doesn't slow down much, if at all. This is troubling. If the plane spent so little energy entering the building, why doesn't it exit?

Are their numbers wrong? Please, nothing would make me more comfy than going back to being a plane-hugger. Please convince me. With logic and reasoning, not insults and ad-hominems.

You are doubting that the planes hit the towers? Based on the fact that they didn't slow down? What would you have expected to see, the tail sticking out the building? The planes bouncing off?

And what about the huge fireballs? The damage? (which looks pretty much like a plane went in) How did that happen?

[slingblade]

So, is this the Cartoon Effect, where people who allow themselves a constant diet of children's animation are unable to see any real-life, real-time incident except in terms of Toon physics?

A big guy hits a brick wall in a panic, and cuts a perfect silhouette of himself out of the bricks, including two or three individual hairs on his head.

A train hits a mountain, and shoves the mountain over twenty or thirty feet.

A jet airplane hits a skyscraper, compacts itself into a manhole cover, and slides down the side of the undamaged building to clatter on the street below.


Yes, that must be what TS1234 thinks he should see. His confusion is evident, yet understandable. And pathetic.

[Brainster]

This would prove it to me. Passengers. Yes. Passengers exited the building and came out the other side. Hmmmmmm. Ok.

Really?

This is so typical. I can't remember who said it (probably Matt Taibbi), but the observation was that I can't throw an icecube through the door of my Oldsmobile, so therefore an iceberg could not possibly have sunk the Titanic.

[TruthSeeker1234]

You what really annoys me about the tone of this post, is it implies that there is some common knowledge about collisions of high speed objects that all humans should know, and that this prohibits parts, including human remains, from exiting the other side of a building that the plane hit. Hence the impression from your tone, is you are smart and we are all dumb for suggesting it.

If you are so smart, and have this knowledge, explain to me why plane parts, even human remains, would not come out on the other side. If there is a part of the plane, made of metal, and what not, that could have been hurled through the building, could it not, in smaller pieces, made it through the other side. Noone said that entire human skeletons passed through did they??

Come on, I want your science proving that parts, including human remains, could not pass through.

While your at it, where is the scientific proof that ONLY PRESET EXPLOSIVES could have caused the collapses of the WTCs. NOTICE I SAID "ONLY".

I am sick of people without any background in an area professing like they are experts in said field.

TAM

You completely misunderstand and have it backwards. Reynolds/Rajter are wondering why the plane did not exit the building, given that it spent so little energy entering the building. They are wondering how the aluminum wing tips can slice through steel and leave a "cartoon cutout" shape. They are wondering why there is no observed damage to the plane at all.

What Reynolds/Rajter/Wood et al are saying is that some of the evidence is inconsistent with how an aircraft would behave striking a twin tower at 500 mph. The videos show the plane entering effortlessly, without much (or any) deceleration. From that the loss of KE can be calculated. They say that from the original 4 billion joules, about 3.8 billion joules would remain. Where does this energy go? If 5% of the energy can get the plane into the building, why can't 95% get it through and out the other side? Why is there no plane wreckage below the impact point?

Yes, there is evidence in support of planes. Videos, eyewitnesses and a few plane parts. And a hijacker passport.

If some of these questions can be answered, I'll go back to thinking there were planes. Until then, color me skeptical. I could argue either side.

[WildCat]

You completely misunderstand and have it backwards. Reynolds/Rajter are wondering why the plane did not exit the building, given that it spent so little energy entering the building. They are wondering how the aluminum wing tips can slice through steel and leave a "cartoon cutout" shape. They are wondering why there is no observed damage to the plane at all.

What Reynolds/Rajter/Wood et al are saying is that some of the evidence is inconsistent with how an aircraft would behave striking a twin tower at 500 mph. The videos show the plane entering effortlessly, without much (or any) deceleration. From that the loss of KE can be calculated. They say that from the original 4 billion joules, about 3.8 billion joules would remain. Where does this energy go? If 5% of the energy can get the plane into the building, why can't 95% get it through and out the other side? Why is there no plane wreckage below the impact point?

Yes, there is evidence in support of planes. Videos, eyewitnesses and a few plane parts. And a hijacker passport.

If some of these questions can be answered, I'll go back to thinking there were planes. Until then, color me skeptical. I could argue either side.
I give up. Ignorance of this depth and breadth cannot be countered.

[TruthSeeker1234]

You're probebly referring to the engine that wound up three blocks north at Church & Murray Streets. Obviously the nose cone would have been destroyed on impact. Thousands of pieces of plane and its contents were scattered over a wide area. I'm sure you've seen some photographs of these things. What is difficlut to understand? Can an airliner flying at 4-500 knots break a window? Think about it.

Pieces. Get it? Many of the hundereds of remains found on top of 130 Liberty were less than an inch in size. Larger body parts of passengers and building occupants were strewn everywhere.

Please think before you post crap like this. It is ignorant and undignified.

I've seen a landing gear, and a piece of fuselage with windows. Perhaps you can link us to pictures of the thousands of plane parts. Did they ever match up serial numbers on any of those parts? No, I wasn't aware that larger body parts of passengers and building occupants were strewn everywhere. Links?

[Crungy]

You completely misunderstand and have it backwards. Reynolds/Rajter are wondering why the plane did not exit the building, given that it spent so little energy entering the building. They are wondering how the aluminum wing tips can slice through steel and leave a "cartoon cutout" shape. They are wondering why there is no observed damage to the plane at all.

What Reynolds/Rajter/Wood et al are saying is that some of the evidence is inconsistent with how an aircraft would behave striking a twin tower at 500 mph. The videos show the plane entering effortlessly, without much (or any) deceleration. From that the loss of KE can be calculated. They say that from the original 4 billion joules, about 3.8 billion joules would remain. Where does this energy go? If 5% of the energy can get the plane into the building, why can't 95% get it through and out the other side? Why is there no plane wreckage below the impact point?

Yes, there is evidence in support of planes. Videos, eyewitnesses and a few plane parts. And a hijacker passport.

If some of these questions can be answered, I'll go back to thinking there were planes. Until then, color me skeptical. I could argue either side.

Hmmm. Would the central building concrete core, which consisted of the elevator, mechanical, electrical, plumbing shafts, not to mention stairwell, have anything to do with it? I'd also venture to guess that the plane(s) came in contact with the floor slabs.

[TruthSeeker1234]

This is so typical. I can't remember who said it (probably Matt Taibbi), but the observation was that I can't throw an icecube through the door of my Oldsmobile, so therefore an iceberg could not possibly have sunk the Titanic.

You're missing the point. WHat the no-planers are saying is that you're trying to have it both ways. You're trying to say the plane is so strong that it cuts cleanly though the perimeter of the tower, wihout slowing down, and without showing any damage to itself at all. Then, it suddenly loses its energy and comes to a stop inside the building. Why would it do that?

[slingblade]

If some of these questions can be answered, I'll go back to thinking there were planes. Until then, color me skeptical. I could argue either side.

You have no idea what "skeptical" means.

You have also phrased your sentence in passive voice. Recast it actively, and go from there.

Finally, you assume anyone really gives a crap if you think or not.

[uk_dave]

They are wondering how the aluminum wing tips can slice through steel and leave a "cartoon cutout" shape. They are wondering why there is no observed damage to the plane at all.





Well if water can cut through steel http://www.iwmwaterjet.com/images/cut_circle.mpg I don't see why aluminium cannot.

And "...there is no observed damage to the plane...." excuse me?

[Crungy]

You're missing the point. WHat the no-planers are saying is that you're trying to have it both ways. You're trying to say the plane is so strong that it cuts cleanly though the perimeter of the tower, wihout slowing down, and without showing any damage to itself at all. Then, it suddenly loses its energy and comes to a stop inside the building. Why would it do that?

Nice assumption! You have absolutely no evidence to support that loopy claim. What internal tower security video are you referring to, that shows the plane inside the tower?!

[uk_dave]

It is a strange world truthseeker is living in.

Maybe he should try to imagine the plane stationary and the building moving towards it at 500mph.

Would the plane still be recognisable?
Would the building sustain damage?

[Alt+F4]

Links?

The reason why the CTs will never get anywhere with their misinformation and lies is because their "research" never goes beyond Google. Why don't they all chip in a dollar, hire one of the less loony ones to come to NYC and do some real legwork.

Here's your first mission: Find and interview the mysterious "fire commander" who had the conversation with Larry Silverstein about WTC 7. Since these CTs rarely leave their parent's basements I'll even give them a hint. Firefighters drive around in big red trucks. Good luck.

[uk_dave]

Firefighters drive around in big red trucks.

So does Postman Pat
You'll have to be more specific than that. :D

[WildCat]

Did they ever match up serial numbers on any of those parts?
Why would they? Was a parts failure the suspected cause of the crash?

[Gravy]

I've seen a landing gear, and a piece of fuselage with windows.Then we're all set.

[CptColumbo]

Well if water can cut through steel http://www.iwmwaterjet.com/images/cut_circle.mpg I don't see why aluminium cannot.

And "...there is no observed damage to the plane...." excuse me?

Especially aluminium filled with liquid. Here's a test for TS take a full soda can and throw it at your car window, then throw an empty one at the unbroken window.

[uk_dave]

So nice of you to use the correct spelling of aluminium too ;)

[CptColumbo]

So nice of you to use the correct spelling of aluminium too ;)

As long as we don't have to pronounce it like you brits.

[Brainster]

Offhand, I would say that he was part of the general cleaning of house that the Bush Administration went through around the first midterm elections. Bush fired just about every economist on his staff after a disasterous downturn in the economy and strong belief by the electorate that his economic policies were, well, insane.

I'm sorry, I can't find any independent support for the above.

1. The "disasterous" downturn in the economy was in fact the mildest recession in postwar history and would have been milder still without the shock of the 9-11 attacks. The downturn was inevitable due to an inverted yield curve and indeed was predicted by Bush and Cheney during the 2000 campaign.

2. If there was a strong belief by the electorate that his economic policies were insane, it was certainly not evident in the first midterm elections, where the Republicans picked up eight seats in the House and two seats in the Senate. It was one of only four midterm elections since 1900 that the party in power in the White House had gained seats in the House.

3. I suspect (but don't know) that Reynolds may have left due to his personal disenchantment with the war.

[Bell]

Especially aluminium filled with liquid. Here's a test for TS take a full soda can and throw it at your car window, then throw an empty one at the unbroken window.

I just tried that. Thank you very much :mad:

[TruthSeeker1234]

And "...there is no observed damage to the plane...." excuse me?

I observe a plane effortlessly entering the side of a building. I observe no twisting, no breaking, no slowing, nothing. No damage.

If you observe damageto the plane as it is entering the building, please point it out to me.

[uk_dave]

I observe a plane effortlessly entering the side of a building. I observe no twisting, no breaking, no slowing, nothing. No damage.

If you observe damageto the plane as it is entering the building, please point it out to me.


You're kidding me, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0RdNrZ6CQ8

[Bell]

I observe a plane effortlessly entering the side of a building. I observe no twisting, no breaking, no slowing, nothing. No damage.

If you observe damageto the plane as it is entering the building, please point it out to me.

What about the flash as UA 175 (and AA 11) hits the tower? (fears TS1234 brings up pods and missiles next)

http://www.scsuscholars.com/ua175impact.jpg

[uk_dave]

And this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmxlMsIpufA

No damage?

[Crungy]

I observe a plane effortlessly entering the side of a building. I observe no twisting, no breaking, no slowing, nothing. No damage.

If you observe damageto the plane as it is entering the building, please point it out to me.

No slowing?! Can you provide data which backs this up, or do you count "one mississippi, two mississippi..."?

No damage?! Yeah, I'm sure the plane landed to a complete halt, and all the passengers (gubmit agents) deboarded, took the lift down and were immediately escorted out of the US where they were summarily executed.

[TruthSeeker1234]

No slowing?! Can you provide data which backs this up, or do you count "one mississippi, two mississippi..."?



The calculations are provided in Reynolds/Rajter, the very subject of this thread. Perhaps you should read it prior to posting on this thread.

[TruthSeeker1234]

And this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmxlMsIpufA

No damage?

Correct. I observe no damage of any kind to the plane which entered WTC2. No twisting. No bending. No breaking. No slowing. I'm going to make a still picture of a frame I find very interesting.

[TjW]

What deformation, where, would your model of an airliner striking a WTC tower wall predict?

[Gravy]

Correct. I observe no damage of any kind to the plane which entered WTC2. No twisting. No bending. No breaking. No slowing. I'm going to make a still picture of a frame I find very interesting.Please explain what you expect to see when watching low-resolution handheld video of a plane that's traveling faster than a .45 ACP bullet, when the entire plane enters the building in a fifth of a second.

[Garb]

Correct. I observe no damage of any kind to the plane which entered WTC2. No twisting. No bending. No breaking. No slowing. I'm going to make a still picture of a frame I find very interesting.

So are you saying you expected it to be damaged PRIOR to hitting the tower?

[Scientologist]

I'm not sure who is more ridiculous..

In one corner, there is this truthseeker fruitcake..

but, then again, we are the ones wasting our time trying to prove that it was an actual plane that hit the WTC?

C'mon.. this is nothing short of retarded.

Next item up for debate with the CTs are whether our retinas have all been replaced with computer chips which enabled us to see the two towers that whole time they were standing but then we deleted that image from the hard drives and we now actually see the truth, that there were no towers or planes, only a figment of our collective conscious imaginations.

:confused:

[Gravy]

I'm not sure who is more ridiculous...I don't know that anyone here is trying to prove that planes hit the buildings. Obviously the burden of proof is on him if he has an alternate hypothesis. I'm trying to understand what makes TS1234 think this way, and to suggest ways for him to think more logically. Honestly, though, I can't tell if this is just a sick game that amuses him. It is very, very hard for me to believe that anyone can be as stupid as he acts.

[uk_dave]

Next item up for debate with the CTs are whether our retinas have all been replaced with computer chips which enabled us to see the two towers that whole time they were standing but then we deleted that image from the hard drives and we now actually see the truth, that there were no towers or planes, only a figment of our collective conscious imaginations.


Yeah but THAT is true! :eek:

[Alt+F4]

It is very, very hard for me to believe that anyone can be as stupid as he acts.

I'm a teacher and this week I learned the following from students:
1. Lincoln owned Chinese slaves.
2. Hitler's inner circle called him Elizabeth.

Oh wait....those kids are only 15.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Please explain what you expect to see when watching low-resolution handheld video of a plane that's traveling faster than a .45 ACP bullet, when the entire plane enters the building in a fifth of a second.

I would expect the fragile nose to crumple as it hit. I would expect the wings to break. I would expect some parts to bounce off and stay outside the building. In short, I would not expect the entire plane to enter the building. Observe the famous video of the military test where they smashed the plane into the concrete wall. 100% of the plane stayed outside the wall. Complete deceleration was observed. In this case, the exact opposite happened. True, the WTC tower was a grid, not a solid surface. I have no problem seeing how the plane would go through the windows. The parts that impacted vertical columns, and especially those parts that impacted floors edge-on, I would think would slow down.

However, if my expectations are wrong, there is still a problem. Assume the plane is strong enough and going fast enough to bust right through the walls and floors, as is appears. How then does it stop inside the building? If it is strong enough to enter so effortlessly, and spend only 5% of KE, then it could easily sail right on through. The plane at WTC2 mostly missed the core, as evidenced by the huge fireball exiting the east face. Why don't plane parts come out?

I've seen no evidence of any plane parts at WTC, except a landing gear under the scaffolding, and a piece of fuselage with windows. And one unburned passport.

[Garb]

I would expect the fragile nose to crumple as it hit. I would expect the wings to break. I would expect some parts to bounce off and stay outside the building. In short, I would not expect the entire plane to enter the building. Observe the famous video of the military test where they smashed the plane into the concrete wall. 100% of the plane stayed outside the wall. Complete deceleration was observed. In this case, the exact opposite happened. True, the WTC tower was a grid, not a solid surface. I have no problem seeing how the plane would go through the windows. The parts that impacted vertical columns, and especially those parts that impacted floors edge-on, I would think would slow down.

However, if my expectations are wrong, there is still a problem. Assume the plane is strong enough and going fast enough to bust right through the walls and floors, as is appears. How then does it stop inside the building? If it is strong enough to enter so effortlessly, and spend only 5% of KE, then it could easily sail right on through. The plane at WTC2 mostly missed the core, as evidenced by the huge fireball exiting the east face. Why don't plane parts come out?

I've seen no evidence of any plane parts at WTC, except a landing gear under the scaffolding, and a piece of fuselage with windows. And one unburned passport.

So in short, you are speculating that what we saw wasn't right because of something that didn't look entirely right to you.

[Gravy]

I'm a teacher and this week I learned the following from students:
1. Lincoln owned Chinese slaves.
2. Hitler's inner circle called him Elizabeth.

Oh wait....those kids are only 15.Also, those things are within the realm of possiblilty. Lincoln could have secretly owned slaves who lived in the South, or in China, for that matter. Hitler's inner circle could have used the code name Elizabeth for him. But there is no rational explanation that takes the "no plane" hypothesis out of wacko woo-woo land.

[WildCat]

I would expect the fragile nose to crumple as it hit. I would expect the wings to break. I would expect some parts to bounce off and stay outside the building. In short, I would not expect the entire plane to enter the building. Observe the famous video of the military test where they smashed the plane into the concrete wall. 100% of the plane stayed outside the wall. Complete deceleration was observed. In this case, the exact opposite happened. True, the WTC tower was a grid, not a solid surface. I have no problem seeing how the plane would go through the windows. The parts that impacted vertical columns, and especially those parts that impacted floors edge-on, I would think would slow down.

However, if my expectations are wrong, there is still a problem. Assume the plane is strong enough and going fast enough to bust right through the walls and floors, as is appears. How then does it stop inside the building? If it is strong enough to enter so effortlessly, and spend only 5% of KE, then it could easily sail right on through. The plane at WTC2 mostly missed the core, as evidenced by the huge fireball exiting the east face. Why don't plane parts come out?

I've seen no evidence of any plane parts at WTC, except a landing gear under the scaffolding, and a piece of fuselage with windows. And one unburned passport.
I am completely baffled as to how you can function in your daily life. :jaw-dropp

[R.Mackey]

The calculations are provided in Reynolds/Rajter, the very subject of this thread. Perhaps you should read it prior to posting on this thread.

TruthSeeker1234, this may seem a bit odd, but hear me out...

If possible, I'd like to see a discussion between yourself and ChildlikeEmpress. The two of you have in common some suspicions about Sept. 11th, but you differ wildly on the validity of the Reynolds-Rajter position. She believes this paper to be so laughably false that it is proof of COINTELPRO (that's Counter Intelligence Program in civilian) activities being undertaken by influential figures in the United States. I think she would be interested to discuss with one, such as yourself, who sees from a different perspective.

And for the record, the plane impact video shows precisely what I expected, as one formally trained in Aeronautics.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Help me understand this.http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/WTC2impact4up.jpg

See how the wings are already inside the building, yet I don't see the big gaping holes as we see in the picture at lower right. Why not? If the wings broke the steel and caused this, why do we not see it in the frames I have provided? Is it just the resolution of the video?

[TruthSeeker1234]

TruthSeeker1234, this may seem a bit odd, but hear me out...

If possible, I'd like to see a discussion between yourself and ChildlikeEmpress. The two of you have in common some suspicions about Sept. 11th, but you differ wildly on the validity of the Reynolds-Rajter position. She believes this paper to be so laughably false that it is proof of COINTELPRO (that's Counter Intelligence Program in civilian) activities being undertaken by influential figures in the United States. I think she would be interested to discuss with one, such as yourself, who sees from a different perspective.

And for the record, the plane impact video shows precisely what I expected, as one formally trained in Aeronautics.

Just explain where Reynolds/Rajter are wrong. I refer to their argument that if entry required only 5% of KE, then the plane would cut all the way through.

[StoneWT]

He's playing a game. He won't commit to anything and is simply trying to appear smarter than the other posters.

[R.Mackey]

Help me understand this.

See how the wings are already inside the building, yet I don't see the big gaping holes as we see in the picture at lower right. Why not?
You must see much more detail than I see.

If the wings broke the steel and caused this, why do we not see it in the frames I have provided? Is it just the resolution of the video?
The resolution is far from great.

Most of the visible damage in the clear, lower right pictures is the facade, and need not indicate damage to columns backing it, although I expect that damage to be considerable.

Remember the wings of a jetliner are built around a huge aluminum beam called the main spar, which is designed to support the aircraft through (typically for passenger planes) up to 4 G's of maneuver, and also handles most of the drag at speeds of up to 0.8 Mach. Yet it's thin-walled and light, meaning it's capable of smacking into an object very hard, but then disintegrates rapidly once its structural integrity is gone.

The wings are also backed by 20,000 pounds of fuel or more in this case (I recall ~5,000 gallons at least in the wing tanks).

So imagine being clocked by a giant aluminum baseball bat, backed by a medium-size swimming pool of flammable liquid moving close to the speed of sound. It's going to leave a mark.

But it's also going to give up its energy quickly. The aluminum aircraft won't stay intact for long, and the rush of liquid will dump nearly all of its energy as it swirls all around the building's internal structure. This is why some of it punched out the other side (as your lower right picture shows), but most of it remains captured in the structure. Pretty simple to understand, really.

[Big Les]

What are you hoping to achieve by showing that what you say is the case, is in fact the case?

[TruthSeeker1234]

You must see much more detail than I see.


The resolution is far from great.

Most of the visible damage in the clear, lower right pictures is the facade, and need not indicate damage to columns backing it, although I expect that damage to be considerable.

Remember the wings of a jetliner are built around a huge aluminum beam called the main spar, which is designed to support the aircraft through (typically for passenger planes) up to 4 G's of maneuver, and also handles most of the drag at speeds of up to 0.8 Mach. Yet it's thin-walled and light, meaning it's capable of smacking into an object very hard, but then disintegrates rapidly once its structural integrity is gone.

The wings are also backed by 20,000 pounds of fuel or more in this case (I recall ~5,000 gallons at least in the wing tanks).

So imagine being clocked by a giant aluminum baseball bat, backed by a medium-size swimming pool of flammable liquid moving close to the speed of sound. It's going to leave a mark.

But it's also going to give up its energy quickly. The aluminum aircraft won't stay intact for long, and the rush of liquid will dump nearly all of its energy as it swirls all around the building's internal structure. This is why some of it punched out the other side (as your lower right picture shows), but most of it remains captured in the structure. Pretty simple to understand, really.

Perhaps there is a better picture of the hole in WTC2. Can anyone find one?

So where exactly do Reynolds/Rajter go wrong?

[Crungy]

The calculations are provided in Reynolds/Rajter, the very subject of this thread. Perhaps you should read it prior to posting on this thread.

Zoiks! Appendix A of that nutbar article is a doozy! If Websters ever need a definition of "junk science" I could think of no better article to qoute then this gem below.

For my own analysis, I decided to use the widely known Scott Myers camera pictures, so I didn't have to worry about compression issues, frame rates, etc. I found the highest resolution version I could get my hands on in order to minimize loss or measurement precision. The 15-picture spread was (allegedly) taken using fixed 0.033 second intervals, features a nearly fixed camera angle, and has a fairly decent contrast on key plane features. Thus, it is perfectly suited for frame-by-frame analysis, one of the best videos in terms of high signal-to-noise ratio.

Words fail.


One of the major oddities of all WTC2 videos is the apparent lack of plane deceleration from many of the observed camera angles. The plane seems to fly in effortlessly, but then comes to a complete stop while inside (apparently violating conservation of momentum and energy). To the layman, these two conservation laws mean we should expect TWO major sources of slowdown when one object penetrates another:

The bolding part of that article reveals to me the author's lack of forensic capabilites. We have no way of determining with 100% accuracy the exact manner in which the plane traveled inside the tower. Portions of the plane, such as the engines, most likely broke apart and took on their own flight trajectory. Why does the author ignores the building steel tube core?

Anyone know exactly what force the curtain wall was designed to withstand? I know that it was designed to withstand the impact of wayward 707 flying at approach speed (roughly 100 mph). What factor of safety was thrown in to achieve this? I know that the curtain wall functioned to hold up the building skin. What percentage of the curtain wall was glass?

[R.Mackey]

Just explain where Reynolds/Rajter are wrong. I refer to their argument that if entry required only 5% of KE, then the plane would cut all the way through.

Even Steven Jones's review team found errors in the paper. Start with those and get back to me if you have further questions.

Regarding the "cut all the way through" remark, it is true (as shown in the ubiquitous Greening (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf), pp. 10-11) that the aircraft had enough kinetic energy to cut all of the columns on a single floor by a considerable margin. However, that assumes a 100% efficient process.

As your picture shows, the aircraft hit multiple floors. It also hit plenty of things other than the columns -- some energy is ablated by the building's exterior, some goes into destroying office furniture and drywall, some is lost compressing the interior of the entire building, some is lost making the entire building sway, and some flies clean through and out the other side. Greening treats this in some detail.

Furthermore, as dictated by the Laws of Thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics#The_laws_of_thermodynamics), we may expect the overall efficiency of this operation to be very low. It happened very quickly and involved an enormous increase in entropy. 100% efficient processes are reversible processes, viz. ones that happen slowly and incrementally. The airliner crashes are the exact opposites.

Again, what happened is precisely what I would expect. And I have seen no incredulity from anyone -- anyone at all -- with experience or training in relevant subjects.

[Gravy]

I would expect the fragile nose to crumple as it hit. I would expect the wings to break. I would expect some parts to bounce off and stay outside the building. In short, I would not expect the entire plane to enter the building.If you are serious, then why do you expect these things? If you think that what happened is unusual, then you must have a reason to expect that something else should have happened. You've told us what you think should have happened. But why do you believe that? What facts and physical laws support your beliefs?

Again, how do you expect to see those details from a low-resolution handheld video, when the entire plane enters the building in a fifth of a second? Please explain how the video could capture the details of such an event. (Note: this will require you to learn some things about video.)

Observe the famous video of the military test where they smashed the plane into the concrete wall. 100% of the plane stayed outside the wall.Duuuuuuude, it was a 12-foot-thick reinforced concrete wall! The whole point of it was to keep the plane outside!

Next, calculate the difference in kinetic energy between the Sandia Labs F-4 and flight 175 traveling at 500 kts. Report back with your results.

Complete deceleration was observed. In this case, the exact opposite happened. True, the WTC tower was a grid, not a solid surface. I have no problem seeing how the plane would go through the windows. The parts that impacted vertical columns, and especially those parts that impacted floors edge-on, I would think would slow down. They did.

However, if my expectations are wrong, there is still a problem. Assume the plane is strong enough and going fast enough to bust right through the walls and floors, as is appears. How then does it stop inside the building? If it is strong enough to enter so effortlessly, and spend only 5% of KE, then it could easily sail right on through.Bolding mine. You keep saying effortlessly. That is completely wrong. The plane breaks into thousands of pieces on entry. It takes work to break an aircraft into thousands of pieces. Get it?

The plane at WTC2 mostly missed the core, as evidenced by the huge fireball exiting the east face.False. The core was only 35 feet from the south wall of the south tower. Flight 175 slammed directly into it.

Why don't plane parts come out?They do. Thousands of them, large and small. Mother of suffering Ed, TruthSeeker1234, I thought you had seen photos and videos of the crash? You don't see the debris being ejected? You don't see the flaming,smoking trails of debris? Are you blind?

If you have these questions, why are you unwilling to do the slightest research to find out the answers? Just read the eyewitness accounts.

I've seen no evidence of any plane parts at WTC, except a landing gear under the scaffolding, and a piece of fuselage with windows. And one unburned passport.Where have you looked? Anyone with five minutes of time and an internet connection can easily find everything you say you're looking for. Why can't you be bothered to look? And why do you always want US to research YOUR idiotic claims?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790454ce9862185f.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790454ce985cf9d1.jpg

[Bell]

Look, other weak items that crashed into stronger stuff. Unpossible!

http://www.weatherstock.com/T29.jpg http://www.weatherstock.com/T27.jpg

http://www.weatherstock.com/T31.jpg http://www.weatherstock.com/T53.jpg

http://www.weatherstock.com/T36.jpg

Source (http://www.weatherstock.com/tornadocat-damage.html)

[T.A.M.]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10761454cf9b1b7340.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2411)

This has better resolution I believe. Although, I think it is the other impact...not sure.

TAM

[firecoins]

Ongoing searches of birth, death and marriage records suggest many passenger names were fake (http://www.wingtv.net/thornarticles/911passengerlist.html).6 Families of air crash victims remain oddly silent (http://arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/37580.htm), suspicious behavior as government lies and evades while dissatisfied families of ground zero victims are outspoken.7 Searches fail to show hull insurance paid on the four jetliners despite the small number of insurers in the industry. Then we have missing airport surveillance video tapes, an incredible string of 19 airport security/screening failures, flights disappearing from conventional radar, missing flight data (fdr) and cockpit voice recorders (cvr), gag orders on FAA flight controllers-military-firefighters-police-airline-employees, physically impossible cell phone calls (http://www.physics911.net/projectachilles.htm)8 with fake dialogue (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1556096.stm)9 ("I see water and buildings. Oh my God! Oh my God!" "Hello, mom. This is your son, Mark Bingham"), not to mention the technical inability of the purported Arabs to pilot the planes as advertised. Nothing checks out in the official account about the alleged flights. Controlled media naturally steer a wide berth from these problems in favor of canonizing the Official Government Conspiracy Theory (OGCT) and ridiculing the Alternative Conspiracy Theory (ACT).


These guys are axxholes.

[Bell]

I find this whole discussion ***** ridicolous. Two security video's at the Pentagon are not enough to convince the nutters a plane crashed there, they want more video's, that show a plane entering the building. On the other hand, dozens of photo's and video's of planes crashing into the WTC are not proof either. What the hell??

When the hell are the nutters satified with the evidence provided to them?

[T.A.M.]

If I told you this world wasnt real, how much would it take to convince you...alot. Probably no amount of convincing would do it. Same for these delusional idiots. In their world, the WTC plane crashes had to be faked, or their world comes crashing down, so no matter what you show them, they will not be convinced.

They make for a great way to divide and conquer their stupid silly movement though.

tAM

[firecoins]

We need truthseeker around to show us the isiocy of the truth movement.

[T.A.M.]

It is so funny. I thought Jone's paper was a pile of silly dung...then this paper comes along, and my god, Jones looks like einstein next to it.

TAM

[cloudshipsrule]

So TS, you're discounting Pudue's study?

http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/2006/060911.Sozen.WTC.html

[stateofgrace]

Correct. I observe no damage of any kind to the plane which entered WTC2. No twisting. No bending. No breaking. No slowing. I'm going to make a still picture of a frame I find very interesting.

Really TS?

I take you observe planes flying into tall buildings at high speed regularly then?

I am just lost at what to write,to summarise the sheer scale of your stupidity.

[Trigood]

I've seen a landing gear, and a piece of fuselage with windows. Perhaps you can link us to pictures of the thousands of plane parts. Did they ever match up serial numbers on any of those parts? No, I wasn't aware that larger body parts of passengers and building occupants were strewn everywhere. Links?
Why do you demand "thousands" of plane parts? Why is that necessary to prove a plane existed? Wouldn't it make sense that much of the plane would get broken up inside the tower, when impacting floors, walls, elevators, electrical system/machinery, stairwells, office furniture, etc.?

For the same reasons, you should not demand "larger body parts of passengers and building occupants." Do you have any idea how much damage all that KE you're so fond of talking about can do? It can atomize things and people.

But for the record, there is at least one account of a witness seeing a body in an airline seat on the plaza between the towers. This witness saw this while exiting the North tower. I am positive that a witness said this in a book I read recently, because one doesn't forget a detail like this. However, I have read so many books lately that I can't be sure which one. It was possibly 102 Minutes, or else Report from Ground Zero. Or it might have been some other book -- sorry, I'm not sure. But I definitely read it.

As for the planes, a gentleman named Stan Praimnath, who worked on the 81st floor of the south tower was glancing out his window and saw an airliner coming straight at the building (and him). He barely escaped with his life. Was holographic imaging equipment placed in his window prior to the event? Note that following impact, he also clearly sees an airplane wing within 20 feet of him. Imaging equipment? Links:

http://stanleypraimnath.com/1.htm

Fifteen minutes later, he is retrieving phone messages when a red-orange flash catches his eye. Outside his window, flames cough black smoke as a result of American Airlines Flight 11 plunging into the WTC north tower next door. Praimnath puts down the phone.
Watching fireballs fall to the ground, Praimnath tries unsuccessfully to call his boss in the north tower.
"Go, go, go," he says to Delise, a temporary worker, the only other person around. "Let’s get out of here."
They rush to the 78th-floor sky lobby to catch an express elevator down and are joined by three top Fuji executives. At ground level they are met by a security guard. "Don’t leave the building," the guard says. "A plane accidentally hit the north tower; you’ll be safer inside because of falling debris."

Praimnath and the executives return to the elevator, but Praimnath, sensing uneasiness in his soul, sends Delise home. The three other men head off to their departments. Praimnath will never see them again.
As Praimnath enters his office, his phone is ringing. A friend from Chicago asks Praimnath if he heard about the north tower being hit. He assures her all is fine.
But all is not fine. It is 9:03 a.m. and United Airlines Flight 175 is staring him in the face.
"Suddenly I see this big gray airplane with red letters on the wing and tail filling my window," Praimnath says. "It’s coming right at me."
Praimnath drops the phone and tucks under his desk in a fetal position as the plane obliterates the wall. The impact is a prolonged, gut-wrenching screech, a hideous, metallic roar. "It sounded like a huge steel cage being ripped apart," Praimnath recalls. Intense smoke and soot punctuate the agonizing explosion.

Then silence.

A flame interrupts the awful blackness, revealing a protruding aircraft wing blocking the exit only 20 feet away. I’m going to die, Praimnath thinks. Yet he cries out to God.
"Lord, help me," he prays, trying to stand. "I can’t do this by myself. I don’t want to die. I want to see my two little girls." Tears spill from squinting eyes as he realizes he is buried shoulder deep in debris. A nail pierces his right hand. Pain sears his body.http://www.ctv.ca/special/sept11/hubs/canadian/ctv_lopes_survivors.html

"I saw this giant airplane," Praimnath says. "I saw it coming towards me at eye-level ... and I'm frozen. I drop the phone and I screamed and I don't know why but I said: 'Lord. I can't do this - you take over!' and I just dove under my desk."The book Before and After: Stories from New York has many eyewitness accounts. Just glancing through it, I found witnesses to both the first and second airline hits. Here's the first:

From a man, Charles Waters, standing on the Plaza before the first tower was struck (p 13 of Before and After):

As he spoke [he was talking to his father on his cellphone], I turned slowly, for no reason, and saw an airplane wing extended out from the bulding above me. An explosion, Then smoke, Then everything was frozen, very still, a perfect New York blue sky above a backdrop of explosions.

"Oh my God, Dad..." I was still on the phone, not realizing what I was saying. "I think ... [rule8], a plane ust hit the building!"Note also, Praimnath's (above) description of the impact of the plane: "It sounded like a huge steel cage being ripped apart." This is more like a crash than an explosion.

Let's imagine there were no "Big Boeings." What does Mssrs. Reynolds and Ratjer imagine caused the damage and how did the sorcerers get all these people to hallucinate that they saw large passenger planes crashing into the towers, sometimes within mere feet of themselves?

I also think that it's funny how there's too much energy, in the opinion of Reynolds et al., for the airplanes to behave as they did, but for most CTers, there's too little energy in the system to allow for the collapse of the towers to happen as they did, so they have to add more explosives into the mix. One wonders if eventually, the CTers will have to pick one story and stick with it.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Why do you demand "thousands" of plane parts? .

Because Gravy said they found thousands of parts.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I also think that it's funny how there's too much energy, in the opinion of Reynolds et al., for the airplanes to behave as they did, but for most CTers, there's too little energy in the system to allow for the collapse of the towers to happen as they did, so they have to add more explosives into the mix. One wonders if eventually, the CTers will have to pick one story and stick with it.

The impact of the planes and the "collapses" of the towers are two different things altogether.

The "story" should be repeatedly changed until it is consistent with all the data. The "official story" has changed many times, for example.

[WildCat]

It is so funny. I thought Jone's paper was a pile of silly dung...then this paper comes along, and my god, Jones looks like einstein next to it.

TAM
It is impossible to overestimate the stupidity of the "truth" movement.

[R.Mackey]

The impact of the planes and the "collapses" of the towers are two different things altogether.

The "story" should be repeatedly changed until it is consistent with all the data. The "official story" has changed many times, for example.
It has, and it is. Although those changes haven't been nearly as sweeping as you might think. Pancake vs. progressive is the only big one I can think of.

C'mon, Alex, this isn't that hard to figure out. You have to actually look for problems, and immediately assume it's more likely for the entire scientific establishment to have made a mistake than yourself, in order to be so consistently wrong as you've proven to be.

[Trigood]

The impact of the planes and the "collapses" of the towers are two different things altogether.
Yes, but both events happened in the same time/space continuum. You see the problem with claiming there is both too much and too little energy?

Any "excess" energy from the plane crashes could be "utilized" in the collapse of the towers, in other words.

The "story" should be repeatedly changed until it is consistent with all the data. The "official story" has changed many times, for example.
Um, I think the no-planers are ignoring quite a bit of data. Thousands of eyewitness accounts, for one thing.

There is no "official story." Who has released an "official story"? You are using the meme of an "official story" to marginalize the views of the vast majority of people who think, talk, and write about 9/11. As James Meigs says in "The Conspiracy Industry":

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4199607.html

Marginalization of Opposing Views

The 9/11 Truth Movement invariably describes the mainstream account of 9/11 as the “government version” or “the official version.” In fact, the generally accepted account of 9/11 is made up of a multitude of sources: thousands of newspaper, TV, and radio reports produced by journalists from all over the world; investigations conducted by independent organizations and institutions, including the American Society of Civil Engineers, Purdue University, Northwestern University, Columbia University, the National Fire Protection Association, and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.; eyewitness testimony from literally thousands of people; recordings and transcripts of phone calls, air traffic control transmissions, and other communications; thousands of photographs; thousands of feet of video footage; and, let’s not forget the words of Osama bin Laden, who discussed the operation in detail on more than one occasion, including in an audio recording released in May 2006 that said: “I am responsible for assigning the roles of the 19 brothers to conduct these conquests . . .”

The mainstream view of 9/11 is, in other words, a vast consensus. By presenting it instead as the product of a small coterie of insiders, conspiracists are able to ignore facts they find inconvenient and demonize people with whom they disagree.
An "official version" only makes sense if we had an agency such as Tass had in the days of the Soviet Union. The man on the street expected that 90% of what came out of Tass was untrue. Today, the man on the street knows that 90% of the common consensus is true. Big difference between your common bloke's attitude toward an "official story" and a consensus. Please don't confuse them.

[Trigood]

Because Gravy said they found thousands of parts.
Forget Gravy, that's not what I asked you. YOU demanded thousands of plane parts. You wrote: "Perhaps you can link us to pictures of the thousands of plane parts." Why did you ask for that, unless you thought that was crucial to the proof of a plane existing?

[Bell]

Seriously, TS1234, do you agree airplanes hit the Trade Towers or not?

[scissorhands]

I am sorry but I really cant understand why this amount of time and energy is being used to counter such an obvious troll.
TS is well aware that planes flew into those buildings, he is also well aware of the consequences of such damage.
He is looking for attention and he is getting it, why keep feeding his psychosis?
Its really not doing him any favours in the long run, he needs help that isnt available on this forum.
:mad:

[Trigood]

Ongoing searches of birth, death and marriage records suggest many passenger names were fake (http://www.wingtv.net/thornarticles/911passengerlist.html).6.... physically impossible cell phone calls (http://www.physics911.net/projectachilles.htm)8 with fake dialogue (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1556096.stm)9 ("I see water and buildings. Oh my God! Oh my God!" "Hello, mom. This is your son, Mark Bingham").... Nothing checks out in the official account about the alleged flights.
These guys are axxholes.
You aren't kidding.

Did these guys (or other CTer) ever read a book by a family member, such as Your Father's Voice by Lyz Glick, the widow of Jeremy Glick, a passenger on Flight 93? Mrs. Glick talked to her husband for 25 minutes, literally up to about 3 minutes before the plane crashed (when he left to go storm the cockpit, she couldn't handle it anymore and handed the phone to her father; the line went silent within about 3 minutes, after much screaming, etc.).

The suggestion that she is lying about talking to her husband, and wouldn't recognize the difference between her husband and some actor using "voice morphing" technology, is obscene. It's disgusting, putrid, revolting, repulsive, sickening, filthy, horrible, nauseating, repellent, gross, hideous, foul, vile, abhorrent, stomache-turning, abominable, appalling, God-awful, horrid, loathsome, rotten, repugnant, sleazy, atrocious, base, contemptible, detestable, deplorable, execrable, mean, nasty, terrible, odious, offensive, obnoxious, lousy, and reprehensible.

It is despicable (accent on the first syllable).

It is the most heinous lie I think I have ever heard.

It is a damnable lie.

It is, at base, cruel.

I appeal to you in the so-called "Truth Movement" (never trust a movement which claims truth a priori): Do you really want to tell your children or your spouse that you would not recognize their voice if they called you from an emergency, life-threatening situation? That is what you are telling them everyday you continue to support these sorts of theories.

Shame on you. Shame.

[Alt+F4]

When the hell are the nutters satified with the evidence provided to them?

Oh it can get even worse. I corrected someone on another message board who said 9/11/01 was a Saturday. I said, "no, it was a Tuesday." His reply was that he set his computer clock back to 9/11/01 and it said Saturday. Therefore he is right and I'm wrong.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Yes, but both events happened in the same time/space continuum. You see the problem with claiming there is both too much and too little energy?

Any "excess" energy from the plane crashes could be "utilized" in the collapse of the towers, in other words.



Mackey, or someone, straighten Trigood out here. Don't worry Trigood, you don't have to give up the official story to admit your error here.

We are discussing two different energy sources. The Kinetic energy of the jet crash comes from the jet fuel burning, thrusting the mass of the plane forward. After the crash, when the parts have stopping moving, that energy is spent.

The "collapse" is blamed on gravitational energy, turned into kinetic energy when the mass is allowed to fall. This energy is spent when things stop falling and breaking.

I'm not aware of any way to store the unspent energy of the plane crash in order to apply it to the "collapse".

[T.A.M.]

I am sorry but I really cant understand why this amount of time and energy is being used to counter such an obvious troll.
TS is well aware that planes flew into those buildings, he is also well aware of the consequences of such damage.
He is looking for attention and he is getting it, why keep feeding his psychosis?
Its really not doing him any favours in the long run, he needs help that isnt available on this forum.
:mad:

Yes, TS is the perfect example of a CTer. They have no uniform theory on what happened on 9/11, and really, what happened is secondary. They live to promote opposing theories (Planes, no planes) merely to try and show us, some how, that if there are so many inconsistencies, than the official account must be wrong. TS could care less if there were or were not planes, the fact that two theories on such a thing could exist, is enough for him to play devils advocate on both, playing them both up, each when convenient.

remember that moron of a cousin you had when you were younger who would pick at the lint on the couch simply because it was there, and he had nothing better to do...

truely pathetic, but none the less true...

TAM

[Gravy]

Mackey, or someone, straighten Trigood out here. Don't worry Trigood, you don't have to give up the official story to admit your error here.

We are discussing two different energy sources. The Kinetic energy of the jet crash comes from the jet fuel burning, thrusting the mass of the plane forward. After the crash, when the parts have stopping moving, that energy is spent.

The "collapse" is blamed on gravitational energy, turned into kinetic energy when the mass is allowed to fall. This energy is spent when things stop falling and breaking.

I'm not aware of any way to store the unspent energy of the plane crash in order to apply it to the "collapse".Well, at least you agree that real planes hit the towers. Then why all the questions? Just having fun with tragedy?

[T.A.M.]

Well, at least you agree that real planes hit the towers. Then why all the questions? Just having fun with tragedy?

Please see my post above yours for my take on his reasons.

TAM

[scissorhands]

TS
You are very sick individual, in more ways than one.
I can put you in touch with organisations that can help you.
PM me and Ill give you some leads.
I care, even if others may mock.

[Bell]

Oh it can get even worse. I corrected someone on another message board who said 9/11/01 was a Saturday. I said, "no, it was a Tuesday." His reply was that he set his computer clock back to 9/11/01 and it said Saturday. Therefore he is right and I'm wrong.

:hb:

Really, you should push his buttons. Say it really happened on a tuesday, but you may have the year wrong. Ask him if he can find out what year 9/11 fell on a teusday ;)

[TruthSeeker1234]

Well, at least you agree that real planes hit the towers. Then why all the questions? Just having fun with tragedy?

Not so fast. The issue of KE came up, as Reynolds/Rajter contend that if a real plane hit the south tower and entered so effortlessly, then it would have more than enough KE to exit the building. Trigood was trying to contend that the excess KE could be stored somehow and applied to the "collapse". I was giving the more scientifically knowledgeable members an opportunity to clear that one point up.

Now, I personally am conflicted on planes. I greatly respect Steve Jones and Jim Hoffman, who dismiss no-plane theories. I greatly respect Judy Wood, Reynolds and Rajter. They have raised scientific questions that I would like answered.

You have provided some answers and I appreciate and acknowledge them. You say that many plane parts did exit the building, that KE is accounted for.

[R.Mackey]

We are discussing two different energy sources. The Kinetic energy of the jet crash comes from the jet fuel burning, thrusting the mass of the plane forward. After the crash, when the parts have stopping moving, that energy is spent.

The "collapse" is blamed on gravitational energy, turned into kinetic energy when the mass is allowed to fall. This energy is spent when things stop falling and breaking.

I'm not aware of any way to store the unspent energy of the plane crash in order to apply it to the "collapse".
Actually, there is. The end-state is, of course, destruction of the building and the aircraft. Energy from the two distinct phases, namely impact and collapse, can both work towards the end-state.

The building was damaged on impact, and that damage lessened the amount of energy needed to level it later. No "storage" is necessary.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Yes, TS is the perfect example of a CTer. They have no uniform theory on what happened on 9/11, and really, what happened is secondary. They live to promote opposing theories (Planes, no planes) merely to try and show us, some how, that if there are so many inconsistencies, than the official account must be wrong. TS could care less if there were or were not planes, the fact that two theories on such a thing could exist, is enough for him to play devils advocate on both, playing them both up, each when convenient.

remember that moron of a cousin you had when you were younger who would pick at the lint on the couch simply because it was there, and he had nothing better to do...

truely pathetic, but none the less true...

TAM


No, that ain't it. I (and millions) have become convinced that 9/11 was an inside job. I have kids. I think my children will grow up in a better world if the perpetrators are brought to justice.

[stateofgrace]

Mackey, or someone, straighten Trigood out here. Don't worry Trigood, you don't have to give up the official story to admit your error here.

Bla Bla Bla.....................



TS you do realise you are in need of help don't you?

You do realise that mocking this event is highly offensive don't you?

TS I say this in the most non aggressive manner I possibly can. It is not cool or trendy to be the rebel anymore. The one that simply spews out garbage stands back and waits for the outrage. This kind of joke as long gone. It is old, tried and tested.

Now TS, these are the very simple facts. Two hijacked planes full of innocent people hit WTC 1 and 2.

It is that simple.

There is no need to mock this event any further, there is no need to come here and act the intellectual giant. There is no need to pretend your worthless live is worth something.

Please TS, grow up, seek help and stop.

[Gravy]

Not so fast. 'Kay. (Gravy walks quickly away while making international "cuckoo" gesture.)

[R.Mackey]

Now, I personally am conflicted on planes. I greatly respect Steve Jones and Jim Hoffman, who dismiss no-plane theories. I greatly respect Judy Wood, Reynolds and Rajter. They have raised scientific questions that I would like answered.

You have provided some answers and I appreciate and acknowledge them. You say that many plane parts did exit the building, that KE is accounted for.
I answered the kinetic energy balance question on the previous page. You're also welcome to find any of the numerous reports of aircraft debris that were found in the streets surrounding the World Trade Center, or the sorting process at Fresh Kills. This has all been presented to you numerous times.

If the only people you're listening to are Jones / Hoffman and Wood / Reynolds / Ratjer, you're never going to get the whole story. You may as well ask Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Dole to discuss stock-car racing. Others have given you eyewitness accounts that should make the "plane / no-plane" question instantly moot.

[Alt+F4]

TS, in a previous post you ask, “Just explain where Reynolds/Rajter are wrong.” Trigood and others pointed out that the Reynolds/Rajter paper is extremely disrespectful to the victims and states that the family members are “in on it”. Yeah, that’s WRONG.

In addition, Reynolds/Rajter states:
1. Flights AA11 and AA77 were not scheduled that day. – WRONG
2. Gag orders were issued to everyone from the FAA to the FDNY. – WRONG
3. Virtually everyone’s view of the towers was blocked. – WRONG
4. Eyewitness (including myself) lied when they said they saw the 2nd plane hit. – WRONG
5. Government and media never produced credible passenger manifests for the flights. – WRONG

And that’s only the WRONGs I picked up after a quick read.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Actually, there is. The end-state is, of course, destruction of the building and the aircraft. Energy from the two distinct phases, namely impact and collapse, can both work towards the end-state.

The building was damaged on impact, and that damage lessened the amount of energy needed to level it later. No "storage" is necessary.



Mackey, Trigood said :

Any "excess" energy from the plane crashes could be "utilized" in the collapse of the towers, in other words.

[Alt+F4]

I (and millions) have become convinced that 9/11 was an inside job.

Fine, but saying 9/11 was "an inside job" is way too vague. Where's the coherent, logical timeline of events? Was this "inside job" pulled off by the Bush administration, the Israelis, the Illumaniti in their their secret plan to rule the world?

Was the 9/11 attacks caused by passenger jets, bombs, pods, missles, holograms, aliens, pro-Castro Cubans, anti-Castro Cubans or Princess Di's limo driver (who of course isn't really dead)?

If you're gonna tell your kids that 9/11 was "an inside job" and leave it at that then you should also tell them babies come from the cabbage patch and leave it at that as well.

[stateofgrace]

I think my children will grow up in a better world if the perpetrators are brought to justice.

Really?

Of course these perpetrators could not possibly be Islamic fundamentalists could they?

I would like my children brought up in a world free from the garbage you conspirators pump out. A world were people actually recognise and acknowledge cultural differences and rather than dismiss it, acknowledge it, understand it and address it.

Something your children, given your approach,will never do.

[TruthSeeker1234]

TS, in a previous post you ask, “Just explain where Reynolds/Rajter are wrong.” Trigood and others pointed out that the Reynolds/Rajter paper is extremely disrespectful to the victims and states that the family members are “in on it”. Yeah, that’s WRONG.

In addition, Reynolds/Rajter states:
1. Flights AA11 and AA77 were not scheduled that day. – WRONG
2. Gag orders were issued to everyone from the FAA to the FDNY. – WRONG
3. Virtually everyone’s view of the towers was blocked. – WRONG
4. Eyewitness (including myself) lied when they said they saw the 2nd plane hit. – WRONG
5. Government and media never produced credible passenger manifests for the flights. – WRONG

And that’s only the WRONGs I picked up after a quick read.






I was referring to their scientific argument involving KE and deceleration. Where is that wrong?

[twinstead]

I was referring to their scientific argument involving KE and deceleration. Where is that wrong?

The problem is their "scientific argument" is moot. It is so obvious that planes did indeed hit the building that trying to prove it was otherwise the way they are doing it is simply some sick intellectual exorcise. It is totally meaningless and a total waste of everybody’s time.

It's almost akin to someone trying to scientifically prove the sky cannot be blue.

[Trigood]

Mackey, or someone, straighten Trigood out here. Don't worry Trigood, you don't have to give up the official story to admit your error here.
Don't worry, Truthseeker: I have no problem admitting I may be in error, and seeking out the real deal. I don't subscribe to any "story;" I just use my mind and the things I've learned over the years to reason things out.

I admit that what I said may not technically be accurate, exactly as stated.

I'll grant that you're probably correct in stating that the energy of impact itself could not be "stored" as energy and used in the collapse.

In one sense, I admit that what I said was in error; in another sense, however, I was stating the larger scientific truth that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, as posited in The First Law of Thermodynamics (http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/wcee/keep/Mod1/Rules/ThermoLaws.htm).

We are discussing two different energy sources. The Kinetic energy of the jet crash comes from the jet fuel burning, thrusting the mass of the plane forward. After the crash, when the parts have stopping moving, that energy is spent.
There are more two sources of energy in this system. In addition to the KE, there is also the potential energy of the plane and its contents, which would equal:

~450,000 lbs x 1000 ft (rough est. for NT impact) = 450,000,000 ft-lbs
= 600 x 10^6 joules
= about 1/7th of the estimated KE = 4 x 10^9 joules

There's also the jet fuel. The jet fuel contains (http://www.asse.org/prac_spec_analysis_wtc.pdf) ~650 times as much energy (2.6 x 10^12 joules) as was present in the KE of impact (~4 x 10^9 joules). (Numbers in red are exponents; can't figure out how to make 'em superscript.)

By the way, I would highly recommend reading the link above; here, I'll give the link by itself:
http://www.asse.org/prac_spec_analysis_wtc.pdf
It seems very intuitive but also rigorous, so I'm going to look at it thoroughly myself.

The "collapse" is blamed on gravitational energy, turned into kinetic energy when the mass is allowed to fall. This energy is spent when things stop falling and breaking.
The gravitational potential energy can only operate when the forces holding up the building are not sufficient to continue doing so. That happened in this case, because of structural damage from the impact, as well as structural weakening from fires fueled by the 2.6 x 10^12 joules of jet fuel (OK, some burned off outside the building or spilled downstairs, but the great majority stayed in the impact zone, I believe the best science shows), as well as fireproofing getting knocked off by the impact.

I was wrong about the KE translating directly from lateral KE of impact into KE of collapse; however, I was right about the fact that energy is conserved in the larger system, and the work done by the KE (in damage to both structure and fireproofing) aided in the collapse.

There is also energy delivered by the plane in the form of its PE, which directly added to the potential energy of the collapse, as well as the jet fuel delivered by the plane, which clearly aided the collapse by the fires it fueled, which induced structural failure in the steel members.

I'm not aware of any way to store the unspent energy of the plane crash in order to apply it to the "collapse".
Not qua energy. Touche'.

However, are you ready to acknowledge that the entire Reynolds/Ratjer facade is built on a faulty premise, namely, that the KE of the plane at the moment of impact should equal the KE of the plane following its breakup by concrete/steel floors, steel beams, steel trusses, gypsum walls, heavy machinery, heavy furniture, computers, and other objects found within the building?

The KE of impact would be equal to the heat added minus the work done by the system (in this case, the airplane), once again the First Law of Thermodynamics (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/firlaw.html):

(Delta) U = energy added to system = KE(impact) = Q - W

(where Q = heat and W = work)

Since a great deal of KE clearly disappeared into the building (as we can see with our own eyes), and the impact itself probably added but little heat to the building (comparatively speaking; the jet fuel obviously added heat thru fires, but the impact itself added only a fraction of that heat), then a great deal of "work" was done on the building by the KE of impact. That "work" was damage to beams, fireproofing, etc., all of which contributed to the eventual collapse.

Can you not see the absolute logical absurdity of statements such as the following by Reynolds in this paper (http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=exploding_the_airliner_crash_myth):

If the plane cannot get through the second half of the building, how could it have gotten through the first half so easily? What KE advocates are saying is, "Four billion joules got the plane through the first three-quarters of the building easily, but 3.8 billion joules could not get it 'no how' through the last quarter of the building." This is ridiculous. KE advocates believe the plane had invincible energy one moment, dropped off by a mere 8 percent and totally fell apart, to never be seen again. This is an impossible theory.#1, the plane did not, as Gravy says, get thru the first half of the building "so easily." It was work, "hard work," as George Bush likes to say. It impacted floors, walls, steel beams, windows, heavy equipment/furniture, elevators, etc., and in the process no doubt broke up into many smaller pieces. That said, some of those pieces did come out the other end of the building, as can be clearly seen in many videos of the ST impact.

#2, the statement that the KE "dropped off by a mere 8%" is fallacious, as well. It is based on a (probably specious, but let's grant valid, for the sake of argument) calculation of the apparent visible deceleration of the plane on impact. This calculation, however, would not be the total loss of KE on impact. The loss of KE on initial impact with the outer beams of the structure would be minor compared to the loss of KE as the plane delved further into the structure and impacted the aforementioned floors, walls, steel beams, windows, heavy equipment/furniture, elevators, etc., inside the building. Reynolds completely ignores those impacts. How is that scientific, or even logical?

No, TS, this paper deserved to be rejected, even by the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

[Trigood]

I was referring to their scientific argument involving KE and deceleration. Where is that wrong?
Please see my immediately above post.

[LashL]

I am sorry but I really cant understand why this amount of time and energy is being used to counter such an obvious troll.
TS is well aware that planes flew into those buildings, he is also well aware of the consequences of such damage.
He is looking for attention and he is getting it, why keep feeding his psychosis?
Its really not doing him any favours in the long run, he needs help that isnt available on this forum.
:mad:

You're quite right. He's a lunatic and an attention whore, as well as a ...



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11103454d67736423f.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2414)

[Gravy]

By the way, I would highly recommend reading the link above; here, I'll give the link by itself:
http://www.asse.org/prac_spec_analysis_wtc.pdf
It seems very intuitive but also rigorous, so I'm going to look at it thoroughly myself.Trigood, there are some faulty assumptions in that paper. The weight of the aircraft is far overstated: 450,000 lbs is the max. takeoff weight. The actual weights were about 280,000 lbs, according to NIST (I'm rounding off these numbers). The fuel loads, at about 9,000 gallons, were less than half the maximum. The impact speed on the north tower is about the same as stated at 440 mph, but much higher on the south tower, at over 550 mph.

There is no indication that the steel in the standing towers melted, as the paper states. The steel, especially in the lightweight floor trusses, only had to weaken, not melt, to precipitate the collapses.

[TruthSeeker1234]

What brought the buildings down?
• Impact was clearly not the cause...no analysis needed.
• Did the fuel melt/or weaken the structural metal?
–Adiabatic flame temperature of Kerosene = 1727C–Melting temperature of steel = 1570C
–Clearly, at the flame front the Kerosene can melt the steel–Flames billowed out the windows...the tower uses a
structural steel skin...the flame was licking that skin, so the steel melted.
–Even if T was half the flame temp, the metal would creep rapidly, kink a column and buckling failure occurs.


Thomas J. Mackin
Department of Mechanical Engineering
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Copyright © 2001, Thomas J. MackinI think that the reason so many engineers lied about kerosene melting steel is that, in the beginning, a lot of witnesses were reporting "molten metal" and "molten steel" and "molten steel dripping off the ends of beams" and so on. They had to come up with an explanation fast.

It was the truth movement that began pointing out that this is impossible, which led to the abandonment of the "fire melts steel" theory.

Look at the diagrams in this paper. They perfectly match what so many JREF's imagine. The top part of the building falls down on the intact lower structure, which acts like a sledgehammer and powers down through the lower floors. The problem, of course, is that this bears no resemblance to observation.

[TruthSeeker1234]

There is no indication that the steel in the standing towers melted . . .

Sure there is. That would be the yellow-to-white hot molten metal pouring out of the south tower before it "collapsed".

[Gravy]

Sure there is. That would be the yellow-to-white hot molten metal pouring out of the south tower before it "collapsed".Oh, so steel melted, but aluminum, which melts at half the temperature, didn't? What a maroon.

[uk_dave]

Truthseeker,

No person with any knowledge of construction would have assumed the steelwork would have reached melting point before failure.

Rather they would know that the steel would have failed before reaching melting point.

This is not some obscure scientific fact that only came to light after 9/11. The towers themselves, built in the early 70's, had fireprotection applied to the structural steelwork. Why is this protection provided if not to extend the integrity of the structure in the event of a fire.

The same is true for virtually all steel structures built around the world, because the dangers of steel failure during fire are well known and understood, and they have nothing to do with 'melting'.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Truthseeker,

No person with any knowledge of construction would have assumed the steelwork would have reached melting point before failure.

Rather they would know that the steel would have failed before reaching melting point.

This is not some obscure scientific fact that only came to light after 9/11. The towers themselves, built in the early 70's, had fireprotection applied to the structural steelwork. Why is this protection provided if not to extend the integrity of the structure in the event of a fire.

The same is true for virtually all steel structures built around the world, because the dangers of steel failure during fire are well known and understood, and they have nothing to do with 'melting'.

Correct. That is how we know that the kindly professor Mackin was lying, not mistaken.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Oh, so steel melted, but aluminum, which melts at half the temperature, didn't? What a maroon.

I never said that. The problem is, how do you get material up to white (or even yellow) temperatures in an office fire? Mackin, Wise, and several others say kerosene does it. We don't believe them, but it is clear why so many of these guys had to come out and try to pitch the idea. The reason is that we observe molten metal before and after the "collapses".

Forget melted for a moment, what about the evaporated steel reported by Barnett? Or is that one flushed down the memory hole?

[tsig]

This would prove it to me. Passengers. Yes. Passengers exited the building and came out the other side. Hmmmmmm. Ok.

Really?

Everybody here is just really salivating to prove it to you.

Prove what? That reality exists!

[tsig]

I give up. Ignorance of this depth and breadth cannot be countered.

Ignorance is unlimeted.

[Gravy]

I never said that. The problem is, how do you get material up to white (or even yellow) temperatures in an office fire? Mackin, Wise, and several others say kerosene does it. We don't believe them, but it is clear why so many of these guys had to come out and try to pitch the idea. The reason is that we observe molten metal before and after the "collapses".

Forget melted for a moment, what about the evaporated steel reported by Barnett? Or is that one flushed down the memory hole?All been dealt with here before, TS. You know that, and you know it doesn't support your theories. Use the search function.

Now, care to explain how fires as intense as those in the towers, on the floors where the collapses initiated, fit into any demolition scenario? Think about the WTC 2 corner photo I just posted in Christophera's thread. It was burning that hot from the moment the plane hit. Just a coincidence that the collapse started where the exterior columns were bowing in on both towers, on the floors that were on fire? Can you describe the history of controlled demolitions of buildings that were burning furiously?

[T.A.M.]

No, that ain't it. I (and millions) have become convinced that 9/11 was an inside job. I have kids. I think my children will grow up in a better world if the perpetrators are brought to justice.

Great. So put on your army gear, and head for the mountains of Afghanistan/Pakistan. let me know when you have OBL in custody...

TAM:D

[TruthSeeker1234]

Great. So put on your army gear, and head for the mountains of Afghanistan/Pakistan. let me know when you have OBL in custody...

TAM:D

Sorry, OBL is not wanted for 9/11, because there is no hard evidence. Ask the FBI.

[WildCat]

Sorry, OBL is not wanted for 9/11, because there is no hard evidence. Ask the FBI.
So why hasn't someone in the FBI blown the whistle on that fact? Can you find a single person in the FBI who will state that "there is no evidence" of OBL's involvement in 9/11? Bet you can't!

[WildCat]

Sorry, OBL is not wanted for 9/11, because there is no hard evidence. Ask the FBI.
More proof (http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/fugitives.htm) that you're full of [rule 8]:


The alleged terrorists on this list have been indicted by sitting Federal Grand Juries in various jurisdictions in the United States for the crimes reflected on their wanted posters. Evidence was gathered and presented to the Grand Juries, which led to their being charged. The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice. Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.


How does it feel to be so consistently wrong?

[Crungy]

Here's an interesting article that relates to the issues discussed in this thread.

http://www.slate.com/id/2140188/

The case of the rare Ferrari Enzo sports car that crashed and split in two on the Pacific Coast Highway moved into the courts on Monday. Prosecutors charged the man who seems to have been at the wheel with embezzlement, grand theft, drunk driving, and weapons possession. According to the Los Angeles County sheriff's office, the car was traveling at 162 mph at the time of the accident. How do investigators figure out the speed of an auto collision?
They look at where the car and all its pieces end up. (Bits of the Ferrari were scattered over 1,200 feet of highway.) If investigators can figure out the direction and distance each piece traveled from the site of the impact, they can infer the speed at which the car was going when it crashed.
In order to perform this kind of analysis, you first need to figure out where exactly the impact occurred. Marks and debris on the highway—like gouged pavement, broken glass, or oil stains—can give you a good idea of where the accident began and what happened to the car in its aftermath. Then, you need to find out the "coefficient of friction" of the surface on which the accident took place. This tells you how quickly a car (or a piece of car) would skid to a stop on that surface—whether it's pavement, dirt, or grass.
Given these data, you can figure out the velocity of the car as it came out of the collision—which can then help you to figure out its velocity going in. In general, you know that both momentum and energy will be conserved over the course of the accident. For example, the momentum of the speeding Ferrari before the crash would translate into a momentum for each of its two halves, and for the utility pole that it crashed into (and knocked upside down). The same goes for energy: If you know the amount of energy it takes to snap a utility pole in two, or the amount it takes to break a Ferrari in half, you can work backward to figure out how much energy the Ferrari must have had just before the impact.
You can also figure out how fast a car was going by looking at how much of it got crushed on impact. Manufacturers and insurance companies run tests to see what happens to a car when it hits a barrier at various speeds. This gives crash investigators a frame of reference for evaluating crush damage at the scene of an accident.
Most cars now have something like a black box that records its speed during the few seconds before an accident. (The "event data recorder" uses this information to deploy airbags when necessary.) Some manufacturers, like GM and Ford, make it easy for investigators to download the information from these boxes after an accident. Foreign car manufacturers are more likely to keep the event data to themselves. But you can't just go with the number from the recorder, since some of them only keep track of the car's speed along its length, as opposed to its speed going sideways. Collision analysts generally look at the momentum, energy, and crush damage, and then compare their speed estimates to the number coming out of the black box.

[chipmunk stew]

I originally thought "no plane" theories were nuts. If someone will explain how Reynolds and Rajter are wrong, I will go back to thinking that. Until then, I am open minded. The evidence is that the plane on the videos doesn't slow down much, if at all. This is troubling. If the plane spent so little energy entering the building, why doesn't it exit?

Are their numbers wrong? Please, nothing would make me more comfy than going back to being a plane-hugger. Please convince me. With logic and reasoning, not insults and ad-hominems.
Their numbers show exactly what one should expect--immeasurable deceleration of the tail of the plane even as the nose decelerates rapidly.

Remember that video I showed you?

As soon as the impact begins, the front of the plane decelerates rapidly, but the violence of it decouples it from the rear of the plane, which has not yet measurably experienced the impact.

All but the smallest fraction of the deceleration of the tail happens not from compression against the front portions of the plane, but from impacting stationary objects (i.e., the building).

The animations here ( http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/ ) give a good insight into the dynamics involved.

[einsteen]

Reynolds talks about a plane that does not decelerate but I think that is not really relevant, I'm no plane/crash specialist but if you look at the plane hitting the absorbing wall it doesn't look like the plane that is still intact loses speed at all, the opposite case in which it flies through a piece of paper also doesn't lead to a decrease in speed. For a general wall or structure then you cannot conclude that it should decelerate imo. For low speed this will be different I think. It's too easy to conclude that it should be fly out the other side completely (a part does you can see from the videos) and once it explodes other forces are involved, at that moment all parts go in all directories and will be absorbed easily by the building, there will however be a component that goes straight through.

[chipmunk stew]

Help me understand this.http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/WTC2impact4up.jpg

See how the wings are already inside the building, yet I don't see the big gaping holes as we see in the picture at lower right. Why not? If the wings broke the steel and caused this, why do we not see it in the frames I have provided? Is it just the resolution of the video?
Yes.

[chipmunk stew]

Actually, there is. The end-state is, of course, destruction of the building and the aircraft. Energy from the two distinct phases, namely impact and collapse, can both work towards the end-state.

The building was damaged on impact, and that damage lessened the amount of energy needed to level it later. No "storage" is necessary.
The impacts also triggered the unleashing of stored heat energy within the available fuels in the buildings.

[T.A.M.]

More proof (http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/fugitives.htm) that you're full of [rule 8]:


How does it feel to be so consistently wrong?


Wildcat:

Thanks for posting that. I posted it 2 days ago, but I guess he didnt see it (go figure).

TAM

[Garb]

Wildcat:

Thanks for posting that. I posted it 2 days ago, but I guess he didnt see it (go figure).

TAM

Bet you any money he still hasn't "seen" it.

[einsteen]

Got these in my bookmarks, I've never read it seriously

http://thewebfairy.com/911/2hit/ghostplane.htm
http://www.gallerize.com/9-11_Hole_Science.htm

and just found this

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/prod/dialspace/town/pipexdsl/q/aqrf00/ggua175/

The only thing that I remember was that Inplane site, they analyzed those flashes at impact from 4 angles and I remember there was something with an anomaly under the plane.

Even Dr. Greening has raised questions to NIST about the flashes...

[Mancman]

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/175speed.html

Dunno if anyone has posted this in the thread so far, but here it is anyway. 18% deceleration as Flight 175 entered WTC2.

[Gravy]

The only thing that I remember was that Inplane site, they analyzed those flashes at impact from 4 angles and I remember there was something with an anomaly under the plane.

Even Dr. Greening has raised questions to NIST about the flashes...Dave von Kliest thinks flight 175 fired a missile as it struck the south tower. Frank Greening does not think that. Do you? Why did you bring it up?