Debunk Alert: New Ryan/Jones Article in Peer Reviewed Journal

[Newtons Bit]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Nicely challenged. Although I need to point out that as phrased, there are actually two errors in the calculation -- the first is arithmetic in nature. The second is the more fundamental error in reasoning, which Newtons Bit is trying to lead our interpid newcomer into seeing. Depending on the depth of confusion, one might be led to make the arithmetic error, so it might be deliberate or it could be an accident.

Arithmetic hard. I suppose that's what happens when I write something like that in about 9 minutes while scarfing down my lunch.

The second energy calculation should be 1/2 M2 * V2^2. That is not the error that I was talking about.

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

Arithmetic hard. I suppose that's what happens when I write something like that in about 9 minutes while scarfing down my lunch.

The second energy calculation should be 1/2 M2 * V2^2. That is not the error that I was talking about.

Yup, that's the one. Has no bearing on the point of the post, which is well stated, and sure to be ignored by those who think they know everything.

[Magenta]

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

I, too, investigated 9/11 issue when I discovered that questions were raised. [...]

In the end, it's not enough to note that questions are being raised. Those questions and the context behind then have to be evaluated every bit as skeptically as the NIST, FEMA, 9/11 Commision, and other "official" claims. If they're not, then simply going from belief in the "Official Story" to belief in the alternate narrative isn't really an indication of enlightenment. It's merely a sign of bending with the wind.

Excellent post, ElMondo and nominated for TLA.

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh! Thank you.

ETA: Oh! And Dave Rodgers too. Twice in the same thread. I'm humbled. Thanks guys.

[Toke]

Something is badly wrong here.

One car run into another, and due to conservation of momentum the now doubled mass continue at half the speed.
And half the kinectic energi have disappered ½*2000*5`2 = 25Kj

4/5 of the original energi gone into bumpers mean that energi have suddenly appeared out of thin air.

It have been too long since i had physics, will read up on it.

[sdemetri]

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

You mistake my intentions. You don't claim to be an expert on this stuff. I'm not trying to expose you or trap you as someone who isn't an expert.

I'm trying to get you to learn. You might even say that I'm trying to get you to work out the truth for yourself. The problem I posted shares the same fundamental problem that Gordon Ross's paper does. See if you can figure it out (this problem is much more visible in my car example). Try thinking it through, you'll not be ridiculed for trying. You won't be ridiculed for guessing wrong as you don't proclaim to be an expert. You will be labeled, accurately, an intellectual coward for not even attempting a guess.

Take a stab at it. What's wrong with the car problem? What SEEMS wrong? Try working at it through the basis that there weren't any explosives and that the energy balance is wrong.

Thanks, Newton. I like your quote, btw, at the bottom of your posts. I think there is a danger in assuming the "calculations" are the final word of "truth" about a matter. My stepson's dad is an Aussie engineer, worked as a project manager at times on some of the tunnels in and around Hong Kong. I have a great deal of respect for the profession, but in the end, in the final analysis, especially in analyzing a thoroughly unexpected event such as these towers disintergrating after less than an hour and slightly more than an hour, the "calculations" are especially only useful to "guesstimate" what happened. They provide a "theoretical" model, and in no way, shape, or manner, are capable of providing the "absolute truth." The math models reality, how well is the problem.

In the last Bazant paper I waded through he uses lots and lots of theoretical calculations, but toward the end said something to the effect of, "but not much of this could be seen because it was obscured in dust clouds."
So, a religious reliance on the "calculations" is not a particularly convincing revelation of truth. The calculations are perfectly capable of ignoring or missing, not out of malice or with a particular design, extremely relevant phenomena.

A police woman in one of the lobbies described massive explosions. She had spent 13 or 14 years in the military before becoming a police officer. She was trained to recognize explosions, and continue to operate efficiently while explosions were going off all around her. Her military training taught her drop, cover her mouth, keep her head down, look before getting up. In other words, she knew what an explosion was. She had been trained and had experienced them, and knew what to do. She said this training all came back to her in the lobby. She was picked up and thrown many feet, pelted with schrapnel, burned, had the air sucked out of her from the shock wave. This was hundreds of feet below any fire or aircraft damage. This was not elevators dropping, boilers or transformers exploding. This was a massive explosion, one of several. She is a highly credible witness to explosions, one of many witnesses. The reality of her experience does not have a function in an engineering calculation to account for what she heard, felt, experienced, and suffered from for days after the fact.

The math approximates reality, it does not substitute for it. Sometimes the approximations are good, at other times, as wrong as can be.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by sdemetri

A police woman in one of the lobbies described massive explosions. She had spent 13 or 14 years in the military before becoming a police officer. She was trained to recognize explosions, and continue to operate efficiently while explosions were going off all around her. Her military training taught her drop, cover her mouth, keep her head down, look before getting up. In other words, she knew what an explosion was. She had been trained and had experienced them, and knew what to do. She said this training all came back to her in the lobby. She was picked up and thrown many feet, pelted with schrapnel, burned, had the air sucked out of her from the shock wave. This was hundreds of feet below any fire or aircraft damage. This was not elevators dropping, boilers or transformers exploding. This was a massive explosion, one of several. She is a highly credible witness to explosions, one of many witnesses. The reality of her experience does not have a function in an engineering calculation to account for what she heard, felt, experienced, and suffered from for days after the fact.

You wouldn't have her name and full statements with you by any chance?

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by sdemetri

In the last Bazant paper I waded through he uses lots and lots of theoretical calculations, but toward the end said something to the effect of, "but not much of this could be seen because it was obscured in dust clouds."
So, a religious reliance on the "calculations" is not a particularly convincing revelation of truth. The calculations are perfectly capable of ignoring or missing, not out of malice or with a particular design, extremely relevant phenomena.

How much less sensible, therefore, is it to rely on calculations which are demonstrably incorrect? Ross's calculations would actually conclude that collapse is expected to propagate down to ground level if Ross didn't make an absurd mathematical error that double-counts the deformation energies. Kuttler's calculations would demonstrate that the predicted collapse times agree very well with the observed collapse times if he didn't assume that all the concrete had to be pulverised and ejected in every collision, or overestimate the resistance of the support columns to collapse by about twenty times. Yet, with all your skepticism of Bazant's calculations, which are at least internally consistent, you allow yourself to be convinced by work that is quite simply wrong. A rigorous reliance on erroneous calculations is hardly a better revelation of truth.

Dave

[Spud1k]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

You wouldn't have her name and full statements with you by any chance?

I think this might be what he's referring to (spun version here). The detail that you won't hear truthers advertising is that if you check the timeline, the part where she reports explosions actually occurs well before the collapse. Naturally, reports at ground level of explosions pre collapse don't jive with any CD mechanism that would cause the top-down collapse that was observed, so I don't see how this supports any conspiracy theory.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by Spud1k

I think this might be what he's referring to (spun version here). The detail that you won't hear truthers advertising is that if you check the timeline, the part where she reports explosions actually occurs well before the collapse. Naturally, reports at ground level of explosions pre collapse don't jive with any CD mechanism that would cause the top-down collapse that was observed, so I don't see how this supports any conspiracy theory.

Reading through it quickly, she does seem to casually use the word "explosion" to describe any big sound she heard.

[sdemetri]

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

I, too, investigated 9/11 issue when I discovered that questions were raised. For me, it started with the one asking "How did the towers collapse? Jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to melt steel". But, when I heard that, as well as other 9/11 questions like it, I took the time to look at more than just the claim itself; I investigated the context as well. And in doing so, I discovered that context is just as important as factual accuracy when evaluating conspiratorial claims. You see, much about conspiracy peddling involves casting correct facts in incorrect context, and then from there going on to cast more facts even further separated from the situation's context. On top of that, you begin to see factually inaccurate claims, too. Those claims increase in contextual separation and factual inaccuracy until an entirely false picture is built from what on the surface appear to be strings of eminently sensible objections. After the narrative is built, many who have followed the line end up being too intellectually invested and have trouble honestly analyzing the actual truth of the event. Truly honest folks are able to eventually identify the traps and realize the level of deception, but others who are not quite there yet remain mired in the conspiratorial narrative until the dissonace becomes too great to ignore. Either that, or they simply work at staying in the "questions" phase, thus avoiding such conflict. At any rate, there's a problem with the conspiracy narrative, and just about all of us here have seen the same deceptions and distortions used to build that narrative. I understand that the questions seem honestly compelling. They really are. It's just that the answers to those are out there as well, and once you discover those, you'll see how much of the conspiratorial claims are built on shakey foundations, misrepresentations, or outright distortions.

Consider the first claim I brought up, the one about jet fuel and steel melting. Why did the towers fall when the fires weren't hot enough to melt the steel? Well, the simple answer is that the towers' steel did not have to melt for that to happen. It's actually a simple issue, yet the phrasing of the "question" leads people in the wrong direction. They'll trust that the representation of the issue is correct. And that's where the deceptions begin. The statement about jet fuel and steel is a total canard, a fact that happens to be independently correct (light a container of jet fuel on fire, then stick a steel rod into it. Unless the environment is somehow insulated, the steel won't melt), but in regards to 9/11, is irrelevant.

Context. You have to also critically analyze the questions posed in opposition of the "Official Story", and judge the question's merits. Is the question based on real understanding? Is the objection cast in the proper context? Too many times, I see wonderful levels of inquiry and skepticism aimed at the NIST, FEMA, 9/11 Commision, and other "official sources" narratives utterly wasted because they're based on blithe acceptance of flawed conspiratorial points. Misapprehensions are built from such careless acceptance.

Take another look at an example, one of your own claims: "Small pockets of fire", "two hand lines". That one appears to provide the base of a rather big misapprehension regarding the magnitude of the fires on 9/11. First of all, at some point you were presented with a mistaken quote, and apparently it never was corrected before you brought it here; again, the statement was not "small pockets", it was "isolated". Chief Palmer certainly did not consider those fires small, not if he was dedicating two 2-1/2 inch lines to fight them, and right there is the second place where you fail to catch onto the distortion: Two hand lines like that actually amounts to a good amount of capacity. 250 gallons per minute per line is hardly small. Furthermore, you characterize the entire conflageration, including the rubble pile fires, with a statement made by one person discussing one isolated area on one floor of one tower. As serious study of the events reveal, the 78th floor of the South Tower was one of the lightest fires known to be in the towers; NCSTAR 1-5 characterizes it that way, yet on it's own merits, 2 hand lines is no small capacity. The point lesson here is that it is a mistake to characterize any of the fires in the towers as small, even the isolated pockets on the 78th floor that Chief Palmer saw. But the bigger lesson is that when you don't question the conspiracy narrative that presented that issue to you, you end up with a very wrong grasp of that small part of the truth the claim is discussing. (For context on Chief Palmer's quote, I recommend you read some other sources, such as this thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=96116) where some firefighters joined in and explained how much capacity two lines truly represented.).

Now, you mention other questions. You stated that you "... left the official line when questions raised about the response (victim's family members raised alot of those initial concerns), questions raised about the large spread of debris in Pennslyvania, and lack of it at the Pentagon, and questions about surprising destruction of the towers". You also stated that you found the answers unsatisfactory. Did you really find the answers, or just the conspiracy peddler's misrepresentations of those answers? Again, I point at the example of the towers falling without the steel melting as one where the truth is poisoned by the mere dishonest framing of the question. After seeing you try to paint common and expected particles as significant, after seeing you compare large but otherwise common structure fires to the largest structure and, post collapse, largest debris pile fire since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, after seeing you misstate the mistruth about fire sizes and actually error out on Chief Palmer's quote, and after seeing you so blithly buy into the fantasy of "nanocomposites", I wonder if the sources you depend on for the information you've given so far are being honest about the portrayal of the Shanksville crash or the Pentagon impact. Let's deal with Shanksville momentarily: What was wrong with the "large spread of debris in Pennsylvania"? Much of the heavy debris was not spread out so far; the lighter objects, like paper and fabrics, were indeed found futher away, some as far as 1-1/2 miles away near Indian Lake. I don't know if you were heading in this direction, but other people who've brought up the size of the Shanksville debris field generally are trying to work towards an argument that Flight 93 was shot down. That's usually the core claim that these questions build towards, and that issue is where efforts are best spent. In sum, the flight data recorder information shows that the jet was in fact functioning normally all the way into the ground (more info). So, does your objection to the size of the Shanksville debris field indicate a disbelief in the narrative that Flight 93 crashed? Because there's a huge burden of proof that must be met to overcome the current body of proof indicating that Flight 93 did indeed crash there, and did in fact do so because of the hijackers actions.

I can write a similar paragraph touching upon the Pentagon, and the plethora of proof that Flight 77 did indeed crash there, but this post is already too long, and I'm only assembling info found in and through this forum anyway. You can search for that as easily as I can.

At any rate, I don't really see any worthy objections so far. I see incredulity over the physics of the collapse, and presentation of other points that are either devoid of accuracy (the size of the fires, the color of the smoke), devoid of context (the statements about what's expected from mundane structure fires), or with entirely invented context (the molybdenum spherules, aluminosilicates). But I don't see a willingness to truly study the issues, only a willingness to push the conspiratorial narrative. It's fine to defend a thesis, but it's necessary to accept when data negates such. Can you accept that your current points regarding the fire sizes are wrong? And that you're mistaken regarding the significance of the smoke's color? Because those two points of your argument are wrong, and while they themselves don't undo the whole conspiracy thesis, they are erroneous data points that must be discared. Just like our own years-past points of diesel fuel from the emergency lines in WTC 7, and pancaking collapse initiation; those poins are now considered incorrect too, and we readily accept that. Can you discard your own errors in the interest of improving the accuracy for your own argument?

In the end, it's not enough to note that questions are being raised. Those questions and the context behind then have to be evaluated every bit as skeptically as the NIST, FEMA, 9/11 Commision, and other "official" claims. If they're not, then simply going from belief in the "Official Story" to belief in the alternate narrative isn't really an indication of enlightenment. It's merely a sign of bending with the wind.

Many of the initial questions the family members had were around, why no NORAD response to the hijackings? As is amply documented the story changed from NORAD and FAA at least three times. Completely from the standpoint of someone who lost a daughter, son, husband or wife, the question was a legitimate one, and one that to this day has not been answered. It is still a legitimate one, given many of the documented facts that are in the public record and without dispute. In the end, this question has been punted on by the government. Maybe to cover for gross or criminal incompetence, but if so, one might think someone would have been prosecuted or held accountable. Family members and several well placed people, including some members of the 9/11 Commission, believe the true story is being covered up. The context of this question is nothing out of the ordinary. It is legitimate.

The fire chiefs sent their men and women into the towers based on their expertise in assessing risk. The completely unexpected disintergration of the towers took them by surprise, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of those men and women. The NIST investigation narrowly focussed on the effects of damage and fire, looking for a plausible explanation to the disintergration of the buildings. They provide much good data, but the conclusions they have drawn do not fit with the data they refused to even look at. In the end, this investigation did not explain the disintergration. They have stated, " we cannot explain the total collapse..." and indeed, they can't. They have let the other "experts" surmise what caused that, remained silent and left the gaping holes in our understanding wide open. They gave a non-answer as an answer, sequestered the data, documentation, and parameters they used to arrive at their non-answer, forbid their scientists from engaging in any public discussion. Any questions, such as those that prompted Quinteire, an advocate of a more open forum, to announce the data should be independently evaluated, are shortcircuited and though legitimate not addressed. The context of these questions is perfectly legitimate.

The black boxes from both Shanksville and the Pentagon are lacking in their identifying serial numbers in the official record of the NTSB. The FBI has admitted that they did not positively ID the planes through matching the black box serial numbers with the manufacturer's records of other component serial numbers. This is revealed in a FOIA request, and the correspondence associated with that request. A judge has told the FBI provide the documentation ID'ing the planes, or provide a reason why they can't.

You can track all of the court documents regarding this legitimate controversy over the plane ID's, starting here, and working back through the history:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/16762

The NTSB states in response to one request:

"This letter responds to your FOIA request, dated July 11, 2008, which you requested copies of records revealing the process by which wreckage recovered from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified as belonging to; American Airlines flight 11 (N334AA), United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA), American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA), and United Airlines flight 93 (N591UA). Unfortunately, the NTSB doesn't have any records regarding the above requested information."

In another response from the FBI:

"Since being served with the Summons and Amended Complaint, Federal Defendant, with assistance of its attorneys, has analyzed Plaintiff’s request and conducted a searched for responsive records. Federal Defendant has determined that there are no responsive records. The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated “revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant . . . as belonging to said aircraft . . .” (Amend Compl. Inj. Relief #15 at 1.)

It is all in this record. There are very large, legitimate questions surrounding the identities of the planes alledged to have been used. None of this is out of context. Claiming folks like me are out of context with our questions, is nothing more than your opinion, which given the evidence that legitimate questions exist and have been unanswered, it is your opinion that is out of context. You are blowing in a foul wind, relying on the official story to answer everything for you....

[sdemetri]

Originally Posted by Spud1k

I think this might be what he's referring to (spun version here). The detail that you won't hear truthers advertising is that if you check the timeline, the part where she reports explosions actually occurs well before the collapse. Naturally, reports at ground level of explosions pre collapse don't jive with any CD mechanism that would cause the top-down collapse that was observed, so I don't see how this supports any conspiracy theory.

Capt. DeShore is not the person, although her testimony is also very valuable. Being a captain, and the experience that implies, she is also a credible witness. And ground level explosions are perfectly consistent with CD, top down or not. Dislodging lower members of the internal structure is not at all inconsistent with typical demolitions. Why would it be in an atypical demolition?

The former military policewoman is discussed at the end of Graeme McQueen's talk at the University of Waterloo in March of this year.

[lapman]

Wow, more stupid packed into one post. The parroting of "Truth Movement" lies continues.

Quote:

Many of the initial questions the family members had were around, why no NORAD response to the hijackings?

Such an outrageous lie that has been covered so many times, no link is even necessary. Do you even know what the word research means?

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by sdemetri

Many of the initial questions the family members had were around, why no NORAD response to the hijackings? As is amply documented the story changed from NORAD and FAA at least three times. Completely from the standpoint of someone who lost a daughter, son, husband or wife, the question was a legitimate one, and one that to this day has not been answered. It is still a legitimate one, given many of the documented facts that are in the public record and without dispute. In the end, this question has been punted on by the government. Maybe to cover for gross or criminal incompetence, but if so, one might think someone would have been prosecuted or held accountable. Family members and several well placed people, including some members of the 9/11 Commission, believe the true story is being covered up. The context of this question is nothing out of the ordinary. It is legitimate.

The tapes are out there for everyone to listen to. Have you?

Originally Posted by sdemetri

The fire chiefs sent their men and women into the towers based on their expertise in assessing risk. The completely unexpected disintergration of the towers took them by surprise, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of those men and women. The NIST investigation narrowly focussed on the effects of damage and fire, looking for a plausible explanation to the disintergration of the buildings. They provide much good data, but the conclusions they have drawn do not fit with the data they refused to even look at. In the end, this investigation did not explain the disintergration. They have stated, " we cannot explain the total collapse..." and indeed, they can't. They have let the other "experts" surmise what caused that, remained silent and left the gaping holes in our understanding wide open. They gave a non-answer as an answer, sequestered the data, documentation, and parameters they used to arrive at their non-answer, forbid their scientists from engaging in any public discussion. Any questions, such as those that prompted Quinteire, an advocate of a more open forum, to announce the data should be independently evaluated, are shortcircuited and though legitimate not addressed. The context of these questions is perfectly legitimate.

NIST have explained the total collapse in their FAQ's maybe you should have researched them before making false accusations. They give calculations and explain why the collapse did not arrest.

NIST also sent out some of their samples to independant labs for testing and the labs agreed with NIST findings. Maybe you did not read this part of NIST report?

Originally Posted by sdemetri

The black boxes from both Shanksville and the Pentagon are lacking in their identifying serial numbers in the official record of the NTSB. The FBI has admitted that they did not positively ID the planes through matching the black box serial numbers with the manufacturer's records of other component serial numbers. This is revealed in a FOIA request, and the correspondence associated with that request. A judge has told the FBI provide the documentation ID'ing the planes, or provide a reason why they can't.

NTSB did not do an aircraft accident investigation. They helped the FBI investigation. The identification of the planes is in no doubt except to a few nutjobs on the internet. Even if the NTSB did an aircraft accident invesigation they do not always list the serial numbers.

Originally Posted by sdemetri

You can track all of the court documents regarding this legitimate controversy over the plane ID's, starting here, and working back through the history:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/16762

The NTSB states in response to one request:

"This letter responds to your FOIA request, dated July 11, 2008, which you requested copies of records revealing the process by which wreckage recovered from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified as belonging to; American Airlines flight 11 (N334AA), United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA), American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA), and United Airlines flight 93 (N591UA). Unfortunately, the NTSB doesn't have any records regarding the above requested information."

In another response from the FBI:

"Since being served with the Summons and Amended Complaint, Federal Defendant, with assistance of its attorneys, has analyzed Plaintiff’s request and conducted a searched for responsive records. Federal Defendant has determined that there are no responsive records. The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated “revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant . . . as belonging to said aircraft . . .” (Amend Compl. Inj. Relief #15 at 1.)

Its only controversial to nutjob truthers. Not to anyone else.

Originally Posted by sdemetri

It is all in this record. There are very large, legitimate questions surrounding the identities of the planes alledged to have been used. None of this is out of context. Claiming folks like me are out of context with our questions, is nothing more than your opinion, which given the evidence that legitimate questions exist and have been unanswered, it is your opinion that is out of context. You are blowing in a foul wind, relying on the official story to answer everything for you....

There are no legitimate questions regarding the identities of the planes unless you are an irrational person who lacks logic.

Most of this is a derail maybe you should start another thread.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by sdemetri

Capt. DeShore is not the person, although her testimony is also very valuable. Being a captain, and the experience that implies, she is also a credible witness. And ground level explosions are perfectly consistent with CD, top down or not. Dislodging lower members of the internal structure is not at all inconsistent with typical demolitions. Why would it be in an atypical demolition?

The former military policewoman is discussed at the end of Graeme McQueen's talk at the University of Waterloo in March of this year.

What purpose would the explosions that occured at the same time as the aircraft impacts serve in a CD (atypical or not)?

[lapman]

Originally Posted by sdemetri

Capt. DeShore is not the person, although her testimony is also very valuable. Being a captain, and the experience that implies, she is also a credible witness. And ground level explosions are perfectly consistent with CD, top down or not. Dislodging lower members of the internal structure is not at all inconsistent with typical demolitions. Why would it be in an atypical demolition?

That is so incredibly false. A ground level explosion is not even close to consistent from a top-down demolition. A ground level explosion is only consistent from a ground level demolition. Period. So, you've proven again that research is a completely foreign concept to you.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by sdemetri

The former military policewoman is discussed at the end of Graeme McQueen's talk at the University of Waterloo in March of this year.

Link, name, full quotes?

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by sdemetri

Many of the initial questions the family members had were around, why no NORAD response to the hijackings? As is amply documented the story changed from NORAD and FAA at least three times.

The story changing "at least three times" implies that there were at least four versions of the story told. Would you please either state what were some of the differences between the four stories, or admit that you're parroting a lie you read on a conspiracy website and couldn't be bothered to check because it supported your prejudices?

Originally Posted by sdemetri

The NIST investigation narrowly focussed on the effects of damage and fire, looking for a plausible explanation to the disintergration of the buildings. They provide much good data, but the conclusions they have drawn do not fit with the data they refused to even look at.

Please list the data NIST refused to even look at, with links where possible. Ideally, these links should not be to the NIST report.

Originally Posted by sdemetri

In the end, this investigation did not explain the disintergration. They have stated, " we cannot explain the total collapse..." and indeed, they can't. They have let the other "experts" surmise what caused that, remained silent and left the gaping holes in our understanding wide open.

Blatant misrepresentation of NIST's statement. Also, your requirement that a full explanation of every aspect of 9-11 should be available from a single source, and that work from other individuals which support NIST's conclusions should be ignored because the work was not from NIST, is at variance with humanity's approach to science since the Enlightenment.

Originally Posted by sdemetri

The black boxes from both Shanksville and the Pentagon are lacking in their identifying serial numbers in the official record of the NTSB. The FBI has admitted that they did not positively ID the planes through matching the black box serial numbers with the manufacturer's records of other component serial numbers.

The planes were positively ID'd by other means, including continuous radar traces, DNA identification of passenger remains, and the simple but incontravertible fact that those were the only four airliners not otherwise accounted for. It's really very simple; one each of an AA 757, an AA 767, a UA 757 and a UA 767 didn't land at an airport that day.

Originally Posted by sdemetri

It is all in this record. There are very large, legitimate questions surrounding the identities of the planes alledged to have been used. None of this is out of context.

None of the questions are legitimate, because all of them have been satisfactorily answered. The fact that you choose not to believe that these answers exist is a measure, not of the uncertainty surrounding the events of 9-11 in the minds of those who have studied it impartially, but the determination on your part to obscure the truth. Strange, though familiar, behaviour from those who claim to be truth seekers.

Dave

[boloboffin]

$20 that Mr. Ryan now walks among us. Any takers?

[AZCat]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

$20 that Mr. Ryan now walks among us. Any takers?

I'll take that bet if you give me 2:1 odds.

[Dave Rogers]

Getting back to the original topic of this thread, Frank Greening has posted a response to the paper over on Gregory Urich's 9-11 Forum. While I would have liked to post a couple of excerpts here, I won't quote the post directly; as Frank is a banned JREF forum member I believe that would be an infringement of the MA. However, the full article can be found at:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/pa...3-dpp-t41.html

Frank may have an over-abrasive personality and a tendency to overreact grossly to criticism, but on questions of chemistry he is very knowledgeable.

One point that's made in a quote from elsewhere is the following, from the EPA Summary Report EPA/600/R-03/142:

“Most of the VOC data are from grab samples, which were not collected to characterize exposures but were intended to inform recovery workers within the restricted zone of the location of hot spots. As a result, the locations for most of the sampling were near the sources and plumes of smoldering fires, ..."

The high concentrations, therefore, are to be expected; the sampling was not remote, random sampling to determine overall air quality, but targeted at regions where the highest instantaneous and local concentrations would be expected. As such, the sampling method would be expected to produce an extremely high variance from the average concentrations over Ground Zero, so the spiky nature of the data is hardly surprising.

Furthermore, since the collection of samples was from places where fires were observed to be smouldering, it would seem likely that the intense heat and light emission from thermite reactions, or the near-explosions from nano-thermate, would not only be noticed by the workers collecting the samples, but would be a very specific danger to them. The absence of any reports from these workers of thermite reactions is, at the very least, a strong indication that there were none occurring.

Dave

[sdemetri]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

The story changing "at least three times" implies that there were at least four versions of the story told. Would you please either state what were some of the differences between the four stories, or admit that you're parroting a lie you read on a conspiracy website and couldn't be bothered to check because it supported your prejudices?

Will have to look through the reference books I have used to come to that conclusion. Don't have them with me here at work.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Please list the data NIST refused to even look at, with links where possible. Ideally, these links should not be to the NIST report.

Given the empirical data NIST generated in their fire simulations, with longer, hotter burns, and that input didn't cause the simulation to initiate collapse I think I could have said as accurately that some of their conclusions don't even fit the data they did look at.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

...your requirement that a full explanation of every aspect of 9-11 should be available from a single source, and that work from other individuals which support NIST's conclusions should be ignored because the work was not from NIST, is at variance with humanity's approach to science since the Enlightenment.

"Single source" is not one of my requirements. The mandate for the NIST study was to provide an explanation for the failure of the buildings. They didn't. They took it only so far. And in their correspondence state that they could not explain the total collapse. Greening and Bazant have attempted to explain the total disintergration, which Chief Nigro described upon arriving at the scene as pulverized contents and steel. Their work adds to NIST, but inconclusively as it models only so much of what happened, ignoring other plausible factors that could influence the outcome we witnesses. If NIST data, documentation, and parameters were independently evaluated, capable investigators might be able to assist in their analysis.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

The planes were positively ID'd by other means, including continuous radar traces, DNA identification of passenger remains, and the simple but incontravertible fact that those were the only four airliners not otherwise accounted for. It's really very simple; one each of an AA 757, an AA 767, a UA 757 and a UA 767 didn't land at an airport that day.

Perhaps you should file a "friend of the court" brief or something and straighten out that judge who issued a court order requiring the FBI to provide the doc's, or explain why it can't. He also denied the FBI motion to dismiss, so apparently there is some merit to Monahan's request.

You can take the position that given "everybody knows" what the planes were, of course there is no reason to positively ID them, and record exactly how that was done. That seems to be the FBI's argument. Except, that is not an accepted method of "due process," evidentiary rules, chain of custody issues.

DNA of victims provides DNA, but in no way explains how they died, or even if they did die. I say that from the standpoint of what DNA analysis is capable of revealling. Radar traces can be foiled by shadow flights, flying in a particular formation to the target aircraft to mask one's own radar blip. David Griscom, a physicist and long time (33yrs), highly regarded Naval Research Lab scientist, has explained how that can happen, not as definitive proof that it did happen, but only as a working hypothesis.

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/#Griscom

So positive ID based on the serial numbers of the FDR, and component aircraft parts from the manufacturer's database is the final word on identification. The NTSB, who normally does such analysis, didn't in these cases, at least in a way that generated documents they have. The FBI claims no records exist. Either it was not done, or it was done and later destroyed, or some other explanation that to date remains a mystery. Just saying, 'of course we know what the planes were,' is not enough.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by sdemetri

"Single source" is not one of my requirements. The mandate for the NIST study was to provide an explanation for the failure of the buildings. They didn't. They took it only so far. And in their correspondence state that they could not explain the total collapse. Greening and Bazant have attempted to explain the total disintergration, which Chief Nigro described upon arriving at the scene as pulverized contents and steel. Their work adds to NIST, but inconclusively as it models only so much of what happened, ignoring other plausible factors that could influence the outcome we witnesses. If NIST data, documentation, and parameters were independently evaluated, capable investigators might be able to assist in their analysis.

And in later FAQs they do indeed explain the total collapse.

Read the NIST report, they sent samples of steel to independant investigators and they agreed with NIST findings.

You are making false, irrelevant and off topic claims.

Originally Posted by sdemetri

Except, that is not an accepted method of "due process," evidentiary rules, chain of custody issues.

Explain how this applies to aircraft identification.

[SDC]

Sdemetri is trying to shift the burden of proof; to get others to do his/ her work. Wasted time and effort. Just another orphan.

[Disbelief]

Originally Posted by sdemetri

So positive ID based on the serial numbers of the FDR, and component aircraft parts from the manufacturer's database is the final word on identification. The NTSB, who normally does such analysis, didn't in these cases, at least in a way that generated documents they have. The FBI claims no records exist. Either it was not done, or it was done and later destroyed, or some other explanation that to date remains a mystery. Just saying, 'of course we know what the planes were,' is not enough.

So, DNA proves nothing but a few serial numbers would convince you? You do realize that it would be far easier to fake serial numbers on an FDR and a few components than to have DNA from all of the victims that are known to have been on the plane.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by sdemetri

So positive ID based on the serial numbers of the FDR, and component aircraft parts from the manufacturer's database is the final word on identification. The NTSB, who normally does such analysis, ....

Do they actually identify crashed aircraft by the serial numbers on their parts? Please provide a link to a docuement from the NTSB to back this assertion.
Perhaps they might do so in cases where two planes collide in order to separate which parts come from which plane such as when the two 747's collided in Tenerife. However has there ever been a case in which the crash was witnessed by hundreds of people on the street and dozens of ATC operators AND the identity of the a/c been so indeterminate that serial number parts had to be used to positively identify the a/c that crashed?
If so please provide an example.

It would be akin to having a person murdered on front of hundreds of witnesses, several of whom know the victim by name, and requiring dental record verification of the identity of the deceased.

[lapman]

Originally Posted by sdemetri

"Single source" is not one of my requirements. The mandate for the NIST study was to provide an explanation for the failure of the buildings. They didn't. They took it only so far. And in their correspondence state that they could not explain the total collapse.

You obviously have no clue what the NIST mandate was. Their mandate was to investigate the events up to the collapse initiation so that they can make building code change recommendation, not the collapse itself since there would be of no real benefit.

Quote:

Greening and Bazant have attempted to explain the total disintergration, which Chief Nigro described upon arriving at the scene as pulverized contents and steel. Their work adds to NIST, but inconclusively as it models only so much of what happened, ignoring other plausible factors that could influence the outcome we witnesses.

The key word is plausible. Thermite and explosives are certainly not even close to plausible since there is nothing that would give any real indication of their presence.

Quote:

If NIST data, documentation, and parameters were independently evaluated, capable investigators might be able to assist in their analysis.

DNA of victims provides DNA, but in no way explains how they died, or even if they did die. I say that from the standpoint of what DNA analysis is capable of revealling.[/quote]Please proved one instance where all the DNA collected from a crash was autopsied.

Quote:

Radar traces can be foiled by shadow flights, flying in a particular formation to the target aircraft to mask one's own radar blip. David Griscom, a physicist and long time (33yrs), highly regarded Naval Research Lab scientist, has explained how that can happen, not as definitive proof that it did happen, but only as a working hypothesis.

Appeal to authority fallacy. Since there is a plethora of evidence to point to what really crashed into the buildings, the hypothesis is baseless.

Quote:

So positive ID based on the serial numbers of the FDR, and component aircraft parts from the manufacturer's database is the final word on identification. The NTSB, who normally does such analysis, didn't in these cases, at least in a way that generated documents they have. The FBI claims no records exist. Either it was not done, or it was done and later destroyed, or some other explanation that to date remains a mystery. Just saying, 'of course we know what the planes were,' is not enough.

This is false. I have asked the NTSB about their serial number collection practices. They specifically stated

Quote:

NTSB investigators rarely encounter a scenario when the identification of an accident aircraft is not apparent. But during those occasions, investigators will record serial numbers of major components, then contact the manufacturer of those components in an attempt to determine what aircraft the component was installed upon.

So your statement is false. Add to that the fact that the crashes were not accidents, so the NTSB was in a supporting roll and not performing a detailed crash investigation since one was not required.

[sdemetri]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Do they actually identify crashed aircraft by the serial numbers on their parts? Please provide a link to a docuement from the NTSB to back this assertion.
Perhaps they might do so in cases where two planes collide in order to separate which parts come from which plane such as when the two 747's collided in Tenerife. However has there ever been a case in which the crash was witnessed by hundreds of people on the street and dozens of ATC operators AND the identity of the a/c been so indeterminate that serial number parts had to be used to positively identify the a/c that crashed?
If so please provide an example.

It would be akin to having a person murdered on front of hundreds of witnesses, several of whom know the victim by name, and requiring dental record verification of the identity of the deceased.

Witnesses saw many things hit the Pentagon. Nobody clearly saw what happened in Pennsylvania.

Monahan posts on the Blogger site:

"The NTSB reports regarding the FDR's recovered from AA 77 and UA 93 are virtually the only ones during the past 20 years of major U.S. aviation mishaps, within which FDR part and serial numbers were not published (the complete list is provided below) Because each essential FDR part and serial number were not published, they were presumably not made available to the NTSB.

American airlines flight 77 FDR report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf

United airlines flight 93 report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/UAL93FDR.pdf

However, because each AA 77 and UA 93 FDR model and manufacturer is known and published within the AA 77 and UA 93 FDR reports, it would seem that the NTSB obtained limited access to information contained within FAA and airline aircraft records for AA 77 and UA 93. Why the NTSB was apparently unable to also obtain the FDR part and serial numbers required to generate proper FDR data readout is unknown. Presumably, if the recovered AA 77 and UA 93 FDR's did not possess the memory configurations indicated within FAA and airline aircraft records, a mismatch could become apparent to NTSB investigators.

According to the NTSB "Flight Data Recorder Handbook for Aviation Accident Investigations", FDR serial numbers are required for data readout:

"Specifically, the following information is required to facilitate data readout: ... FDR Part number and Serial Number"

http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/Manuals/FDR_Handbook.pdf

FAA records that would contain the FDR part numbers serial numbers for AA 77 and UA 93 are unavailable for release by the FAA under the Freedom of Information Act:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/13149

The FAA's response to a Freedom of Information Act request for these aircraft records was described as "unlawful" by a FOIA expert with the "Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press":

“"[W]e are not in a position to release the said records at this time,” certainly isn’t an exemption any where in the Freedom of Information Act, and I can’t think of any case law that supports that answer either."

Within a reply to a 2007 FOIA federal lawsuit, the FBI indicated that it did not possess any records pertaining to the 9/11 aircraft, containing aircraft component or serial numbers:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/14406

Additional FDR information provided by the NTSB within its June 11, 2008 reply, revealing the significance of the apparently unknown part and serial numbers of the FDRs belonging to AA 77 and UA 93, required to generate FDR data readouts:

"Each recorder does have a unique serial number that is assigned by the manufacturer at the time it is made. In addition to the unique serial number there is a part number that associates the unit with a particular family of recorders. Every recorder has a dataplate affixed to the outside of the unit stating the serial number, part number, date of manufacturer, TSO certification, power requirements and weight. The part number will stay the same even though subtle changes may be made during the manufacturing lifecycle of the recorder. The manufacturer may change some components within the unit as long as the functionality and interchangeability of the unit remain the same. This is where the serial number becomes important. If a recorder with the same part number comes in we need to know what parts were used to make it and that is tracked by individual serial numbers of the recorder."

He also writes:

"A 12/16/2007 public correspondence e-mail inquiry of the NTSB posed the following question:

"Will the NTSB refer to recovered aircraft component serial number data, to determine the positive ID of an aircraft following a mishap, in the absence of other identifying data?"

The following e-mail response was provided by a Susan Stevenson of the NTSB on 12/26/2007:

"Yes. NTSB investigators rarely encounter a scenario when the identification of an accident aircraft is not apparent. But during those occasions, investigators will record serial numbers of major components, and then contact the manufacturer of those components in an attempt to determine what aircraft the component was installed upon."

The above cited method of identification was apparently required to obtain the positive identifications of American Airlines flight 11 and United Airlines flight 175, which crashed into the World Trade Center towers.

By FAA documents identified as "Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events", pages 4 and 13, it is indicated that American Airlines flight 11 (N334AA) and United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA) were not transmitting proper transponder identification data at the time of their respective destructions and that therefore, proper aircraft identification cannot have been obtained from this absent or erroneous data.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa7.pdf

By documents labeled "NOTES TO CHAPTER 1", page 456, of the "Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States" (2004), it is indicated that "the CVRs and FDRs from American 11 and United 175 were not found" and that therefore, proper aircraft identification cannot have been obtained from this absent data.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/r...port_Notes.htm "

Regarding DNA analysis PCR technology can replicate minute pieces of DNA allowing for analysis and mapping. But having DNA samples, and the analysis that follows from those samples says absolutely nothing about where the samples came from, whether the donor was living or dead, or how they died, if dead.

And I agree this is way off topic. Getting to the bottom of why Cahill, about a mile from GZ, picked up their mysterious VOC and particulate data, and why the EPA reported extremely unusual 1,3-DPP readings, for the first time ever, apparently, in a large structure debris fire is a much thornier issue. 1,3-DPP is part of the manufacturing process of nanocomposites. Is this the source of such unusually high spikes, or from off-gassing from PVC?

[SDC]

So I guess Sdemetri, you are preparing to establish that no one died? "the analysis that follows from those samples says absolutely nothing about where the samples came from, whether the donor was living or dead, or how they died, if dead." Well, two guys I used to know, and their families and friends, will be awfully surprised.

I usually reserve the term "obscenity" for holocaust denial and its ilk, but this purportedly sneaky way of slipping no-planeage into the discussion also deserves the term.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by sdemetri

Witnesses saw many things hit the Pentagon. Nobody clearly saw what happened in Pennsylvania.

However, floght 93 went missing and a large aircraft crashed near Shankesville with no other aircraft in the area being reported as having crashed and the FDR was recovered indicating that it was Flt 93.

Quote:

Monahan posts on the Blogger site:

"The NTSB reports regarding the FDR's recovered from AA 77 and UA 93 are virtually the only ones during the past 20 years of major U.S. aviation mishaps, within which FDR part and serial numbers were not published (the complete list is provided below) Because each essential FDR part and serial number were not published, they were presumably not made available to the NTSB.

Could i see the "complete list provided below" link please?
A link showing that in the case of 77 and 93 that the FDR ser# is not included in the report is not what I asked for. I asked for an illustration that such is used to definitively identify the a/c that crashed.
American airlines flight 77 FDR report:

Quote:

However, because each AA 77 and UA 93 FDR model and manufacturer is known and published within the AA 77 and UA 93 FDR reports, it would seem that the NTSB obtained limited access to information contained within FAA and airline aircraft records for AA 77 and UA 93. Why the NTSB was apparently unable to also obtain the FDR part and serial numbers required to generate proper FDR data readout is unknown.

Quote:

According to the NTSB "Flight Data Recorder Handbook for Aviation Accident Investigations", FDR serial numbers are required for data readout:

"Specifically, the following information is required to facilitate data readout: ... FDR Part number and Serial Number"

http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/Manuals/FDR_Handbook.pdf

It also states :

Quote:

Release of any additional FDR data (additional data/information not contained in the
preliminary plots and corresponding data file) requires the express approval from the
Directors of the Offices of Research and Engineering and Aviation Safety

Quote:

Presumably, if the recovered AA 77 and UA 93 FDR's did not possess the memory configurations indicated within FAA and airline aircraft records, a mismatch could become apparent to NTSB investigators.

Presupposes a conspiracy. I thought you were illustrating that one was conducted not assuming the consequent.

[lapman]

Quote:

According to the NTSB "Flight Data Recorder Handbook for Aviation Accident Investigations", FDR serial numbers are required for data readout:

What part of "they weren't performing an accident investigation" are you failing to understand?

[jaydeehess]

Quote:

Regarding DNA analysis PCR technology can replicate minute pieces of DNA allowing for analysis and mapping. But having DNA samples, and the analysis that follows from those samples says absolutely nothing about where the samples came from, whether the donor was living or dead, or how they died, if dead.

The DNA was not being used to determine whether or not the DNA donor was dead or how they died or when they died. It was, simply, DNA from biological samples found within the scene which were identified as having come from the persons who boarded the flights in questions or who were in the towers, and who have never been seen again by friends and families.

Gee, it seems that if it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck you still require that a tight , legal chain of custody of a sample from the animal in question must be submitted to several labs and have them confirm that the it is indeed a member of the Anatidae family of birds.

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by sdemetri

Many of the initial questions the family members had were around, why no NORAD response to the hijackings? As is amply documented the story changed from NORAD and FAA at least three times. Completely from the standpoint of someone who lost a daughter, son, husband or wife, the question was a legitimate one, and one that to this day has not been answered. It is still a legitimate one, given many of the documented facts that are in the public record and without dispute. In the end, this question has been punted on by the government. Maybe to cover for gross or criminal incompetence, but if so, one might think someone would have been prosecuted or held accountable. Family members and several well placed people, including some members of the 9/11 Commission, believe the true story is being covered up. The context of this question is nothing out of the ordinary. It is legitimate.

What is illegitimate is the refusal to portray what truly happened that day, and that failure is not the fault of the poor victims' families who are already overburdened with the aftermath of the tragedy. That blame falls on the conspiracy peddlers who do not accurately present the 9/11 events.

You want to invoke the NORAD response. Then you need to read the information here:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/nora...abilities,pilo

Specifically, since you demonstrate that you do not understand the response, you need to start by understanding the timeline:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...50&postcount=1

... and then move on to the details of NORAD's response:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70300

... You also need to gain a basic understanding of the confusion that day, confusion stemming from difficulties getting a handle on what exactly was happening, and therefore affecting who was told what in timeframes necessary for action to be made:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...08/norad200608

You ask why there's "no NORAD response" to the hijackings? Consider this: They had 9 minutes of warning for Flight 11. They had 2 minutes of warning for Flight 77. They were told about Flight 175 as it hit Two World Trade, and did not find out about Flight 93 until 4 minutes after it crashed. It takes me longer to get a pizza delivered, yet the military was supposed to discover, locate, fly out, and then "respond", either by shooting down or somehow nullify the situation in that timeframe? May I ask how they were supposed to do that in the time they had?

You wonder why they only had 9 minutes, 2 minutes, zero minutes, and negative 4 minutes to react? Go back to the links above and review the timeline. If you don't understand why they had only single digit minutes in the best case to respond, then you don't understand the events on that day, and you definitely are not capable of explaining to the victims' families what truly happened.

Also, you want to discuss the "amply documented changes"? Haven't you ever wondered who or what discovered the changing story on the part of the military to begin with? The 9/11 Commision. This was investgated. It was their work that uncovered the inconsistencies, and forced the military to acknowledge the correct timeline. So I'm at a loss as to why you present the changing stories issue as a problem to be investigated when in fact it is a clear sign that honest investigation did already occur to reveal that specific problem to begin with.

Originally Posted by sdemetri

The fire chiefs sent their men and women into the towers based on their expertise in assessing risk. The completely unexpected disintergration of the towers took them by surprise, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of those men and women.

More misunderstanding on your part. You need to read the testimony of the first responders and some of the people they rescued to truly understand what the FDNY thought the stabilty of the building was. They in fact had many indications that the buildings were unstable and in danger of falling. Some examples:

Quote:

Firefighter Mike Cancel, Ladder 10:We could feel the building starting to twist above us. I called Ladder 10 three times, Ladder 10 roof to Ladder 10. There was no answer. I said we have to evacuate, the building's coming down. Again, there was no response.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9...cancel.html%20

Quote:

PAPD Sergeant David Lim: On the way down, we were losing our lights & could feel the bldg falling apart. ...You could feel the building starting to collapse internally.

http://brainmind.com/AmericaAttacked2.html

Quote:

FDNY Chief Joseph Dunne: Another ten or 15 minutes or so later, one of my guys said to me, "listen, the north tower is making noise, we're not safe here, that building is going to come down too.”

Dennis Smith. Report From Ground Zero. New York: Viking Penguin, 2002

The collapse was not "unexpected". If you recall, the difficulties in radio communications were what prevented timely relaying of the information to the firefighters who ultimately became trapped and died in the towers. I realize that this point does not speak to any conspiracy, but I highlight it because it demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the events that day.

Originally Posted by sdemetri

The NIST investigation narrowly focussed on the effects of damage and fire, looking for a plausible explanation to the disintergration of the buildings. They provide much good data, but the conclusions they have drawn do not fit with the data they refused to even look at. In the end, this investigation did not explain the disintergration. They have stated, " we cannot explain the total collapse..." and indeed, they can't. They have let the other "experts" surmise what caused that, remained silent and left the gaping holes in our understanding wide open. They gave a non-answer as an answer, sequestered the data, documentation, and parameters they used to arrive at their non-answer, forbid their scientists from engaging in any public discussion. Any questions, such as those that prompted Quinteire, an advocate of a more open forum, to announce the data should be independently evaluated, are shortcircuited and though legitimate not addressed. The context of these questions is perfectly legitimate.

All incorrect. For starters, the data does indeed fit the conclusions. If you have any examples out of the reports, then post them. If you want to invoke Quintiere, then understand what his argument truly is. He takes issue with some of their assumptions regarding the basic data of the fireproofing being lost and the fire durations. When you change that, you do indeed reach a different conclusion, but the point is twofold:

1. Quintiere is indeed challenging some of the basic "data", specifically the assumptions noted above.
2. The raw data itself, outside of Quintiere's challenge, does indeed fit the conclusion. It demonstrates that when the impacts stripped the fireproofing, the steel became vulnerable to the thermal effects from the fire, compromised the integrity of the structure, and led to runaway collapse.

There is nothing about NIST's data that contradicts their conclusion.

Next: Of course they're not modeling the complete collapse, and indeed they cannot. They investigated to the point where the building became unstable and runaway collapse was avoidable. That's exactly what they should have investigated. No reasonable critic of the report - neither Quintiere in his critique of the fireproofing and fire loads, nor Astaneh-Asl in his critique of the sufficiency of the fire codes - has ever taken issue with them not investigating beyond the point of global instability. The reason no reasonable researcher does so is because there is no new knowledge to be gained from such study. The building was already at the "tipping" point of collapse; anything beyond that is simply a study of what debris impacted where.

The only "researchers" who even attempt to question this have an agenda of proving that the government took steps to ensure the collapse, and are trying to disguise their agenda in a seemingly reasonable cloak of scientific inquiry. In truth, they want to lodge the impression in people's minds that there's something to be discovered in the post initiation data, something that indicates the collapses would have been halted if external influences like explosives or incendiaries had not been used. But they don't make the case that the collapse would have halted. The few attempts out there to do so rigorously - I'm only personally aware of Gordon Ross's, having read that one, but I've heard of others being invoked - have fatal flaws, which have been documented in this very forum; look up previous threads for examples of this. My point is ultimately this: People need to demonstrate why there is fault in not investigating beyond collapse initiation. All reasons proffered so far have been insufficient. Investigating beyond collapse initiation makes as much sense as investigating a tree falling beyond the point it starts to tip, or a balloon bursting beyond "burst initiation". All you need to know is explained by the work of the lumberjack or the act of the needle bursting the balloon. Similarly, all you need to understand why the towers fell is why the steel failed, and that is explained by the fires and impact damage. Both Quintiere and Astaneh-Asl agree with this, as evidenced by the fact that their own arguments contradicting NIST depend on this to be true.

Originally Posted by sdemetri

The black boxes from both Shanksville and the Pentagon are lacking in their identifying serial numbers in the official record of the NTSB. The FBI has admitted that they did not positively ID the planes through matching the black box serial numbers with the manufacturer's records of other component serial numbers.

Yes, because positive identification had already occurred with the ATC radar and FDR evidence.

Originally Posted by sdemetri

This is revealed in a FOIA request, and the correspondence associated with that request. A judge has told the FBI provide the documentation ID'ing the planes, or provide a reason why they can't. You can track all of the court documents regarding this legitimate controversy over the plane ID's, starting here, and working back through the history:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/16762

The NTSB states in response to one request:

"This letter responds to your FOIA request, dated July 11, 2008, which you requested copies of records revealing the process by which wreckage recovered from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified as belonging to; American Airlines flight 11 (N334AA), United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA), American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA), and United Airlines flight 93 (N591UA). Unfortunately, the NTSB doesn't have any records regarding the above requested information."

In another response from the FBI:

"Since being served with the Summons and Amended Complaint, Federal Defendant, with assistance of its attorneys, has analyzed Plaintiff’s request and conducted a searched for responsive records. Federal Defendant has determined that there are no responsive records. The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated “revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant . . . as belonging to said aircraft . . .” (Amend Compl. Inj. Relief #15 at 1.)

It is all in this record. There are very large, legitimate questions surrounding the identities of the planes alledged to have been used. None of this is out of context. Claiming folks like me are out of context with our questions, is nothing more than your opinion, which given the evidence that legitimate questions exist and have been unanswered, it is your opinion that is out of context. You are blowing in a foul wind, relying on the official story to answer everything for you....

First of all, there are zero legitimate questions surrounding the identities of the planes used in 9/11. As mentioned earlier, there is ATC radar data as well as FDR data in the cases where the FDR was recovered in a usable state. Furthermore, there is DNA evidence that identifies passengers and flight manifests that ties them to corresponding flights. Furthermore, there are the cell and airphone calls. The flights have been definitively identified, and no amount of handwaving about FOIA requests changes that.

Second: There is a segment in the book "Firefight" where rescue workers discuss evidence gathering and tracking serialized components of the aircraft (someone else can quote the relevant passage; I already returned the book to the library). The conclusion was that it was unnecessary to do so because such work is done in order to prove that the aircraft being investigated was indeed the one in question, and that in the case of Flight 77, there was already a plethora of evidence, from the data on the FDR itself to the air traffic control radar data, to a number of other elements that rendered the need to so tightly document the crash unnecessary. So when someone brings up what is usual practice for jetliner crash investigations, they need to remember that investigations differ, and in the case of the 9/11 flights, the identities of the jets were already known.

Third: What context is missing? Yes, I know you claim that none is. I need proof of that. I noticed that the exact FOIA requests were missing from the posts you link. Sorry to say this, but after experience studying truther evidence and the rampant separation of fact from context, I want to see the original requests before I conclude that the FBI did indeed not find any documentation whatsoever. Saying there are no responsive records can be interpreted to mean that there was nothing that satisfied a particular request, not that there were no records on the jet investigations whatsoever. I'll leave the legal commenter LashL to respond on that verbiage, but my point is that I'd like to see the original FOIA before accepting the claims at the link.

Last: Yes, you are indeed separating context from fact. Continuously. Again, your misapprehensions regarding NORAD alone are proof of that. You do not understand the events of that day, yet you pose questions as if there's still hidden information regarding the response. Which begs the question of how Vanity Fair was able to write their article on the NORAD response that day, but again, I've yet to see any conspiracy believer who's actually read and comprehended the information they provide. My juxtaposition of your misapprehensions demonstrate that you're separating context from fact, and are indeed ignoring the very answers to your questions. All the points you have raised have been answered, time and time again, and yet you ask them as if the information has been suppressed. If it has, how did people like us posters here get a hold of it? Because the information is truly out there; you simply are relying on the wrong sources to digest it for you.

As far as "relying on the official story": Guess what? I haven't read the entire 911 Commision Report yet. I've only looked up individual points as discussion in this form required. Regarding issues such as the ones you've brought up here, I don't know what the "official story" is. I only know what has been pieced together from sources like the NORAD tapes and other original sources. Unlike you, who seems to be running the standard truther playbook. If you want to understand how NORAD responded, listen to the tapes. They're freely available; after all, a common publication like Vanity Fair got a hold of them. You want to understand the proof behind the jets and bodies on the jets? Look up the various original sources, such as the Moussaoui trial evidence. You want to understand the towers collapses, read the NIST report, or if you're suspicious of the "Official Story", read the Purdue simulation, the various articles in all the engineering publications cited here, at the bottom of that page, or the Arup and Edinburgh findings which also have the distinction of criticizing the NIST findings. They contradict NIST, yet they demonstrate clearly that the paradigm of fires plus impact are responsible for the towers collapse. But whatever you do, don't blindly trust the truther sites that you've been quoting. Those sites have demonstrated distortions and misrepresentations time and time again. You will not gain full understanding by relying on those.

Now, are you ready to dispose of your own "foul wind"? Because you've amply demonstrated your own distortions and misapprehensions in the very first paragraph of your response, nevermind the rest of your post. Are you going to truly look at the information? Or are you going to continue presenting long debunked conspiratorial talking points over and over again, like every other peddler who's come into this forum?

[jaydeehess]

El MundoHummus, love the sig., saw the movie and read the book many years ago.

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

El MundoHummus, love the sig., saw the movie and read the book many years ago.

Heh... like I said over in this thread: There's a book?

And Magenta and FuelAir kindly answered in the affirmative. So I now know what I need to track down and read next.

ETA: Aw, cwap, the local library doesn't have it.

[Newtons Bit]

Originally Posted by sdemetri

Thanks, Newton. I like your quote, btw, at the bottom of your posts. I think there is a danger in assuming the "calculations" are the final word of "truth" about a matter. My stepson's dad is an Aussie engineer, worked as a project manager at times on some of the tunnels in and around Hong Kong. I have a great deal of respect for the profession, but in the end, in the final analysis, especially in analyzing a thoroughly unexpected event such as these towers disintergrating after less than an hour and slightly more than an hour, the "calculations" are especially only useful to "guesstimate" what happened. They provide a "theoretical" model, and in no way, shape, or manner, are capable of providing the "absolute truth." The math models reality, how well is the problem.

In the last Bazant paper I waded through he uses lots and lots of theoretical calculations, but toward the end said something to the effect of, "but not much of this could be seen because it was obscured in dust clouds."
So, a religious reliance on the "calculations" is not a particularly convincing revelation of truth. The calculations are perfectly capable of ignoring or missing, not out of malice or with a particular design, extremely relevant phenomena.

You could have at least admitted that you can't even do that little bit of physics, or that you didn't want to. Instead you just changed the subject. You sir, are an intellectual coward.

[R.Mackey]

Heck, he didn't even find the simple arithmetic mistake, he just turned this thread into the usual toilet bowl of Truth Movement "talking points." How original...

The week is up, and still no response from the editors. I have all the information I need to disqualify this paper. It's very disappointing. I'll be interested to find if there's anyone in authority who even tries to defend it, either at the publisher or at their university. I'm guessing "no."

[LashL]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Heck, he didn't even find the simple arithmetic mistake, he just turned this thread into the usual toilet bowl of Truth Movement "talking points." How original...

The week is up, and still no response from the editors. I have all the information I need to disqualify this paper. It's very disappointing. I'll be interested to find if there's anyone in authority who even tries to defend it, either at the publisher or at their university. I'm guessing "no."

[OT] Happy birthday, R.Mackey! [/OT]

[sdemetri]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

The DNA was not being used to determine whether or not the DNA donor was dead or how they died or when they died. It was, simply, DNA from biological samples found within the scene...

Really? So that is a "chain of custody" type of thing... Whose word are you trusting that that is where the samples came from? You have evidence, affadavits? My point, which several of you keep missing, is DNA analysis identifying an individual reveals only so much information. What it doesn't reveal is where the sample was collected.

Regarding Monahan's FOIA request, I have given you plenty of links, and what I haven't given you is easily accessed in the links I have given you. Take some time and look through it. The judge issued a court order and denied the FBI's motion to dismiss. Maybe he is a fruitcake...(apparently he is a Bush appointee) but I suspect not.

Regarding the Vanity Fair article, the author as I recall was given special access to NORAD and the tapes in writing his description. I don't hold it as completely unbiased or objective. Tapes can be manipulated. Cozy relationships don't guarantee objectivity, honesty, accuracy. A sympathetic author with a flair for language can present ideas that mask inconsistencies, failures, deceptions. Some of you, no doubt, might think that of me. NORAD response, by many appearances, was confused that day. With all the war games, and simulations going on at the exact time of the attacks, that is not surprising. It creates a scenario of plausible deniability, while making NORAD and the FAA look somewhat like Keystone Cops.

Regarding the veracity of the 9/11 Commission report, try verifying what the testimony of FDNY interview 45 contains. If any of you can get me the contents of that interview I'd be much obliged, and would humbly acknowledge your research skills. ( I think it is very curious that NIST entered into a partnership with the City of NY, and the 9/11 Commission to come up with an agreement in 2003 to interview certain firefighters, police and officials. As the Oral Histories weren't made public until 2005, NIST and the 9/11 Commission through the City of NY had access to the Histories, and knew who and what to ask. As evidenced by Lou Cacchioli's statements after his testimony to the Commission was refuted and disrespected by the interviewers on the Commission, knowing what was said in the interviews would be very interesting. The Notes at the end of the Commission Report direct researchers to specific interviews for more information. Trouble is, where are those interviews to be found? Any help would be appreciated.)

[sdemetri]

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

You sir, are an intellectual coward.

And you, sir, are not being intellectually honest.

What reasonable person seeing the continual sequestering of critical information would not have reason to suspect something is amiss?

Information has been or is being sequestered in:

the NIST data, documentation, parameters regarding WTC 1 and 2,
data, documentation, parameters regarding WTC 7,
steel and other samples from GZ,
the Oral Histories,
the positive ID'ing of some or all of the aircraft,
video and other mechanical data from around the Pentagon showing the event,
debris from the Pentagon,
debris from Shanksville,
data in EPA studies,
data in USGS studies,
private witness testimony to the 9/11 Commission, including Bush and Cheney,
information regarding programs such as Able Danger,
huge sections of the Joint Congressional investigation,
how and why the UN investigation was shut down...

It doesn't end there... a little intellectual honesty is in order to admit that.