[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

[apathoid]

Please read this very slowly. I understand that you refuse to respond to posts that reveal the extent of your misinformation . You will never acknowledge that your falsehood about the imaginary "bad boys" was exposed. But...

You continue to pretend that you, someone devoid of technical knowledge, are engaging in a debate about aircraft components with a real, honest-to-goodness AVIONICS TECH. Is there a glimmer of awareness that you are in over your head?

Appeal to authority

Seriously though, I'm no expert on jet engines Ron. A&P school was nine years ago and the only engine work I've done since is engine changes, removing/installing fan blades, blade balancing(for vibration problems), as well as troubleshooting all the various crap which happen to be attached to the engines.

malcolm and the other "wrong engine LOL" people need to talk to the folks who tear down and rebuild these engines. I have offered to give malcolm a phone number of one of the largest engine shops in the world(they work pretty much every airliner powerplant there) and got no reply. I've been thinking about strolling down to our CFM56 line(it's a long walk from where I typically work) and showing malcolm what the CFM56 core looks like with nothing attached to it. Problem is, malcolm somehow believes that the Murray St fragment belongs to the fan section. Words can't express how amazing I find that belief to be since the diameter of that section appears to be 20" or so....

 

[SOMERLED]

This has been pointed out by several posters here already but you still seem to either be ignoring it or just "not getting it."

The pictures of the Murray Street engine fragment pictured on that page you keep referring to, this one, are just that, a fragment! A turbofan engine has several distinct sections; a low pressure compressor sometimes referred to as the "intake," the high pressure compressor, the combustor, the turbines and then the nozzle. The Murray St fragment is the high pressure compressor, midsection or "core," of a JT9D engine. It is not the whole engine! In this image you will note the fuel injector ports at the base of the high pressure compressor and the beginning of the combustor. This can be seen in this cutaway image, and in this image are yellow. Compare to the CFM56 and you'll note that the Murray St fragment does not appear to be any part of one.

Would you kindly peruse the photos on this website and give me your opinion on two things,
1. The end of the shaft, which is the topmost piece in the wreck photo and
2. The tyre.
Thanking you in advance,
http://www.rense.com/general63/hiding.htm

 

[SOMERLED]

It was addressed in post #1309 of this thread

Where did the 5A bit come from?

 

[SOMERLED]

Yes -- 1993 was the year of the WTC bombing. I still don't understand your point -- but I think maybe it's hinging on your use of the word "precautions." I don't think that the collective opinion here is that there weren't warnings prior to 9/11; obviously there were. But the definition of "precaution" is "a measure taken in advance to prevent something dangerous, unpleasant, or inconvenient from happening" -- i.e., anti-aircraft defenses at the Pentagon. You still have not provided a cite to support this.

I would have thought the Vigilant Guardian exercises might speak for themselves.
I simply find it inconceivable that a private outfit like the Port Authority of NY and NJ can take measures to instill 'precautions', yet the govt does nothing.

 

[SOMERLED]

Because there were witnesses who saw an aircraft crash into the tower. Because an airline is missing a particular airplane of a particular model, and whose description matches that of the plane seen to have crashed into the tower.

And besides:
How in the F do you know nobody looked? Have you read every report made on everything that happened that day? I sure haven't. Don't you think the airline would have looked, or maybe the flight investigators? Do you have access to all those reports? Why don't you go see if they were made, and who you can get them from? I'd bet you dollars to donuts that if you do, you'll find that some one looked, checked a serial number against the records of the airplane and found that the scrap pile from Murray street came from one of its engines, marked on a check list and went on to something else.

However, I would also bet dollars to donuts that you won't even try to find out. The chances are far too good that your fantasy world would collapse on collsion with reality.

That's one sure way to settle this dispute. How do we go about it?

 

[SOMERLED]

Well, gee. It's just one of the major characterstics of the strength of metal. When you push in on your empty beer can, the metal stretches. You are in effect PULLING metal from other places as you push in on one spot. If you were to hang up a sheet of aluminum in a frame such that it were well supported and couldn't move, you could slam it with a sldge hammer. How much effort it would take to hammer through or tear down the aluminum sheet depends on (among other things) the tensile strength of aluminum.

What's the tensile strength of concrete?

 

[SpitfireIX]

Show me one piece of evidence that 175 did hit the south tower.

We've already shown you lots of evidence, but to reiterate the high points:

1. Numerous videos and photos of 767-200 in United Airlines livery striking South tower.

2. Remains of passengers found in WTC wreckage identified through DNA.

3. Statement of air traffic controller handling United 175 that aircraft stopped responding to control, dived toward New York, and then disappeared from radar.

4. Air Traffic control tapes that confirm (3).

5. Two United Airlines flights are known to have disappeared that day; 93 is known to have crashed in Pennsylvania, and in any case was not a 767.

I have shown you 50 websites in one post. Each site contains evidence that 175 did NOT hit the south tower.

And we've already shown you why several of them are demonstrably incorrect.

Show me ONE piece of evidence that it did, just ONE.

Please explain how points (1) through (5) above are not evidence.

 

[SpitfireIX]

What's the tensile strength of concrete?

That depends on a variety of factors, including the particular type of concrete, plus its age (concrete continues to strengthen as it ages) but in general it's quite low, as concrete is a brittle material. The NIST report estimated that the compressive strength of the office floor slabs was approximately 4100 pounds per square inch (psi), and that that of the core floor slabs was approximately 5500 psi. If you work better with metric, those are roughly 290 kilogram-force per square centimeter (kg-f/cm²), and 390 kg-f/cm², respectively. Concrete's tensile strength is generally taken to be 10% of its compressive strength, as a rule of thumb. NIST's estimates were somewhat lower than 10%, as shown by a graph in the report.

 

[Z]

I would have thought the Vigilant Guardian exercises might speak for themselves.
I simply find it inconceivable that a private outfit like the Port Authority of NY and NJ can take measures to instill 'precautions', yet the govt does nothing.

You can find it inconceivable all you like, but the facts speak for themselves.

The Army was in a downsizing status during most of the '90s and beginning of
'00s. This led to seriously undercrewed vehicles and weapons, as well as a large number of active duty soldiers being regularly tasked for non-military duties - such as landscaping, road repair, etc.

Just before 9/11, when our unit went to the field for training, we often left the ammunition vehicles behind, because we needed the bodies to fill our rocket launcher crews - and by 'fill' I mean put two of the three required crewmen in each launcher. Command posts were reduced to battery-level only, because we didn't have enough fire direction personnel to fill out our platoon-level CP. Mechanics were pooled at a common location because they didn't have enough mechanics for every battery, much less every platoon.

Equipment was maintained on a shoestring budget, if at all. New parts were a fond dream, but the reality was that we were buying, trading, or sometimes even stealing parts off of National Guard equipment, because there just wasn't any money for new parts left. The global environment had become so peaceful after the partial collapse of Communism, that more money was being handed over for landscaping and building renovation than for maintaining battle-ready equipment on rapid-deployment units, much less in other units.

Deployments, though rare, were usually prefaced by heavy shuffling of personnel. Units that didn't even share our purpose were often 'plussed up' with people from our battallion. There's nothing weirder than being trained as an MLRS crewman, and suddenly having to work in infantry, or communications, or in cannon artillery, for three months to a year.

Even field training ran this way. In spite of being part of C-Battery, I was often crewing vehicles in A or B Batteries, or in Battallion. I even served as a computer operator at the Brigade level, and drove a one-star general briefly during a postwide training exercise.

Even though many buildings were identified as potential military and terrorist targets, the atmosphere within the upper echelons of the military was largely dismissive. The arrogance of our generals and politicians made them believe that NO country or terrorist group would be so incredibly stupid, as to attack a target on American soil. The response would be calculably devastating to anyone who tried it, whether they were successful or not.

Plus, in many cases, there was an unspoken challenge to terrorists and enemy nations - go ahead, try it. See what happens.

We never expected someone would take us up on that.

Prior to 9/11, domestic terrorism was generally limited to small domestic groups, using car bombs, poisoned letters, and such. The idea that anyone would orchestrate a coordinated hijacking and subsequent multi-target aerial attack was unthinkable.

The money required to put air defense weaponry and their crews, along with support units, barracks, maintenance bays, etc. around civilian and government areas deemed targets was considered a completely unwarranted expenditure of already limited funds, and getting Congress to approve additional military funds during such a peaceful time would have been impossible. Reallocating existing funds would have crippled many posts that were already injured due to lack of working equipment and personnel.

So your limited ability to conceive of the government failing to station apparently unneeded and expensive air protection around certain targets is completely irrelevant. The facts speak for themselves.

 

[SOMERLED]

We've already shown you lots of evidence, but to reiterate the high points:

1. Numerous videos and photos of 767-200 in United Airlines livery striking South tower.

2. Remains of passengers found in WTC wreckage identified through DNA.

3. Statement of air traffic controller handling United 175 that aircraft stopped responding to control, dived toward New York, and then disappeared from radar.

4. Air Traffic control tapes that confirm (3).

5. Two United Airlines flights are known to have disappeared that day; 93 is known to have crashed in Pennsylvania, and in any case was not a 767.




And we've already shown you why several of them are demonstrably incorrect.




Please explain how points (1) through (5) above are not evidence.

1. Show me ONE.
2. Show me the passenger list.
3. These tapes must have dodged getting collected up, broken up and dumped in the trash.
4. As 3.
5. If I paid out money for a staged crash site and got Shanksville, I would want my money back. You cannot be serious.
6. In what regard are these sites incorrect?
7. ! - 5 are not evidence because all you have is words. Where are the photos of 175 in UA livery? where is this DNA list? Where is even a list of passengers?

 

[SOMERLED]

That depends on a variety of factors, including the particular type of concrete, plus its age (concrete continues to strengthen as it ages) but in general it's quite low, as concrete is a brittle material. The NIST report estimated that the compressive strength of the office floor slabs was approximately 4100 pounds per square inch (psi), and that that of the core floor slabs was approximately 5500 psi. If you work better with metric, those are roughly 290 kilogram-force per square centimeter (kg-f/cm²), and 390 kg-f/cm², respectively. Concrete's tensile strength is generally taken to be 10% of its compressive strength, as a rule of thumb. NIST's estimates were somewhat lower than 10%, as shown by a graph in the report.

Thank you for that.
What would happen, if you secured a 1 ft x 1 ft x 30 ft concrete only beam at one end and then pushed it out horizontally into fresh air for 15 feet?

 

[SOMERLED]

Nila Sagadevin is not a real pilot, that is his pen name, he wrote a paper on how the terrorist could not fly the jet on 9/11. Wrong. I put kids with no flying experience in a simulator of jets used on 9/11, and they hit the WTC. Sorry you have picked liars and misinformation experts. Sorry there are millions of pilots who disagree with the few pilots who have decided to tell lies and make up stories.

Next.

What has a pen name got to do with anything, don't you have one?
Withyour experience, you will know that, for example,that 77 could not have performed the manouevres that were attributed to it.

 

[SOMERLED]

You can find it inconceivable all you like, but the facts speak for themselves.

The Army was in a downsizing status during most of the '90s and beginning of
'00s. This led to seriously undercrewed vehicles and weapons, as well as a large number of active duty soldiers being regularly tasked for non-military duties - such as landscaping, road repair, etc.

Just before 9/11, when our unit went to the field for training, we often left the ammunition vehicles behind, because we needed the bodies to fill our rocket launcher crews - and by 'fill' I mean put two of the three required crewmen in each launcher. Command posts were reduced to battery-level only, because we didn't have enough fire direction personnel to fill out our platoon-level CP. Mechanics were pooled at a common location because they didn't have enough mechanics for every battery, much less every platoon.

Equipment was maintained on a shoestring budget, if at all. New parts were a fond dream, but the reality was that we were buying, trading, or sometimes even stealing parts off of National Guard equipment, because there just wasn't any money for new parts left. The global environment had become so peaceful after the partial collapse of Communism, that more money was being handed over for landscaping and building renovation than for maintaining battle-ready equipment on rapid-deployment units, much less in other units.

Deployments, though rare, were usually prefaced by heavy shuffling of personnel. Units that didn't even share our purpose were often 'plussed up' with people from our battallion. There's nothing weirder than being trained as an MLRS crewman, and suddenly having to work in infantry, or communications, or in cannon artillery, for three months to a year.

Even field training ran this way. In spite of being part of C-Battery, I was often crewing vehicles in A or B Batteries, or in Battallion. I even served as a computer operator at the Brigade level, and drove a one-star general briefly during a postwide training exercise.

Even though many buildings were identified as potential military and terrorist targets, the atmosphere within the upper echelons of the military was largely dismissive. The arrogance of our generals and politicians made them believe that NO country or terrorist group would be so incredibly stupid, as to attack a target on American soil. The response would be calculably devastating to anyone who tried it, whether they were successful or not.

Plus, in many cases, there was an unspoken challenge to terrorists and enemy nations - go ahead, try it. See what happens.

We never expected someone would take us up on that.

Prior to 9/11, domestic terrorism was generally limited to small domestic groups, using car bombs, poisoned letters, and such. The idea that anyone would orchestrate a coordinated hijacking and subsequent multi-target aerial attack was unthinkable.

The money required to put air defense weaponry and their crews, along with support units, barracks, maintenance bays, etc. around civilian and government areas deemed targets was considered a completely unwarranted expenditure of already limited funds, and getting Congress to approve additional military funds during such a peaceful time would have been impossible. Reallocating existing funds would have crippled many posts that were already injured due to lack of working equipment and personnel.

So your limited ability to conceive of the government failing to station apparently unneeded and expensive air protection around certain targets is completely irrelevant. The facts speak for themselves.

Thank you for such a comprehensive and prima facie sincere post.
I had in mind fixed, minimum maintenance installations, I do accept your point.
We are now left with the air defence.
Before we consider that, might I ask you, how long you have been au fait with the events of 9/11?
I ask, because I have difficulty believing that anyone au fait, would fall down on the side of the OCT.
What about WTC7 dropping like a shot cow, for example?

 

[Tirdun]

What about WTC7 dropping like a shot cow, for example?

What is your fascination with shooting cows? A shot cow would probably stumble a few feet and fall over given a good shot. Unless WTC7 managed to amble down Greenwich Street and collapse, it's a ridiculous analogy.

If instead I drop a burning moose onto a cow and the cow stays standing for 7 hours, while on fire without falling over, then you can compare cows to skyscrapers.

Further, until your expertise equals or exceeds that of the six engineering associations who independently investigated the collapse of WTC7, you lack the authority to claim much of anything. I suppose you could alternately join a farm union or slaughterhouse to bolster this incessant "shot cow" claim, but I think few here would take that as seriously.

 

[Civilized Worm]

Here's a few more coincidences,
The patrol dogs, the ones that can sniff out explosives, were pulled from work at the WTC in time rnough for explosives to be planted before 9/11.
That's reasonable suspicion.

The dogs were removed on the 6th, preparing a building half the size of one of the twin towers takes months, how do you think they managed to get them both wired up within a few days? Besides there were still some sniffer dogs in the buildings, one of them died in the attack: http://www.novareinna.com/bridge/sirius.html

 

[Z]

Thank you for such a comprehensive and prima facie sincere post.
I had in mind fixed, minimum maintenance installations, I do accept your point.

Each minimum installation would still have a footprint of many, many blocks, and a firing point (several, most likely) with a radius of 30ft or more (for safety) - they'd be very noticable. But thank you for accepting the point.

We are now left with the air defence.

If you are referring to air superiority craft, such as fighters, I can't speak on behalf of the Air Force. I know that the limited contact we had with the AF often saw missions scrubbed or sent via surface roads, because aircraft fuel was too expensive to waste on training missions. I have no idea what they had available for actual wartime missions.

However, since the fastest attack craft would still take 10 minutes or more, after takeoff, to reach the point of contact and slow to dogfight speeds, they were also completely unprepared for aerial assault.

Before we consider that, might I ask you, how long you have been au fait with the events of 9/11?

I was serving at Ft. Sill, OK, in the field artillery, when 9/11 happened. For many years, I took the official story quite for granted. But several months ago, I came across my first CT posts, and shortly thereafter, the Loose Change video. I was swayed, at first, by the apparently interesting arguments presented, and I spent a few days in chilly consideration of the possibility that there were truths in that video.

But then I did what I expect any rational adult would do - I started researching the material myself, as much as I was able. AND I refused to be attracted to websites of rhetoric, half-truths, ignorance, and lies. These were of no use.

I did spend hours in libraries, pouring over physics books and architectual books, anything that might help support or refute the claims of LC.

And the conclusions I came to were this: 19 Islamic terrorists managed to kidnap four passenger jumbo jets, smashing two into the WTC, causing its eventual collapse, one into the Pentagon, and one crashed into an empty field in Pennsylvania after the passengers bravely struggled against their enemies. WTC-7 collapse due to fire damage and impact damage from falling debris.

Also, that there was a possibility that bin Laden was a patsy of our own government - not that he was blamed falsely for planning these attacks, but that he might have been led into attacking us through deliberate manipulation.

I ask, because I have difficulty believing that anyone au fait, would fall down on the side of the OCT.

There are apparently many things you have difficulty believing, which are nonetheless true.

What about WTC7 dropping like a shot cow, for example?

Having lived on a ranch, I would agree with your assessment. Like a shot cow, the building suffered and 'bled' (the fires), sagged and swayed, and eventually slumped over, slightly sideways, when it could stand no more.

WTC7 dropped exactly how I would expect a building of its type to drop, after being heavily damaged by raging internal fires and after having parts of large buildings dropped on it from considerable height. It didn't fall quickly, except at the very end, but sagged and swayed as the damage increased. It didn't fall into its own footprint, unless perhaps the building's feet are considered to cross roads and meet other buildings.

Nothing about the actual events of that day are a mystery to me, any more. The events that LED to that day, however, are full of mysteries and possible conspiracies. I would have no trouble believing, for example, that the government (well, parts of it anyway) have been slowly forcing a situation by their actions in the Middle East, and deliberately NOT allowing the U.S. to prepare for it, in order to have an excuse to go to war. It's no secret that many government officials, being Christian fundamentalists of one vein or another, long for the holy war that willl crush Islam and prove the superiority of a Christian America once and for all - just as many Islamic officials long for the Jihad that will wipe the earth clean of the infidel.

But the events of 9/11? As far as I can tell, completely aboveboard.

 

[beachnut]

What has a pen name got to do with anything, don't you have one?
Withyour experience, you will know that, for example,that 77 could not have performed the manouevres that were attributed to it.

A kid with no experience flying could fly 77 into the Pentagon. I am a pilot and I have trained pilots. 77 did not do anything special. Not a darn thing. If you think it did please tell me the bank angle and pitch angles 77 did, that were not able to be done by anyone. I have had people in my airplane who never flew before, and they were able to fly a large jet. I have taken kids flying in a real simulator and they were able to hit targets with the plane, with 25 foot accuracy.. Kids who never flew before. Kids doing maneuvers like 77. You have no idea what 77 did on 9/11. Please as asked describe what maneuver 77 did that was so tough?

So you are not talking from experience, I am. You bring up Nila who will not use his real name because he has not flown for years, or may have been the cause of an aircraft accident, and his work proves he is incompetent to comment on 9/11. He says that 77 could not hit the pentagon due to ground effect. Nila has a mind full of mush when it comes to flying. His work is fiction. He writes fiction. He is a poor pilot at best and can not prove he is a pilot!

So, you prove Nila has FAA papers and I will then give you a better debunking of Nila. But you are wrong about 77 and your ideas on 77 maintain your perfect record on 9/11 misinformation.

 

[SpitfireIX]

1. Show me ONE.
2. Show me the passenger list.
3. These tapes must have dodged getting collected up, broken up and dumped in the trash.
4. As 3.
5. If I paid out money for a staged crash site and got Shanksville, I would want my money back. You cannot be serious.
6. In what regard are these sites incorrect?
7. ! - 5 are not evidence because all you have is words. Where are the photos of 175 in UA livery? where is this DNA list? Where is even a list of passengers?

1. Well, there are several on the web sites to which you have linked, but just to humor you:



Also, here's a photo from a conspiracist web site overlaid with a Microsoft Flight Simulator model of a 767-200 in United Airlines livery. The photo purports to prove that the "aircraft" was actually a hologram. The photo is debunked by another conspiracist who shows that the model is slightly misaligned and doesn't take into account the wing flex. The photo does, however, clearly show that the plane is in UA livery, and is definitely a 767-200.

2. http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/Flight175Manifesta.jpg. Here is a list of the passengers and crew from CNN's memorial web page. Here are the hijackers. Note that the computer manifest may not be 100% accurate, as people sometimes change flights at the last minute.

3. The controller is interviewed on a TLC documentary. I've previously linked to the interview on YouTube, but here is is again.



His statements have nothing to do with tapes, other than the fact that radar and radio tapes will corroborate his account.

4. You really should do some actual research, instead of just parroting factoids from conspiracist web sites. Only one tape was destroyed, and it was not an official record of any radar or radio transmission. An FAA manager decided that having the six air traffic controllers from the New York Center who handled American 11 and United 175 make recorded statements of their experiences might prove helpful to investigators. However, the controllers' union representative received agreement from a second manager that the tape would be destroyed as soon as the controllers used it to refresh their memories. Note that air traffic controllers can potentially be held criminally liable for their mistakes, and requiring them to make statements about their actions related to a crash without benefit of legal counsel could potentially violate their right against self-incrimination.

In any case, the tape was never used, and the second manager destroyed it rather than turn it over to federal investigators, in order to keep his promise to the union representative, and because he felt that the tap should never even have been made. He was later disciplined by the FAA. Here is an article from the Washington Post explaining this.

If you find this explanation far-fetched, consider that eight employees of Swiss air-traffic control provider Sky Guide are currently on trial for causing a collision between a Russian airliner and a DHL cargo plane, and charges are currently pending in Brazil against four air-traffic controllers who allegedly contributed to a collision between an airliner and an executive jet.

5. Just as I wasn't serious about needing to know the tensile strength of a wall? Let's deal with one plane at a time, please.

6. I personally explained to you why the analysis "proving" that the aircraft was actually a 767-300 is unreliable; others have gone even farther and shown you why it's wrong. Your 737 engine has also been debunked. Other points have and will be dealt with, but I'll leave a laundry list of all the claims for another post.

7. See above.

 

[SpitfireIX]

You bring up Nila who will not use his real name because he has not flown for years, or may have been the cause of an aircraft accident . . .

What is your evidence for the above? This would certainly explain a lot.

 

[pomeroo]

The only thing you got right, was that someone would notice the theft of the Iraqi's oil,
I have and I say so in that post.

That's not quite the same as someone who is competent to judge such matters noticing.

No Iraqi oil has been stolen by the U.S. No oil from ANY country has been stolen by the U.S. Your wild, wrong-headed assertions, based entirely on a mindless hatred of America, are not facts.