Moderated Legitimate 9/11 Questions

[ElMondoHummus]

ElMondo, they're already used to ridicule. They seem to NEED it for some reason.

Which is why I concluded some time ago that they're not serious. Say what you will about DRG, Steven Jones, or Richard Gage, but they at least try to do something to forward their beliefs.

But they're the exception.

To try to rerail this back to T.A.M.'s original intent, let me bring up something Pat Curley (hi Pat!) noted over at ScrewLooseChange:

I've mentioned this video several times in the past, but I am struck by the fact that none of the "Truthers" has ever followed up on the revelation made by Patty Casazza...

A quote follows by Casazza discussing whistleblowers she brought to 9/11 Commision chairman Thomas Kean's attention.

... This is the sort of stuff the Troofers should be digging at. Who were these "other whistle-blowers"? Surely Mrs Casazza can give the movement at least a description of these individuals, which would help greatly in any investigation. I mean, we see these "ambush videos" by 9-11 Troofers harassing individuals in the media who have no special knowledge, when are we going to see someone press Mrs Casazza for details on her mystery informant, someone who apparently has solid evidence that the government knew everything but the exact moment of the attacks?

(My bolding for emphasis)

Pat has a very good point. Why do so many members of the so-called "Truth" movement waste their time with unproductive activities or stupid posturing, such as when they conduct the "ambush videos" Pat's referring to instead of really trying to get at the truth? No, instead they try to preach beliefs to people. That's proselytism. That's all the Truth Movement really does anymore.

And as far as the actual unanswered question that Pat brought up: What do the whistleblowers that Mrs. Casazza mentioned know? From what is already known, it's most likely damning evidence of MIHOI, not LIHOP (let alone the fools fantasy of MIHOP). But still, that's an unanswered question. And it can shed new, better light on the subject. So why aren't the fantasy peddlers all over this instead of useless, inane issues like what they bring up in every thread of the front page of this subforum?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Maybe the guy tasked with spreading the jet fuel around along with the others spreading body and plane parts thought he was supposed to bring donuts. Hey. Mistakes happen. At least they had donuts.

This is a demonstrable lie...














... no donuts were recovered at the crash site.

But, I want to test the ground for bagels.

 

[RedIbis]

SO are you really saying that the people who FAKED the crash of flight UA93 were too ****ing dumb to remember to spread out jet fuel at the site?

really? honestly? is that what you are implying?

TAM

I thought masking curse words was against the rules here. If it's not, I'd like the opportunity, as well. I can curse like a sailor, or use asterisks to do so.

The only thing I'm asking is where's the jet fuel.

Jet fuel contamination is a serious issue in plane crashes. Is Flight 93 the first plane crash in history to leave behind no soil contimination from jet fuel? Did it run on air? Does Val McClatchey's photo show the totality of the consumed fuel?

You guys sure do love your firsts and coincidences around here.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

I thought masking curse words was against the rules here. If it's not, I'd like the opportunity, as well. I can curse like a sailor, or use asterisks to do so.

The only thing I'm asking is where's the jet fuel.

Jet fuel contamination is a serious issue in plane crashes. Is Flight 93 the first plane crash in history to leave behind no soil contimination from jet fuel? Did it run on air? Does Val McClatchey's photo show the totality of the consumed fuel?

You guys sure do love your firsts and coincidences around here.

Red, I'm sorry to see you've turned a reasonable question into some sort of pissing match.

No one here knows why there was no soil contamination (according to your cite). Why don't you contact the source of your citation and ask them for the reports? Then, as LashL stated, we can actually discuss the results.

 

[applecorped]

Did it run on air?

Still asking questions I see. Forever asking questions. Forever ever..........

 

[apathoid]

The only thing I'm asking is where's the jet fuel.

Jet fuel contamination is a serious issue in plane crashes. Is Flight 93 the first plane crash in history to leave behind no soil contimination from jet fuel? Did it run on air? Does Val McClatchey's photo show the totality of the consumed fuel?

You guys sure do love your firsts and coincidences around here.

And you made this brilliant deduction of no soil contamination because you don't see burned grass around the crater, got it. What happened to those trees then?

 

[apathoid]

And what about witnesses and first responders who reported the stench of jet fuel, Red?

"We stopped and I opened the door. The smell of jet fuel was overpowering. I will never forget that smell; it is really burnt into my mind. ...I walked down the power line and got my first glimpse of human remains. Then I walked a little further and saw more." Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company Assistant Fire Chief Rick King

"...There was a spot at the end where the emergency crews were gathering. I could see that it was smoking and burning a little bit. So I ran as fast as I could towards that spot. I ran right up to the crater. I was standing a few feet away, looking down into it. I was overwhelmed by the crater's depth and size, but there was nothing that I could identify as having been an airplane, except that there was this incredibly strong smell of jet fuel." Reporter Jon Meyer, WJAC-TV

"There was debris everywhere. You couldn't step without walking on a piece of plane part, fabric, or some kind of debris. When they said it was a 757, I looked out across the debris field. I said, "There is no way there is a 757 scattered here. At that time, we didn't know that it was in the hole. The jet fuel smell was really strong...There were plane parts hanging in the trees." Bill Baker, Somerset County Emergency Management Agency


Maybe they are mistaken, it's probably cordite from the pyrotechics that they smelled.

 

[aggle-rithm]

You guys sure do love your firsts and coincidences around here.

And you truthers are sure quiet when asked what you believe happened on 9/11.

I wonder why that is?

 

[Bobert]

Red, I'm sorry to see you've turned a reasonable question into some sort of pissing match.

No one here knows why there was no soil contamination (according to your cite). Why don't you contact the source of your citation and ask them for the reports? Then, as LashL stated, we can actually discuss the results.

Mr. Skinny,
Actually picking up the phone and calling people is WAY TOOO DIFFICULT for most of our resident truthers.

 

[T.A.M.]

I thought masking curse words was against the rules here. If it's not, I'd like the opportunity, as well. I can curse like a sailor, or use asterisks to do so.

The only thing I'm asking is where's the jet fuel.

Jet fuel contamination is a serious issue in plane crashes. Is Flight 93 the first plane crash in history to leave behind no soil contimination from jet fuel? Did it run on air? Does Val McClatchey's photo show the totality of the consumed fuel?

You guys sure do love your firsts and coincidences around here.

ummm...there is an autosensor which puts the asterisks there. It is allowed, as that is its purpose. Put in the word that rhymes with suck, and you will see...it will sensor it for you...

ok, so you asking where is the jet fuel. So if no one can come up with an answer for you (many above have), for arguments sake, what then? We all know what your implication is...that the plane crash was a fake. That is why I said what I said...because if you are insinuating that they faked the crash, then BOY WERE THEY STUPID, to FORGET to throw some jet fuel around.

TAM

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Someone dig me up a facepalm pic!!!

Why do I try?

TAM

Not your fault. You started with good intentions; it's just that given the chance to proselytize, conspiracy peddlers take it and run.

And I have to admit, I didn't have to take the bait in the way I did. I'm sorry. I should've confined posts strictly to potential common ground legit questions. So let's see if we can re-rail:

One issue that I recall getting short shrift was Astaneh-Asl's early critiques that even by the standards of the time, the Twin Towers were not properly built. The Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse blog reported this a couple of years ago:

As Mr. Astaneh-Asl examined the construction documents, however, he was horrified by aspects of the design. He says the structure essentially threw out the rule book on skyscraper construction. "This building was so strange, and so many violations of practice and code were introduced," he says.

Apparently, NIST agreed that there were code violations:

The departures from the building codes and standards identified by NIST did not have a significant effect on the outcome of September 11."

(Same source as first quote)

But, there is firm disagreement with Astaneh-Asl's assessment.

"We didn't really cite anything we thought the designers should have known about at that time," says Mr. Corley, who led that investigation. "It would have made no difference to what happened regardless of what building code it was built under."

Mr. Corley says Mr. Astaneh-Asl's simulations do not prove that the design was flawed. "If I know what's going to happen, I can design something that can do better" under those circumstances, he says.

So, the ultimate charge by Astaneh-Asl is that, even by the standards of the time the Twin Towers were built, the innovative design elements were substandard. My question is, is that a reasonable conclusion? It's too facile to cop out by saying this is a hindsight question. It's similarly too easy to cop out by saying that no one could have anticipated the events of 9/11, since Astaneh-Asl says he's taking that into account:

Mr. Astaneh-Asl responds that his modified version of the towers was not designed specifically for an airplane strike. "We designed this building assuming that they were building this building in 1970 following the [New York City] code without any consideration of an airplane," he says.

But, in the other direction, it's similarly too cheap a cop-out to simply denigrate the design because it was new and at the time unproven (Astaneh-Asl gives hints of holding that opinion in the linked article). So again, is his assessment reasonable? I admit I'm asking this somewhat rhetorically because I don't believe I have enough knowledge to comprehend a genuine, rigorous analysis of his claim . But, the OP is looking for a legitimate question. In my mind, this one is a good candidate.

 

[chillzero]

So you didn't find much information about soil analyses either. I'll remind you that your longwinded, condescending post is not in the spirit of this thread.

Do you have any specific, "legitimate" questions about 9/11, not so far answered by official accounts or research?

Oh Red.... that's an incredibly disappointing response, and not worthy of you.

What exactly would be wrong with following that advice?

 

[dtugg]

What exactly would be wrong with following that advice?

It would require him to do some actual work. Cherry picking, outright lying, speculating, and general intellectual dishonesty serve his purposes much better (at least in his mind).

 

[RedIbis]

Oh Red.... that's an incredibly disappointing response, and not worthy of you.

What exactly would be wrong with following that advice?

It seems to me that the final card played by debunkers when they cannot respond to a legitimate question, is "go ask him yourself" or the variation "file an FOIA request."

There's nothing wrong with the advice. Is there anything wrong with saying, "you know that's a pretty good question. Why wasn't there any soil contamination?"

ETA: After 5-6000 yards of soil was analyzed the EPA said there was no contamination. That in itself should be curious, but isn't around here, I wonder why.

 

[chillzero]

It seems to me that the final card played by debunkers when they cannot respond to a legitimate question, is "go ask him yourself" or the variation "file an FOIA request."

There's nothing wrong with the advice. Is there anything wrong with saying, "you know that's a pretty good question. Why wasn't there any soil contamination?"

ETA: After 5-6000 yards of soil was analyzed the EPA said there was no contamination. That in itself should be curious, but isn't around here, I wonder why.

But if you genuinely want to know something, and someone tells you how to get that information, I consider it very poor form to bitch at them for doing so. It makes it seem as if you have no real interest in the answer at all.

 

[RedIbis]

ummm...there is an autosensor which puts the asterisks there. It is allowed, as that is its purpose. Put in the word that rhymes with suck, and you will see...it will sensor it for you...

ok, so you asking where is the jet fuel. So if no one can come up with an answer for you (many above have), for arguments sake, what then? We all know what your implication is...that the plane crash was a fake. That is why I said what I said...because if you are insinuating that they faked the crash, then BOY WERE THEY STUPID, to FORGET to throw some jet fuel around.

TAM

Wrong. It's not as simple as throwing some jet fuel around. It's what makes a crash scene consistent with other crash scenes, namely, the thousands of gallons of fuel that leak into the soil. Even the exploded jet fuel will leave considerable contamination at ground level.

Throwing "some jet fuel around" would allow people to smell it, but it would not contaminate the soil to the extent that occurs after a crash. See my point?

 

[RedIbis]

But if you genuinely want to know something, and someone tells you how to get that information, I consider it very poor form to bitch at them for doing so. It makes it seem as if you have no real interest in the answer at all.

I already have the answer from the EPA. And please, if you were so concerned about bitching, as a mod, you would have had to ban half your friends around here.

 

[chillzero]

I already have the answer from the EPA. And please, if you were so concerned about bitching, as a mod, you would have had to ban half your friends around here.

as a what?

 

[RedIbis]

as a what?

"would have had", I think that's past perfect continuous.

 

[chillzero]

Your comment makes even less sense then. I have no concerns about bitching. When I was a mod I had concerns only about members breaching the MA.

What I said to you was that it is very poor form (see.... I'm not accusing you of breaking any rules) to pose a question and then bitch at someone who tells you how to get your answer. If you're now saying you already had the answer, then you can add disingenuous to the charge.