Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clayton Moore said:
Look up the definition of in concert.

with a common plan
Click to expand...

And that means? How would a total collapse NOT be in concert, using this lose weasle-definition? :confused:



I notice you're still a weasle, so allow me to repost:

Clayton, I find you again weasling away from replying to legitimate questions. You and I were in a debate. You dropped it. Please respond to
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7126545&postcount=5320
or state why you won't! Thanks.
 
beachnut said:
Yes, your tax dollars (you are a US citizen) sent me to school, Twice (actually to more than 7 schools from survival, pilot training, to management training and more), let me learn to fly high performance jet trainers, supersonic T-38, it was a trip, I flew heavy jets, KC-135, was an evaluator, instructor, aircraft commander, co-pilot, was an engineer for advance cockpit designs, ran a computer lab, did death notification, ran airlift for Bosnia and Herzegovina, flew the first night of Desert Storm, etc, etc, etc. And I am only a tanker toad...

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1tankerflight.jpg[/qimg]
Forgot to mention, I am a scuba diver, and photographer. The plane in the lead is the type I flew, and I am flying one as the picture is taken, not sure if the Copilot took this or I did, since I would be cross cockpit; I forgot, this is from 1980, or so. I have about 4,000 hours flying these jets, would have more but I was also an engineer, and more during my career.

I was trained as an aircraft accident investigator, at a management level. I own, as the manage, aircraft accident scenes after the fire chief handed over the site.

I flew and worked as an engineer for the USAF for 28 years. No big deal, I enjoyed every second. Norway, Perth, Amberly, Guam, Okinawa, Diego Garcia, Italy, England, Belgium, Hawaii, Alaska, Nevada, Oregon, Georgia, Ohio, Oklahoma, Australia, and more where I worked for the USAF.

I am here because JREF is a skeptics forum, for critical thinking, and heard the claims of fantastic maneuver by jets flown by terrorists. Then I looked into it, and found the terrorists did not fly good enough to pass a check-ride. I found every single claim by 911 truth is false, based on hearsay and lies; no evidence. I have an ATP, what you need to fly Captain for the major airlines, but I only flew for myself and the USAF, since 1973, I have been a pilot. You remember the Right Stuff? "Who was the best pilot I ever saw? Well, uh, you're lookin' at 'im",,, C'est moi
Click to expand...

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/flights/pentagonhit.html

Pentagon Attack Maneuver Minimized Fatalities
Plane descends 7000 feet in 3 minutes,
and turns through 270 degrees
to attack Wedge One of the Pentagon, undergoing renovations on 9/11/01.
Click to expand...

http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_14.htm
According to the official account, an unidentified aircraft that somebody randomly decided was 'Flight 77' (remember, the transponder needed to identify the aircraft had been turned off) then suddenly pops up over Washington DC out of nowhere and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level. The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O'Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, 'The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.'" (ABC News, 10/24/2001, also archived at www.cooperativeresearch.org)

The official story of Hanjour's flight path continues in an even more bizarre narrative. Having successfully entered D.C. airspace, with no idea how soon fighter aircraft would show up to shoot him down, he finds himself pointed in the ideal direction toward the East wing of the Pentagon, where all the top brass in the military are known to be stationed. But then he apparently changes his mind as to his heading, and pulls off that incredible, sweeping 270-degree descending turn at 400+mph to approach the Pentagon from the opposite direction. There, he inexplicably lines up the less valued West wing, which was miraculously scheduled to receive the finishing touches of extensive bomb-blast retrofitting the next day, September 12, leaving it conveniently empty of most of its military employees. "The section known as Wedge 1 (the West Wing) had been under renovation and was scheduled for final completion on Wednesday, September 12th, 2001."
Click to expand...

That dive and turn would be a snap for you, would it not?
 
Clayton Moore said:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/flights/pentagonhit.html



http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_14.htm


That dive and turn would be a snap for you, would it not?
Click to expand...
911 hard facts? It should be called 911 LIES, www.911LIES.dumberthandirt.

All the flying on 911 was simple. Sorry, but you posted nonsense, and junk. Ask a pilot with an ATP; oops that is me. Darn, you don't know anything about flying, and you proved it and don't know it.

I am a pilot, Hani flew as if it was his first and last flight in a 757. It was sloppy and your posts proves you are clueless on flying. You don't comprehend loosing 7000 feet in 3 minutes is normal. Turning 270 degrees? LOL, please stand up, turn all the way around, WOW, you just did a maneuver of 360 degrees, wow. You have no clue you posted pure stupid.


"I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, vortex compression, downwash reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article. Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lbs airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH. The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile. (Remember that when a plane is landing conventionally, it is traveling somewhere around 150 mph, producing SIGNIFICANTLY less wake than a plane traveling at 400 mph.)
Click to expand...
Shan't? LOL, this moron knows nothing about flying, and has no verified experience. The trajectory was a dive, this guy can't get the fact right.

You failed, but then I have flown heavy jets (over 300,000 pounds) since 1976, and flown since 1973. The big jets, easier to fly than the single engine planes.

It is not impossible to fly a heavy jet at 20 feet at high speed. Sorry, you are wrong. Too bad, you posted lies and failed junk.

I flew this version with the old engines... It is a great jet.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
Gullible Americans
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14531.htm



http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14566.htm

What we know and don’t know about 9/11



Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
Click to expand...

Scientists and engineers, such as Clemson University Professor of Engineering Dr. Judy Woods and BYU Professor of Physics Dr. Steven Jones, have raised compelling questions about the official account of the collapse of the three WTC buildings.
Click to expand...

Judy Woods say it was a Beam Weapon, that is insane. Good you found idiots on 911. Good job, it would be hard to find bigger morons on 911 than you did. Beam Weapons, good one.

Did By Paul Craig Roberts go nuts? He can't figure out 911 after 9 years, that is retarded.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Danielle O'Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, 'The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.'"
Click to expand...

*Y a w n *

Danielle O'Brien said:
Mr. Meyssan's book "9/11: The big Lie" states that on September 11, 2001 I and my fellow air traffic controllers at Dulles airport had "no possible doubt" that the plane we saw approaching Washington, DC, which subsequently crashed into the Pentagon, "could not be a commercial airliner, but only a military aircraft" because of its speed and maneuverability.
In the manner Mr. Meyssen took my statements from context and arranged them to support his theory, his conclusions are a blatant disregard for the truth.
Upon initial impression, I considered the target, later confirmed to have been American Airlines flight 77, to possibly have been a military aircraft. In an interview with ABC's 20/20, I stated, "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane. You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." Since that tragic day, I've realised that it was never the intent of the hijacker to safely land American flight 77 anywhere. The usual preparations for a safe landing without our National Airspace System were not a consideration. Further, my colleagues at Reagan National Air Traffic Control Tower observed, from the windows of the Tower, and American Airlines Boeing 757 disappear below the skyline just prior to the smoke beginning at the Pentagon. Where is this B757 now? There was no situation when a standard airliner would traverse the skies around Washington, D.C. without strict approval by FAA Air Traffic Control.
Where are the crew and passengers from American 77? They have never been accounted for by Mr. Meyssen.
Another valid point against the argument by Meyssen is the path the aircraft flew. Meyssen suggests it was a military missile used to impact the Pentagon. Why would a missile make a 360 degree manuever like this to reduce its altitude. A missile would be on course, at its appropriate altitude, when it approached the target.
The suggestion of the use of a military plane or missile, knowing all available facts, is simply beyond consideration.
If Mr. Meyssen had been interested in the full truth, many sources were available. There would have been no better witnesses than the aviation-trained, eye witnesses of Air Traffic Control. In that he never requested interviews of any of us who were there, his interest obviously lies not in revealing any truth, but in his personal financial gain.
Respectfully,
Danielle (O'Brien) Howell
Click to expand...

Which brings us to:

Craig4 said:
Get a new hobby.
Click to expand...

Heartily seconded.
 
Clayton Moore said:
That dive and turn would be a snap for you, would it not?
Click to expand...

No, I don't think beachnut could make a 270 degree turn and approach from the opposite direction.

Tell me, Clayton, if you make three right turns in your car, do you wind up going the opposite direction?
 
femr2 said:
The NIST statement...

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as exterior column buckling progressed and the columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This freefall drop continued for approximately 8 stories (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.

...is misleading if read literally, and the values stated are inaccurate.

A more accurate representation of the WTC7 acceleration profile (for the NW corner) is...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/628055186.png[/qimg]

Note the amount of time that the red line is ON the black line. That is the amount of time the NW corner descended AT freefall.

Do you require explanation as to why this graph conflicts with your personal viewpoint ?
Click to expand...


Yeah, we've all seen that graphic...you've posted it 300 times. It's just as useless now as it was on post number 1.
 
Sabretooth said:
Yeah, we've all seen that graphic...you've posted it 300 times.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. I only generated that image yesterday (snigger). That was the first time it was posted :D

It's just as useless now as it was on post number 1.
Click to expand...
Your lack of graphical data interpretation skills is not my problem, but thanks for making your failings clearer.

Considering that you're handwaving the piles of facts that disprove CD
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Where am I doing such, and also, where am I attempting to prove CD ?

(The personal attacks upon my good self are getting more moronic by the day. lol)
 
femr2 said:
Nonsense. Where am I doing such, and also, where am I attempting to prove CD ?
Click to expand...

Considering that you are out to disprove the NIST findings that it was an accidental collapse due to uncontrolled fires, you are attempting to prove CD.

After all, the opposite of accidental is purposeful.
 
On another note... jumped into the Yooootoooob TM debating environment only to be reminded how much worse the debate is outside of a forum environment (user name of the guy is ThePhysicsOf
):

@another user well there is no point telling my physics credentials ( A* student) BUT it sounds like you dont know simple Newtonian physics. let me explain: a building (like WTC)cant fall at free fall speed because of the steel structure inside slows it down considerably and it WILL make it fall to one side (like jenga allways falls to one side). so why dont you look at the evidence and use science to check the results. 3000 people died that day with no real untempered evidence being given public
ThePhysicsOf 1 day ago
------------------------------------------------
@ThePhysicsOf
A stack of jenga sticks ranks as one of the most incompetent comparisons to the towers since Richard Gage used cardboard boxes to model steel buildings. Rather than use your "A* student" creditials to leverage incompetent demonstrations as fact, you need to be consulting engineers other than the incapable AE911truth members.
kyuubi4square 16 hours ago
------------------------------------------------
thephysicsof@me IT WAS NOT MENT TO COMPARE EXACTLY HOW IT FELL just that something with structure falls to the side like the *********** WTC and jenga. so go do some research an dont believe everything you are told on belief.
ThePhysicsOf 4 hours ago

------------------------------------------------
me
@ThePhysicsOf

Take your own advice. Any competent engineer will tell you that the WTC construction does not allow for the kind of "fall" you BELIEVE it should have had. You lose when you make assumptions about how a building performs without knowing the implications of its construction. This isn't belief, it's fact, and if you're a physics student congrats on the grades but your assumption would equate to a failing grade in any structures or architecture geared course, plain and simple.


@me that is what i said. the structure makes it very very improbable(if not impossible) to fall in the way it did. that is why people hypothesize that the nano thermite could have been used to cut the structure in specific ways to make the 3 buildings fall in the exact same way. the twin towers fell at free fall speed straight down yes, impossible with the steel structure inside as you said (and as i said). and WTC7 fell in the same way as the two without being hit at all.
ThePhysicsOf 3 hours ago

------------------------------------------------
me

@ThePhysicsOf

"as you said"

As I said the "topple like a tree" scenario is incompatible with the design of the towers. They fell precisely as they were expected to; straight down

The tube-in-tube design was the downfall, the floor connections were sheered apart by the force of the floors falling before the loads could be transferred to the core columns, thus the core was the last part of the towers to collapse. Once again, ask a competent engineer, stop guessing with your lack of education

------------------------------------------------

Was there something I was unclear about here? :boggled:
in a 500 word post he read the scathing critique of his ineducation as a complement and belief that he was right... :wtf:
I'm almost tempted to play off of the idea that he completely missed what I was talking about...
 
Last edited:
Sabretooth said:
After all, the opposite of accidental is purposeful.
Click to expand...

I continually have a difficult following but as I've seen, the alternative is, he might be trying to show that some of NISTS' assumptions are wrong and that the collapse while inevitable given the circumstances may have been caused by, or proceeded with a different mechanism that doesn't need to be CD, or purposeful demolition.

Just the level of detail to arrive at the same conclusion that the collapse was fire related seems unnecessary IMO. Until he states the implications on decisions made after the investigation however there's not beyond that to say
 
Sabretooth said:
Considering that you are out to disprove the NIST findings that it was an accidental collapse due to uncontrolled fires, you are attempting to prove CD.
Click to expand...
Again, where am I doing that (apart from inside your head) ? :rolleyes:

Quotes please.
 
Last edited:
femr2 said:
Again, where am I doing that (apart from inside your head) ? :rolleyes:

Quotes please.
Click to expand...
You label gravity collapses, Demolition. What is it over 20 times? http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...&search=Search&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&spell=1
WTC Demolition - WTC2 Destruction Above Initiation
One of many titles with Demolition used to label gravity collapses. Kind of truthy, unless you have changed your Official Theory is Fictional claim.



You can't comprehend models, but that is not a truther unique quality, but NIST bashing is a 911 truth quality and posting acceleration as a smooth curve, smoothed by the wrong methods is standard 911 truth like science.

Have you figured out, with over 9 years of effort, 19 terrorists did it with 4 planes?
 
Last edited:
I used to live around people who were very much interested in the Civil War. It's not really my thing but it was theirs and they got into it. However, they engaged in their interest with a reverence for the scope and tragedy of the events they were talking about or even recreating. I don't see that with the people who tell lies about 9/11. There's no acknowledgment of the tragedy of the thing. It' s hobby and a meaningless one where these people delude themselves with the illusion of insight. If 9/11 is your "thing" fine but do try to approach the topic with some taste and respect for the fallen.
 
Clayton Moore said:
That dive and turn would be a snap for you, would it not?
Click to expand...

An average of 39 feet per second descent and 180 seconds to turn 3/4's of a circle!!

I am NOT a pilot and I could do that.

As for the bugaboo about 'ground effect' that ship sailed loooong ago Clayton. It IS very possible for large aircraft to fly at 20 feet agl and several hundred MPH without any problems from an effect that gets stronger when the plane is going SLOWER and has flaps deployed and is flying nose high. Besides that of course the author seems to ignore the fact that the aircraft was only that close to the ground for a very short period. In fact it clipped the top of a lamp post only a few hundred feet from the Pentagon, a lamp post that is itself taller than 20 feet and was on a roadway that was also elevated from the surrounding area.

Ground effect, Clayton if you ever find a clue as top how ignorant you actually are please call the suicide hotline before you do anything drastic.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
On another note... jumped into the Yooootoooob TM debating environment only to be reminded how much worse the debate is outside of a forum environment (user name of the guy is ThePhysicsOf
):

@another user well there is no point telling my physics credentials ( A* student) BUT it sounds like you dont know simple Newtonian physics. let me explain: a building (like WTC)cant fall at free fall speed because of the steel structure inside slows it down considerably and it WILL make it fall to one side (like jenga allways falls to one side). so why dont you look at the evidence and use science to check the results.............ThePhysicsOf 1 day ago
.................. the twin towers fell at free fall speed straight down yes, impossible with the steel structure inside as you said (and as i said). and WTC7 fell in the same way as the two without being hit at all.
ThePhysicsOf 3 hours ago

------------------------------------------------
..
Click to expand...

An physics "A" student who uses the term "free fall speed"?

On another note the time it takes me to walk to work is 1000 feet.:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom