Loose Change - Part IV

[Big Les]

Guys, can anyone that can be bothered (and I completely understand if you can't) please cast an eye over this thread on another forum and let me know if I'm missing any obvious counterarguments?

I'm Jonathan S. Ferguson on there, and although I seem to have several moderators on my "side", none of us are as experienced in shooting down (pun intended) CTs as you guys.

PS - I'm not a sword-wielding maniac (not that the other posters there are); I work in the heritage sector!

 

[gumboot]

Guys, can anyone that can be bothered (and I completely understand if you can't) please cast an eye over this thread on another forum and let me know if I'm missing any obvious counterarguments?

I'm Jonathan S. Ferguson on there, and although I seem to have several moderators on my "side", none of us are as experienced in shooting down (pun intended) CTs as you guys.

PS - I'm not a sword-wielding maniac (not that the other posters there are); I work in the heritage sector!

Greetings.

You seem to have managed very well on your own.

I would only add a few things. One, my a professional point of view, is the shots of the Pentagon lawn are taken at an extreme distance on a very long lens.

Long lenses "compact" the Z axis, producing an effect called "foreshortening". In laymans terms, it becomes difficult to judge how far away objects in the frame are.

Obviously, as closer objects appear larger, this also means a sense of scale can be very deceiving - unless you're looking at objects you're very familiar with such as people.

The end result on the Pentagon pictures is the grass lawn appears to be directly in front of the building, however there's actually considerable distance between the edge of the foam area and the building itself.

Now on to my non-professional opinion:

In high speed collisions, the small componants that make up a large object like an aircraft take on the same properties as particles of water. When the aircraft punches a hole in the building, much of the wreckage "flows" through the hole.

Their photos are all outside the lawn. One would not expect significant amounts of debris, because most of it would be INSIDE the building.

Of course there is ample debris outside to prove the existence of the aircraft on the lawn anyway...

Hope that helps, from one sword lover to another.

-Andrew

 

[Big Les]

It does, thank you. I'll incorporate your comments if that's OK.

I think just about every forum on the web has some sort of "lok @ this vid, maks u think, dunnit?" type thread. It's like starting from square one when you've been hanging out here!

 

[gumboot]

It does, thank you. I'll incorporate your comments if that's OK.

Please do.

-Andrew

 

[Big Les]

Please do.

-Andrew

Done! Partly paraphrased, part quoted anonymously. Quite timely it was too. Thanks again for your help. It's interesting how defensive that last guy has got over questions over his credentials. If he's posting unsubstantiated claims, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask on what basis he makes them. I see "basis" as either links to legitimate sources, a reasoned and logical argument, or at least some proof that he is speaking from an engineering, photo-interp, or related background.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Article about previous buildings collapsing due to fire

Any thoughts??

Interesting. Here's the full NIST report:
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire02/art028.html
This report was completed in 2002, so it doesn't include the Windsor tower in Madrid (2005).

It won't convince a hardcore Denier, since none of the other steel-structure building fires led to a global collapse. But it destroys the idea that it's impossible for ordinary office fires to warp steel and cause massive damage.

 

[60hzxtl]

Great points, gumboot. I hadn't realized that the 78th was a sky lobby. Having been in that lobby, I can attest that there wan't a great amount of flammable material there. Lots of stone, glass, stainless steel, etc.

Both the 44th Fl and the 78th were sky lobbies. A floor full of elevator banks to change to a higher floor. Not unlike an express train station - when I worked on the 74th floor of the North Tower I would change at 44 - there was a bar there, called the Sky Dive, and no major offices. 78 was the lobby to the prestige offices, lots of marble, some artwork, an information receptionist - no bar. It could take you 10 minutes of commuting and elevator changing within the building from the lobby to your desk.

I point this out because the CT crowd who sit anywhere else in the world, who were never there, and have still never been there, have no clue as to the size and scope of the WTC, when they pull out the "fell in footprint" "fires almost out" and "caused a building across the street to fall down".

The fires were still smoldering in DECEMBER, and you already heard crackpot stuff about "those are the bodies burning" from the morbid tourists. If the CT crowd had thier way they would still be picking up one girder at a time and saying "yep, look at that, I've never seen anything like that before! Common sense says <fill in goofy idea in the blank> yep put it in the pile. . "

 

[Belz...]

According to the Port Authority tapes this fireman was on the floor where the plane entered the building. For some reason his voice and his request for help overrule the NIST work.

Interesting. Do you deny the pictures that clearly show fires raging on pretty much all the floors above the impact point (see image below) ?

Just like I'm a big fan of the images that have been offered from all angles of this spectrum compared to the massive amount of bovine excrement offered in writing by the so called "experts".

Structural engineers are "so-called" experts ?

Because 'they' haven't touched us since, and our military has been tromping wide open through their women children and homeland not long after FEMA got finished recycling all of the incriminating evidence against them.

Well, I for one am happy that "they" haven't touched us since. But I don't see how the fact that they didn't proves that they didn't on 9/11.

 

[Belz...]

What did ya'll come up with on tower 7 ?
It's foundation just got tired of holding the building up after it watched tower 1 & 2 fall out of the sky? Was it sad or depressed that it's next door neighbors dropped out of the sky like a sack of hammers?

I do believe it was on fire, Sub:

 

[gumboot]

Article about previous buildings collapsing due to fire

Any thoughts??

Interesting find. I find one thing really interesting, it doesn't appear to mention the Kader Toy Factory Fire - an example of 3 4-storey steel-frame buildings that suffered global collapsed within 15 minutes of being engulfed with flames.

There is an excellent case study on the fire here.

This is an important one to compare to the WTC because the steel had not been coated in fire-proofing. What began as a very small localised fire ultimately claimed three entire buildings and 188 lives (the worst accidental industrial fire in modern history).

It's not one where we have to dandy around with "all the steel bits collapsed" this entire thing just utterly collapsed in no time (I think the second building stood a total of 15 minutes).

-Andrew

 

[Cuddles]

Because 'they' haven't touched us since, and our military has been tromping wide open through their women children and homeland not long after FEMA got finished recycling all of the incriminating evidence against them.

Not heard of the London bombings then? Or the recent liquid explosive plot? Or the people getting shot every day in Iraq and Afganistan?

 

[Gravy]

Guys, can anyone that can be bothered (and I completely understand if you can't) please cast an eye over this thread on another forum and let me know if I'm missing any obvious counterarguments?

I'm Jonathan S. Ferguson on there, and although I seem to have several moderators on my "side", none of us are as experienced in shooting down (pun intended) CTs as you guys.

PS - I'm not a sword-wielding maniac (not that the other posters there are); I work in the heritage sector!

Les, in addition to your good comments and those of gumboot, I would refer them to Hal Bidlack's comments this week in this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1849603&postcount=1 He was there, and it's important to remember that these events did, and do, affect real people.

Following is a recent email I sent about Pentagon issues. Note the links to photos of a huge amount of debris on the lawn in the second paragraph: the post you responded to specifically said there was none. Feel free to use this all or in part.

*****

It sounds like you're relying on CT sites that tell you the damage made by the impact amounted to a single 16-foot hole. That is completely wrong. The hole extends along the wing line left, and especially, right, of the fuselage hole. It is not a cookie-cutter hole: that simply cannot happen with a reinforced concrete building. Note in the following picture the total destruction of masonry and the reinforced columns broken and bent in the direction of impact (the plane came in from the right of the picture): http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehost/879044ca9183f1f5c.jpg

Here's a higher-resolution version of that photo without the graphic overlay: http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/6.jpg

No debris on the lawn? That couldn't be less true. Many people who make this claim show a photos of the lawn far to the right of the heliport. Flight 77 entered the scene from the far right, and most of the debris that was ejected outward went to the left, covering the heliport and the lawn to the left of the impact point.
Why don't CTs show these photos?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044e5acd97bcc7.jpg
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044e5acd9b75a6.jpg
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044e5acd9e4fea.jpg[
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044e5ad1fb1eb4.jpg
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044e5add2ebf1b.jpg

Just released are the flight 77 Flight path analysis, which contains detailed information. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf

And the Air Traffic Control transcripts were also released: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc06.pdf

Summary of Flight 77 depicting: the identity of pilots and flight attendants, seat assignments of passengers, and telephone calls from the flight
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html

Of course, for anyone interested in the damage to the Pentagon, the ASCE's Pentagon Building Performance Report is essential reading: http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

From page 35: "The width of the severe damage to the west facade of the Pentagon was approximately 120 ft (from column lines 8 to 20).

More 757 debris? There are hundreds of photos and several videos showing a huge assortment of debris. Here is a montage with a small sampling: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehost/879044ca98bc1035d.jpg

Many debris photos at 911myths.com http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

And how about the dozens of eyewitnesses accounts of the crash? For your claim to be true, all of theirs must be false.

http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html
http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoud.../witnesses.htm

Notice that many of those witnesses specifically mention seeing a huge American Airlines jet hit the Pentagon.

How about the account of the C-130 pilot who saw both the flight 77 attack and the aftermath of flight 93? Lying?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVRkAkC8n4&search=Shanksville

Photos from witness Steve Riskus, seconds after the crash (he gives his contact info, but be nice: he gets a lot of email): http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror.html

Next, you need to remember that the remains of every flight 77 victim but one (a two-year-old) was recovered and positively identified by forensics experts. Personal effects of many survived the crash and fires and were returned to the victims' families.

Articles on Pentagon disaster morgue operations and victim identification:
http://ndms.chepinc.org/data/files/3/266.pdf and http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/stripe/6_48/national_news/12279-1.html

Memorial photos of the victims: http://www.animaladvocacy.net/911memorial.html

Phone calls from flight 77, from the 9/11 Commission Report: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

At 9:12, Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, in Las Vegas. She said her flight was being hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the rear of the plane. She asked her mother to alert American Airlines. Nancy May and her husband promptly did so.

At some point between 9:16 and 9:26, Barbara Olson called her husband, Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States. She reported that the flight had been hijacked, and the hijackers had knives and box cutters. She further indicated that the hijackers were not aware of her phone call, and that they had put all the passengers in the back of the plane. About a minute into the conversation, the call was cut off. Solicitor General Olson tried unsuccessfully to reach Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Shortly after the first call, Barbara Olson reached her husband again. She reported that the pilot had announced that the flight had been hijacked, and she asked her husband what she should tell the captain to do. Ted Olson asked for her location and she replied that the aircraft was then flying over houses. Another passenger told her they were traveling northeast. The Solicitor General then informed his wife of the two previous hijackings and crashes. She did not display signs of panic and did not indicate any awareness of an impending crash. At that point, the second call was cut off.

And how about the hundreds of first responders and investigators who were on the scene the first day? It's absurd to suggest that they were all deceived or are part of a coverup.

the Pentagon security staff
the DOD Honor Guard
the Pentagon Medical Unit,
the Pentagon 3-person Crash Response Team
the Pentagon Defense Protective Service,
Four U.S. Army Chaplains
One Catholic Priest (Stephen McGraw)
the Arlington County Fire Department,
the Arlington County Sheriff's Department,
Arlington County Emergency Medical Services
the Arlington, VA Police Department,
Fairfax County Fire & Rescue,
Montgomery County Fire & Rescue,
Alexandria, VA Fire & Rescue
District of Columbia Fire & Rescue
the Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit
the Military District of Washington Search & Rescue Team
the Fort Myer Fire Department,
the Arlington County SWAT Team,
the Virginia State Police,
the FBI's Evidence Recovery Teams,
the National Transportation Safety Board Investigators
American Airlines representatives
the HHS National Medical Response Team,
the FBI Hazmat Team,
the EPA Hazmat Team,
the FEMA Incident Support Team,
the FEMA Emergency Response Team,
the FEMA Disaster Field Office.
the FEMA Virginia-1, Virginia-2, Maryland-1 and Tennessee-1 Task Forces
the US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach, Fairfax County and Montgomery County,
the National Naval Medical Center CCRF
Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams,
the Virginia Department of Emergency Management
the U.S. Army 54th Quartermaster Company Mortuary Staff
the U.S. Army 311th Quartermaster Company Mortuary Staff
the U.S. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
the American Red Cross,
the United States Secret Service,
the C-130H crew

Have you attempted to contact any of the 8,000 people who were on the scene after the crash? If you still have doubts, please do so.

As for the question, "Where are all those Pentagon video cameras?" the answer is that the Pentagon uses live security – human beings –*for its perimeter security. Here's a post on the BAUT forum from a Pentagon employee who was there on 9/11. http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=746514&postcount=173 An excerpt:"Why isn't there more video? Without telling too much of what I know of Pentagon security, you would be suprised how few cameras there are outside the building. Humans actively patrolling a building's perimeter are a tad more effective than dozens of monitors which may or may not be watched at any given moment."

A brief look at the ridiculous "A missile hit the Pentagon" theory

1) No missile was seen by anyone
2) No missile debris was found
3) Missiles do not carry thousands of gallons of jet fuel
4) Missiles do not carry the remains of flight 77 passengers
5) Missiles do not carry tons of 757 debris
6) In the photo below, the yellow dots indicate the broken light poles. The red line indicates the path a missile would have to take in order to knock them over. Or, the missile would have to have a wingspan of over 100 feet. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehost/879044caa801aabf4.jpg

An examination of numerous Pentagon/flight 77 questions at 9/11myths.com http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon.html

A detailed examination of the Jet engine pieces found at the Pentagon http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

A Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/single.php?post=816414

 

[apathoid]

Here's a question that's been bothering me for a while. The 9/11 Commission report says that flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 530 mph (460 knots).

Somewhere along the way, information began spreading that the FDR showed the speed as 345 mph, although I've never seen the FDR transcript, and I haven't found the source of that info.

But according to the recently released flight path info, which is based on the FDR readings and radar data, flight 77 did hit the Pentagon at approximately 530 mph.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf

Does anyone know where the figure of 345 came from? Anyone know if the FDR transcript has been released? And perhaps the speed is "approximately" 530 because that part of the data was unrecoverable?

Gravy, I think the 345 mph fallacy started here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34412,00.html

According to data on the recorder, the plane was going 345 miles per hour when it crashed at about 9:30 Tuesday morning

I think its possible(actually I'd bet a paycheck on it) that the Fox reporter didnt know what the investigator was talking about and misinterpereted what he was hearing. Maybe at 0930, AA 77 was doing 345 kts because it this time, it was at 7,000' 38 miles away still.

 

[JamesB]

One of the most obscure moments in Loose Change is when they try to compare the Pentagon damages with the damages done by a Tomahawk cruise missile to the house of Milosevic. And then Dylan narrates: "See any similarities?"

My answer: No. None at all. The house of Milosevic hasn't a single burn mark on it - only an entrance hole.

Later the incoherence reaches new levels (this is a direct quote from the movie - there are no pauses in the quote). It is about the reason for the WTC 7 collapse


Huh? He just said that "falling debris from the twin towers" hit WTC7. So it did not collapse from a fire. It collapsed from a fire AND falling debris. Furthermore, it is an outright LIE that no steel framed building prior to WTC collapsed from a fire. I cannot believe the nerve of those kids.

EDIT: due to bad spelling and grammar (sorry guys - English is not my first language, so expect more of this in the future)

That and the plane cut a path of destruction 310 feet through the Pentagon. The cruise missile that hit Milosevic did not, explode, go through the building, continue another 100 meters and explode again.

In the original version 2 they talk about a cruise missile attack against the Pentagon, while showing video of a shoulder launched anti-tank missile. In this version they show what appears to be a the Harpoon anti-ship missile. Well, they are closer at least, they will get it right someday...

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Gravy, I think the 345 mph fallacy started here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34412,00.html



I think its possible(actually I'd bet a paycheck on it) that the Fox reporter didnt know what the investigator was talking about and misinterpereted what he was hearing. Maybe at 0930, AA 77 was doing 345 kts because it this time, it was at 7,000' 38 miles away still.

Possible, but 345 kts comes out to ~397 mph.

 

[Matthew Best]

That's as may be, but this is Fox News we're talking about.

 

[kevin]

Possible, but 345 kts comes out to ~397 mph.

You expect Fox News to be able to convert knots to mph? Besides it was 38 miles still. I thought the flight data released showed it accelerated as it approached, so the striking speed would've been higher.

 

[realitybites]

(sorry guys - English is not my first language, so expect more of this in the future)

Welcome to the forum Smother. If you haven't already and you're feeling chuffed today, head on over to the LC forums, look for a thread in which JohnDoe has posted (shouldn't be hard), and lay down a couple of the points you've brought up here.

I'm curious to see how long it takes for him to ask "Are you American?", and then ban you for being a foreigner who's attempting to silence him from questioning his own government.

He's silly that way.

 

[apathoid]

Possible, but 345 kts comes out to ~397 mph.

Actually, depends on whether the FDR is recording True Airspeed, Grounspeed(TAS with wind), or Indicated Airspeed. At 7000', 345 kts IAS, becomes 393 kts TAS, which is 456 mph, assuming no wind. I cant expect Fox News to get all this right as kevin said.

From reports I've read, AA77 was doing around 400 mph(kts?) as Hani disconnected the autopilot at 7000'. If AA77 struck at 345 mph, or 297 kts, she was at flight idle with spoilers deployed. The 757 is a slick airplane and really cant decel while descending unless the engines are idled and lift dumping devices(spoilers) deployed.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Actually, depends on whether the FDR is recording True Airspeed, Grounspeed(TAS with wind), or Indicated Airspeed. At 7000', 345 kts IAS, becomes 393 kts TAS, which is 456 mph, assuming no wind. I cant expect Fox News to get all this right as kevin said.

From reports I've read, AA77 was doing around 400 mph(kts?) as Hani disconnected the autopilot at 7000'. If AA77 struck at 345 mph, or 297 kts, she was at flight idle with spoilers deployed. The 757 is a slick airplane and really cant decel while descending unless the engines are idled and lift dumping devices(spoilers) deployed.

Ah, thanks much for the edification.