GMG Classical Music Forum

Alternative, that's a laugh... Anyone who watches or entertains in any way mainstream 'news' is hardly worth speaking to- drivel and brainwashing for idiots.

Global research continues to have strong articles-

http://www.globalresearch.ca/

And Alex Jones is on form here

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMjY4NDE0NTY4.html

John Pilger quoting east European dissidents- We have one advantage over you in the West, we know the media is just propaganda and lies, so how do you do it? Westerners believe every word of their single-view media perspective on each subject presented...

Sean

Great article on 9/11 by scholar John McMurtry

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2013McMurtryVol35Feb.pdf

Quote from: Sean on June 01, 2013, 07:02:58 PM
And Alex Jones is on form here

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMjY4NDE0NTY4.html

Nice.

Quote from: Sean on June 01, 2013, 07:02:58 PM
John Pilger quoting east European dissidents- We have one advantage over you in the West, we know the media is just propaganda and lies, so how do you do it? Westerners believe every word of their single-view media perspective on every worthless subject presented to them.

Sean

That's why I don't watch TV for news- I go to sites with open comments.

Lol

Hey Sean, do you know somewhere I can get a good new tinfoil hat?
Some of the voices are getting through the one I'm using now.

I hear voices too.

Quote from: Sean on June 02, 2013, 05:40:59 AM
I hear voices too.

McMurtry certainly does. 

     I can't imagine any problem with mainstream news outlets, a diverse category to say the least, that would justify giving ones trust to snipers from the wings who have far worse credibility than CNN and Lehrer on PBS. The mainstream outlets act to check each other. When one stumbles the others pounce, and this is all to the good. That's how a free press should be.

     The fringe media tend to reinforce each others fetishes/phobias, so anti-vaccine cranks have the backs of the Frankenfooders and vice versa. While the mainstream enhances its credibility by policing each other, the fringe does not dare do so. They lose by fighting each other, so fringers typically are silent about each others obsessions unless they share them.

Quote from: drogulus on June 02, 2013, 08:20:00 AMThe fringe media tend to reinforce each others fetishes/phobias, so anti-vaccine cranks have the backs of the Frankenfooders and vice versa. While the mainstream enhances its credibility by policing each other, the fringe does not dare do so. They lose by fighting each other, so fringers typically are silent about each others obsessions unless they share them.

(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/jet_fuel.png)

drogulus---that was very well said.

Hi drogulus, I can't agree with much of that, in fact I'm not entirely sure you're not being sarcastic.

CNN? The mainstream media are businesses that just give their customers whatever they want, like any other business- I've been in business myself and if the paying client wants something substandard for whatever reason you don't start any big arguments. In the media case most customers want a view of the world to call objective and true but which really just supports their little sets of prejudices and existing ideas- they most certainly do not want any of that overturned.

America is good, Britain is good, Australia is good; Iran is bad, Syria is bad, China is bad- just bits of simplistic unsupported information chopped up by celebrity talk, sport and games fit for children, and pop music: was the McMurtry article broken up every three minutes by a smiling face with basketball results or some other market researched drivel to keep the brainless reader happily distracted from any kind of analysis?

You're completely wrong about lamestream media organizations criticizing each other- once one provides a new story the others will quickly talk about it also, keeping everything in the average person's narrow terms of perception, and by contrast there's a great deal of dissent and range of views in the alternative media.

In the recent Libya war for instance how many officials from the Libyan government were on CNN saying the US had no right to be invading their country and putting a serious and solid case across for people to think about? Instead there's one view preselected for the mindless democratic horde to hold onto: the democratic debates the likes of CNN hold are where different westerners say Libya is bad in this way or, no no, it's bad in that way!- it's really a total sham. You just wildly overestimate the average person's critical thinking abilities and the objectivity that a business selling a product is in a position to have.

Best, Sean

Quote from: drogulus on June 02, 2013, 08:20:00 AM
     I can't imagine any problem with mainstream news outlets, a diverse category to say the least, that would justify giving ones trust to snipers from the wings who have far worse credibility than CNN and Lehrer on PBS. The mainstream outlets act to check each other. When one stumbles the others pounce, and this is all to the good. That's how a free press should be.

     The fringe media tend to reinforce each others fetishes/phobias, so anti-vaccine cranks have the backs of the Frankenfooders and vice versa. While the mainstream enhances its credibility by policing each other, the fringe does not dare do so. They lose by fighting each other, so fringers typically are silent about each others obsessions unless they share them.

::)

Quote from: Sean on June 02, 2013, 05:02:19 PMYou're completely wrong about lamestream media...

You are operating at Sarah Palin intellectual level.  Not a good thing.

Quote from: Sean on June 02, 2013, 05:02:19 PM
You're completely wrong about lamestream media organizations criticizing each other- once one provides a new story the others will quickly talk about it also, keeping everything in the average person's narrow terms of perception, and by contrast there's a great deal of dissent and range of views in the alternative media.

I think you are confusing the 'news' portion of those programs with the 'opinion and discussion and debates' portions. There is a difference, though they can be difficult to tell apart sometimes. But I don't really see a dissent or wide range of views in the alternative media - unless you mean widely crazy views at both ends of the spectrum (for example, the video you posted of that conservative ranter - who has lots of opinions, but this is not news). And this is my problem  - that people think the rants and debates and 'analysis' is news (regardless of which viewpont is chosen). Usually it is just someone's opinion.

Indeed there's a lack of factual information but I can hardly agree there is much of that on the nightly news, and what there is of course has been carefully selected and edited in advance. You make a good point but I feel that what passes for news services is no source of reliable data to go on- I can only reiterate the question of how anyone can take even the date seriously on products that claim or at least insinuate that they're giving independent information while interspersing it with extraneous mindless drivel. Best, Sean

"You just wildly overestimate the average person's critical thinking abilities ..."

Sean, with all due respect, I think you underestimate them.

Sean,

You absolutely have no right to question other people's critical thinking abilities when you yourself fall for the most fallacious conspiracy theories yourself. I'll once again link here a piece by one of the finest investigative journalists active today and one of the sharpest minds I have had the privilege of meeting: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1001-24.htm

I had all those thoughts, and I'm not even a Leftist. Nor a Rightist for that matter. Just a Realist. Sad days for me.... :'(

8)

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 04, 2013, 11:30:46 AM
. . . Just a Realist. Sad days for me.... :'(

Keine Scheiße!

Take a cue from Dr Seuss, buddy: [Fantasy] is a necessary ingredient for living.

I grant you, it's but a poor substitute for news reportage, but . . . .

Quote from: MishaK on June 04, 2013, 10:46:44 AM
Sean,

You absolutely have no right to question other people's critical thinking abilities when you yourself fall for the most fallacious conspiracy theories yourself.

Agreed.

I do have some of my own problems with the mainstream media (in the US), largely that they tend to be partisan and thus ignore or heavily cover certain issues based on how the story can be spun to support their views (or help their favorite politicians), but the idea that one can look to conspiracy theorists and find more logical and sane reporting for Higher Minds is silly.  That said, I feel that this Higher Minds idea is the crux of the issue.  Virtually every person I meet that focuses on 'alternative media' is convinced that they're more intelligent and have better critical thinking skills than those who get their reporting from mainstream media.

Quote from: Geo Dude on June 04, 2013, 03:46:48 PM
Agreed.

I do have some of my own problems with the mainstream media (in the US), largely that they tend to be partisan and thus ignore or heavily cover certain issues based on how the story can be spun to support their views (or help their favorite politicians), but the idea that one can look to conspiracy theorists and find more logical and sane reporting for Higher Minds is silly.  That said, I feel that this Higher Minds idea is the crux of the issue.  Virtually every person I meet that focuses on 'alternative media' is convinced that they're more intelligent and have better critical thinking skills than those who get their reporting from mainstream media.

I myself think the MSM is not so much partisan oriented in their coverage as dedicated to maximizing ad revenue, which means superficial coverage of whatever inspires TV voyeurs for the moment.  (Okay,  what was so important about the Jodi Arias trial that it deserved the coverage it got?)  And they tend to follow each other lemming like to the Story of the Day.  But I think a clear indication that the MSM is not so ideologically leftist as many people think is their coverage of the Bush Administration's WMD claims in the runup to the invasion of Iraq.  I don't remember any reporting on the part of the major outlets that actually challenged the WMD claims.  No reporter seemed to think it worth his or her while to dig into the question for themselves.  They merely reported adminstration claims, and sometimes counterclaims by those actually opposed to the adminstration.  But a regular viewer would have come away from their coverage thinking that in the eyes of the news media, the Bush Adminstration claims has a Seriously Substantive Basis to them.

And to the extent that ideology drives coverage,  Fox News is far more blatant than CNN or anyone else.  This morning,  the clead stories on CNN were the California fire and horrendous weather in the American midwest, and then the Congressional hearings on how the US military deals with rape cases;  Fox apparently thought the only story worthy of attention was today's IRS hearings.

Dave B

QuoteSean, with all due respect, I think you underestimate them.

If only this were true, if only. And you needn't worry too much about 'due respect' actually- I know I'm right so I must say I don't fret too much what you guys think...

MishaK

Quote...other people's critical thinking abilities...

When meeting someone I'm not sure about, my favourite deceptively casual questions include Which newspaper do you like to read? and Which television programmes do you watch? or similar, giving them the most seamless lying pleasantries back to keep the conversation totally smooth when I get the usual shocking replies of a zombie. No thinking person seriously reads newspapers or watches television- certainly haven't since I was a child 30 years ago.

I'll have a look at that link in a few minutes but the terms investigative journalist and mainstream media are fundamentally opposed and cannot exist together in the same organization- most people just absolutely do not want to know thank you very much if their little perspective on the world is going to be threatened. Just bring on the next war and the next mass murderous administration and sell it in terms of the existing culture and the masses are not about to complain.

As for 9/11 it sounds like you don't know just how well researched it is and how many qualified professionals are questioning the official conspiracy theory of this wondrous secret clandestine organization called Al Qaeda, run from the caves of one of the world's poorest countries, which overcome the $50bn a year air defense Norad network four times on one morning for three buildings hit by two planes to collapse at free-fall acceleration into piles of dust and molten metal, etc etc etc.

As introductions see the Loose Change documentary and website Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth.

Geo dude

Quotethe idea that one can look to conspiracy theorists and find more logical and sane reporting for Higher Minds is silly

I'm afraid this just doesn't follow and instead it's self-evident that anyone who looks beyond mass media has more developed critical thinking skills. I'm not about to start a war though- the US government with its propaganda machine can do that well enough.

Quote from: Sean on June 04, 2013, 08:39:10 PMIf only this were true, if only. And you needn't worry too much about 'due respect' actually- I know I'm right so I must say I don't fret too much what you guys think...

Then why are you here? 

Hi Jeffrey

QuoteI myself think the MSM is not so much partisan oriented in their coverage as dedicated to maximizing ad revenue, which means superficial coverage of whatever inspires TV voyeurs for the moment.

The problem is that in developed societies mass media particularly television becomes the primary carrier of the very culture. You might think nobody would give a banana about some programme cobbled together by a bunch of office workers in some tower in Chicago but they do simply because it's broadcast and constantly reaffirms the sets of presuppositions behind the prevailing worldview. In developing countries people sit around the campfire and get their self-identity from just talking to each other- there's less alienation and less television to go home to.

QuoteI don't remember any reporting on the part of the major outlets that actually challenged the WMD claims.  No reporter seemed to think it worth his or her while to dig into the question for themselves.  They merely reported adminstration claims, and sometimes counterclaims by those actually opposed to the adminstration.  But a regular viewer would have come away from their coverage thinking that in the eyes of the news media, the Bush Adminstration claims has a Seriously Substantive Basis to them.

Absolutely.

Quote from: Parsifal on June 04, 2013, 08:44:39 PM
Then why are you here?

Well I do always learn something and make interesting observations.

It's a good question though. Perhaps I'm just deceiving myself, or just being a conceited ****.

     

QuoteYou just wildly overestimate the average person's critical thinking abilities and the objectivity that a business selling a product is in a position to have.

     No, I don't think so. People have blind spots, but fringe thinkers have larger, more debilitating ones. My overall assessment is that while ordinary people kind of suck as critical thinkers the fringe-ists seem to have lost the ability to treat yes and no as possibilities. If normal people say yes, the fringe-ist must say no. There doesn't seem to be any room to actually consider, only to react.

Quote from: drogulus on June 05, 2013, 12:05:56 AM
     
     No, I don't think so. People have blind spots, but fringe thinkers have larger, more debilitating ones. My overall assessment is that while ordinary people kind of suck as critical thinkers the fringe-ists seem to have lost the ability to treat yes and no as possibilities. If normal people say yes, the fringe-ist must say no. There doesn't seem to be any room to actually consider, only to react.

I totally agree.

And: There is always the possibility to pick up patterns in large (and sometimes randomly selected) and complex events. That doesn't mean that there is a pattern, just that we tend to select and see what we want, and when the complexity is high we can see any pattern we like by focusing selectively. There's where the conspiracy nuts go wrong.

And much as I am sceptical of US foreign policy, and much as I dislike many of the people mentioned in the quoted 9.11 article and am sceptical of their motives, the article is pure b.....t.

Sean, the following exchanges tell me that you have some kind of agenda which I think is best ignored from this point on. Your last observation is remarkably insightful, however.


DAVE B:     Sean, with all due respect, I think you underestimate them.



SEAN:    If only this were true, if only. And you needn't worry too much about 'due respect' actually- I know I'm right so I must say I don't fret too much what you guys think...


===========================================================



PARSIFAL: Then why are you here?



SEAN:     Well I do always learn something and make interesting observations.

It's a good question though. Perhaps I'm just deceiving myself, or just being a conceited ****.

It's an inherent human trait to imprint patterns on random events, with those patterns strongly reflecting one's own beliefs. Read Kahnemann's Thinking, Fast and Slow. There's also a strong tendency to imprint meaning on random effects, and also to reverse the cause-effect relationship. Again, read Kahnemann. These affects have been proven again and again in double blind experiments. Hence all the stupid conspiracy theories floating around, their distribution being strongly helped by the Internet.

Quote from: The new erato on June 05, 2013, 05:47:13 AM
. . . Hence all the stupid conspiracy theories floating around, their distribution being strongly helped by the Internet.

Up on Olympus, Pandora is laughing her laurels off.

Quote from: Sean on June 04, 2013, 08:39:10 PM
most people just absolutely do not want to know thank you very much if their little perspective on the world is going to be threatened.

The lack of self knowledge Sean displays  in that statement is astonishing.

Quote
As for 9/11 it sounds like you don't know just how well researched it is and how many qualified professionals are questioning the official conspiracy theory of this wondrous secret clandestine organization called Al Qaeda, run from the caves of one of the world's poorest countries, which overcome the $50bn a year air defense Norad network four times on one morning for three buildings hit by two planes to collapse at free-fall acceleration into piles of dust and molten metal, etc etc etc.

Well, for one thing, it wasn't run out of caves, and it defeated Norad with one of the simplest tools in a tactician's toobox: surprise.  If you don't expect people to fly passenger jets into office buildings,  you don't particularly try to defend against that sort of threat.

In fact,  the "Truther" version of the Truth is far more bizarre and requires more leaps of faith than any version of the offical story.  And, as Taibbi's article pointed out, it would mean thousands of people have kept their mouths completely shut on the topic for going on a dozen years now.  And it requires one to believe that government agencies to be completely and totally efficient,  which anyone from the Political Right will tell you is nearly impossible, and anyone from the political Left will admit is an ideal rarely achieved in the real world.

Oh, lawd, if only we had had Twitter in 1963 . . . .

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on June 04, 2013, 07:17:23 PM
And to the extent that ideology drives coverage,  Fox News is far more blatant than CNN or anyone else.  This morning,  the clead stories on CNN were the California fire and horrendous weather in the American midwest, and then the Congressional hearings on how the US military deals with rape cases;  Fox apparently thought the only story worthy of attention was today's IRS hearings.

Agreed there (well, 'anyone else' excepted, MSNBC is as blatant as Fox) but I don't buy that they're lacking in partisanship because in certain cases coverage of what could have been some ratings-driving (and extremely important) events were completely ignored with nothing to account for it but politics.  A member of the NRA's administration commented during the '00 campaign that they had 'a candidate who would listen to them' if Bush won and there was a media feeding frenzy over it leading to Bush stating that he supported the Clinton assault weapons ban.  During his first term Obama met with Brady Campaign and told them personally that he was working on 'under the radar gun control' and not a peep was a heard about it.  Fast & Furious is another great example:  CBS reported on it, but most other stations avoided it* for as long as possible and then did everything they could to help Holder look completely innocent.  (Refusing to report on the fact that whistleblowers handed over e-mails to Congress that Holder sent about Fast & Furious during the operation after claiming that he didn't know about it until he heard about it on CBS, for example, and refusing to report on the fact that the White House stonewalled on releasing documents related to F&F throughout the investigation.)  The same thing happened with Benghazi with no one probing into the claims that the attack was caused by a demonstration inspired by a YouTube video even though Al Qaeda claimed credit publicly the day of the attack.  There was also little to no coverage on it when the DOJ argued that the state secrets privilege meant that they could shut down lawsuits from torture victims against the US government simply by claiming that documents related to those lawsuits infringed on state secrets, in spite of the constant screaming during the Bush era about the injustice of torture (though they did insist upon calling it 'enhanced interrogation' back then).

I don't claim that they're quite as partisan as they're sometimes made out to be, but there is at times a clear and present bias and doing a shitty job of coverage prior to the Iraq war doesn't change that.

*To be fair, this could have had to do with the administration's atrocious treatment of Attkinson after she reported on it.

Do you reeeally want me to Post in this Thread? ::)

Still, the 4hour video 'Century of the Self' in MANDATORY viewing.

Quote from: snyprrr on June 05, 2013, 08:39:10 AM
Do you reeeally want me to Post in this Thread?

I'm sure I do!

Quote from: karlhenning on June 05, 2013, 09:37:56 AM
I'm sure I do!

You, too, must watch 'Century of the Self' $:)

Quote from: snyprrr on June 05, 2013, 08:39:10 AM
Do you reeeally want me to Post in this Thread? ::)

Still, the 4hour video 'Century of the Self' in MANDATORY viewing.

Well, you've never made any claims about yourself, simply letting us each make our own choice of potentialities. Sean, OTOH, has set a standard for himself that few others could aspire to, so when HE goes down a certain path and when YOU go down that same path, the outcomes are not necessarily going to be the same. :)

8)

Sean,

It is of course much easier to say something as obtuse as this:

Quote from: Sean on June 04, 2013, 08:39:10 PM
As for 9/11 it sounds like you don't know just how well researched it is and how many qualified professionals are questioning the official conspiracy theory of this wondrous secret clandestine organization called Al Qaeda, run from the caves of one of the world's poorest countries, which overcome the $50bn a year air defense Norad network four times on one morning for three buildings hit by two planes to collapse at free-fall acceleration into piles of dust and molten metal, etc etc etc.

As introductions see the Loose Change documentary and website Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth.

with a straight face if you haven't actually first read the article I linked above: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1001-24.htm

I suspect you won't again, given your self-evident fear of confronting the gaping logical fallacies in the world view you hold so dear.

Quote from: Sean on June 04, 2013, 08:39:10 PM
the terms investigative journalist and mainstream media are fundamentally opposed and cannot exist together in the same organization

Have you ever even heard of Seymour Hersh?

I read these:

www.nzz.ch

www.nybooks.com

www.newyorker.com

You might want to take a look once in a while.

I totally agree with the OP. The lamestream media refuses to even acknowledge the remotest possibility that the world's leaders are controlled by shape-shifting reptilian aliens from outer space. Of course, this is because their jewish banker masters are in the pay of the same aliens, so that shouldn't be a surprise. Also, Project MKULTRA faked the moon landings. With chemtrails.

Quote from: snyprrr on June 05, 2013, 08:39:10 AM
Do you reeeally want me to Post in this Thread? ::)

Still, the 4hour video 'Century of the Self' in MANDATORY viewing.

This thread is already quite funny, but if you are able to up the ante, please feel free!

Quote from: The new erato on June 05, 2013, 12:52:07 PM
This thread is already quite funny, but if you are able to up the ante, please feel free!

You see? You can take a lesson from this:

Quote from: dyn on June 05, 2013, 12:51:37 PM
I totally agree with the OP. The lamestream media refuses to even acknowledge the remotest possibility that the world's leaders are controlled by shape-shifting reptilian aliens from outer space. Of course, this is because their jewish banker masters are in the pay of the same aliens, so that shouldn't be a surprise. Also, Project MKULTRA faked the moon landings. With chemtrails.

     Parodies of conspiracy thinking are no more outlandish than real examples. As a thinker you're in trouble if you can't recognize a reductio.

     

QuoteAlso, Project MKULTRA faked the moon landings.

     Scientists and philosophers speculate on the dubious question "why is there something rather than nothing?" An answer that appeals to me is that the Universe is mediocre, and nothing is more mediocre than Somethingness. Everythingness and Nothingness are too extreme. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/huh.gif)

"... And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords"

     

Quote from: North Star on June 05, 2013, 02:09:26 PM
"... And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords"

     Bernanke has gone too far this time! _{(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/angry.gif)}

     

Quote from: dyn on June 05, 2013, 12:51:37 PM
Also, Project MKULTRA faked the moon landings. With chemtrails.

(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/youtube.png)

Sean's comments must be in there somewhere.  :)

http://xkcd.com/202/

drogulus

QuoteNo, I don't think so. People have blind spots, but fringe thinkers have larger, more debilitating ones.

There's plenty of wacky non-mainstream stuff on the internet, alongside plenty of well researched non-mainstream stuff too. Let's say 9/11 is all exactly as the government and the media says: that wouldn't mean the research the Truth movement has done is rubbish, it would just mean it was mistaken. It's been carried out by qualified scientists who know what they're doing but instead of engaging with it rationally people are frightened and don't want to know and just trash it to begin with- because the implications if true are too much.

sanantonio

QuoteLeaks?  Nah, they just don't happen with the really important stuff.

Well there are dozens of eye witness accounts of explosions taking place on 9/11 and people coming forward in other ways with information inconsistent with the official story- the field of research is enormous.

Geo Dude

Again I'd question how it is that mainstream media is in any position to be fair and objective when most people want lies given them as truth, being unable to cope psychologically with radically different world outlooks that such balanced presentation of information might provide.

snyprrr

Yes, Century of the Self is excellent and highly recommendable; also the six hour Ring of Power.

Loose Change is on Youtube of course and also here for convenience  http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/ZCp61V9ZYhg/

MishaK

Well your journalist fits under the comments I'm making to drogulus above- he doesn't begin with an impartial analysis of the evidence but just tries to trash any other interpretation of it. I'll take a look at those other links, thanks.

If you'd have given the mainstream account of the 9/11 events to anyone before 9/11 they'd have agreed it makes a reasonable Bruce Willis movie plot, if you can suspend reality for yourself while entertaining it. It really is the most ridiculous conspiracy theory to punch holes in that you ever heard.

dyn Baa, baa, baa.

To lighten the tone here's a few thoughts on the Apollo programme I put to students recently after giving them a presentation on the space shuttle.

The Americans achieved the extraordinary manned moon landings of the late 1960s and early 70s. Many people then expected that more missions would follow to establish bases on the moon, followed by a mission to Mars.

However after Apollo 17 in 1972 NASA instead spent the next 40 years on their space shuttle program, which involved redesigning rocket and spaceship technology for low earth-orbit activity.

Ordinary rockets could always launch satellites, space probes and astronauts without a reusable shuttle, so why did they do this? Here are two non-mainstream reasons in popular culture-

1) NASA never sent men to the moon- they didn't have enough technology and it was all a hoax. The Space Shuttle is the best NASA ever did.

2) NASA never stopped going to the moon- it's been back there many times since the last official Apollo 17. All these missions are classified and the shuttle is just a distraction.

Some people think NASA has this because there are ancient ruins and artefacts on the moon from another civilization that it wants to explore privately...

Jeffrey

QuoteIn fact,  the "Truther" version of the Truth is far more bizarre and requires more leaps of faith than any version of the offical story.

A large chunk of the population just doesn't agree with you.

And regarding mistakes in the programme for 9/11 there were several, the main one that Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania and didn't hit what was probably its target of Building 7. 7 was stuffed like a turkey with explosives and had no excuse to fall, but a decision had to be made at 5.20 to pull it after even the pitiful office fires had gone out, and it came down in perfectly symmetrical free-fall acceleration, a 47 story immense steel frame skyscraper, providing the most mysterious building collapse in the entire history of architecture.

As an aside, Towers 1 and 2 were hit by flights 11 and 175. 11 + 175 = 186. 186 / 2 = 93.

93, 93, 93. Apparently the number 93 has numerological significance...

Erato- the alternative theories I'm afraid are credible.

Really this is pointless.  Do we have the willpower to not feed the troll?

Quote from: Parsifal on June 06, 2013, 12:02:24 AM
Really this is pointless.  Do we have the willpower to not feed the troll?

This guy has students? The mind boggles.

Quote from: MishaK on June 05, 2013, 12:40:22 PM
It is of course much easier to say something as obtuse as this:

with a straight face if you haven't actually first read the article I linked above: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1001-24.htm

I don't ever read Rolling Stone, but (the unnecessary odd vulgarity aside) this is fine stuff.

The finishing line is particularly fine:

"People are longing for a smaller, stupider reality. Some, like Bush, sell a prepackaged version. Others just make theirs up out of thin air. God help us."

This is what it all boils down to.

Yes, an excellent curtain line, and witheringly on target.

See the relevant documentaries and report back...   :blank:

Quote from: Sean on June 05, 2013, 11:15:42 PMAs an aside, Towers 1 and 2 were hit by flights 11 and 175. 11 + 175 = 186. 186 / 2 = 93.

93, 93, 93. Apparently the number 93 has numerological significance...

Looks like someone is Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-o3oboEsAzI0/TolvQ2us7LI/AAAAAAAACq0/GP_yr3Inl_Y/s1600/1317628297480.jpg)

Or:
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lsi22dv4e11qizmi7o1_500.jpg)

Quote from: Sean on June 05, 2013, 10:56:24 PM
MishaK

Well your journalist fits under the comments I'm making to drogulus above- he doesn't begin with an impartial analysis of the evidence but just tries to trash any other interpretation of it. I'll take a look at those other links, thanks.

If you'd have given the mainstream account of the 9/11 events to anyone before 9/11 they'd have agreed it makes a reasonable Bruce Willis movie plot, if you can suspend reality for yourself while entertaining it. It really is the most ridiculous conspiracy theory to punch holes in that you ever heard.

Sean,

Yet again your feeble remnant of an intellect runs for cover and is MIA when challenged with logic, so your emotion takes over. You'd much rather see yourself as a "free thinker", someone smarter than the "sheeple", someone who stands out. You'd like to justify your existence as a social misfit by convincing yourself that you're better and society just isn't smart enough to appreciate you. You're not.

You clearly didn't read beyond the first line of the article I linked. So, I'll just challenge you here directly:

You say the "mainstream account of 9/11" is the "most ridiculous conspiracy theory". OK. So let's set it forth in simple terms. Here is the "mainstream's" positive theory of the event:

20 Islamist extremists trained and financed by Al Qaeda hijack four planes using standard hijacking modus operandi that has been in use at least since the 60s, but using the passengers' expectations of a negotiated hostage situation they instead fly the aircraft as manned missiles into a number of iconic opbjects, the twin towers, the pentagon, the fourth aircraft fails to reach its target as the passengers figure out what's going on and put up a fight. A wing of the Pentagon is destroyed, the twin towers eventually collapse from structural damage from the impacts and from burning fuel and other flammables, both from the building itself and the aircraft.

Pretty straightforward.

What's the alternative theory. Put forward a full account A to Z in your own words. Keep it simple. I'd like to see if you can do it. I have not seen a complete, coherent alternative theory yet. I'm not talking about issues with this or that piece of "evidence". Just a coherent therory from plot to execution.

Quote from: Sean on June 05, 2013, 10:56:24 PM
Well there are dozens of eye witness accounts of explosions taking place on 9/11 and people coming forward in other ways with information inconsistent with the official story- the field of research is enormous.

Sean, for the millionth time, I am an eywitness. THERE WERE NO EXPLOSIONS! PERIOD! You should not trust incompetent eyewitnesses to distinguish between the sound of a collapsing building and the sounds of explosions, neither of which they have ever heard before in their lives outside of cheap action movie sound effects. You shouldn't trust them any more than you should trust someone with no exposure to classical music to distinguish between an oboe and and english horn in a dense orchestral passage.

This isn't about logic MishaK. This is about trying to make sense (however wrongly) of a complex world that feels difficult to handle; and at the same time making oneself privvy to a level of insight that sets oneself above mere mortals. The essence isn't in the facts, but in the psyche of the conspiracy theorist.

Quote from: The new erato on June 06, 2013, 08:23:19 AM
This isn't about logic MishaK. This is about trying to make sense (however wrongly) of a complex world that feels difficult to handle; and at the same time making oneself privvy to a level of insight that sets oneself above mere mortals. The essence isn't in the facts, but in the psyche of the conspiracy theorist.

Isn't that exactly what I said in my first paragraph?

Quote from: karlhenning on June 06, 2013, 01:52:59 AM
I don't ever read Rolling Stone, but (the unnecessary odd vulgarity aside) this is fine stuff.

Rolling Stone ran David Foster Wallace's superb 2000 election article, or rather an article ostensibly about the 2000 election but really about the problem of identifying sincerity in a world where marketers use sincerity to sell products. It's been anthologized, in expanded form, in Wallace's book Consider the Lobster.

Quote from: The new erato on June 05, 2013, 05:47:13 AM
It's an inherent human trait to imprint patterns on random events, with those patterns strongly reflecting one's own beliefs. Read Kahnemann's Thinking, Fast and Slow. There's also a strong tendency to imprint meaning on random effects, and also to reverse the cause-effect relationship. Again, read Kahnemann. These affects have been proven again and again in double blind experiments. Hence all the stupid conspiracy theories floating around, their distribution being strongly helped by the Internet.

Thinking, Fast and Slow really is a great and extremely important book.

Quote from: dyn on June 05, 2013, 12:51:37 PM
I totally agree with the OP. The lamestream media refuses to even acknowledge the remotest possibility that the world's leaders are controlled by shape-shifting reptilian aliens from outer space. Of course, this is because their jewish banker masters are in the pay of the same aliens, so that shouldn't be a surprise. Also, Project MKULTRA faked the moon landings. With chemtrails.

(http://www.wnff.net/Smileys/wnff/icon_clap.gif)

Quote from: Sean on June 05, 2013, 10:56:24 PMIt really is the most ridiculous conspiracy theory to punch holes in that you ever heard.

Great description of Loose Change.

Quote from: MishaK on June 06, 2013, 08:24:13 AM
Isn't that exactly what I said in my first paragraph?

Actually more or less, yes.

Cracked just ran an article on conspiracies (http://www.cracked.com/article_20466_5-conspiracy-theories-that-are-shockingly-easy-to-debunk.html) today. I didn't realize there was a Pearl Harbor conspiracy!

But the top comment might be most useful here:

QuoteSorry, this article changed exactly zero minds. It just proves you don't understand conspiracy theorists. They WANT to believe the nutball stuff. It's part of their identity. The Gubmint killed Kennedy because he was going to expose the Illuminati's plan to poison errbody with fluoride in the water so we can vaccinate their bsbies into autism. Cobain knew the truth, so he had to be kept silent. And the Jews demolished the WTC so we could blame Islam for Hitler bombing Pearl Harbor. See? It's fun! Now all I have to do is plaster my walls with pictures of Carrie Fisher, start shitting into pizza boxes, and start a blog and a MySpace page.

Most conspiracists could not find their asshole with a funnel.

Even better is this one:

"Nearly all conspiracy theory "research" is done by doing the scientific method backwards--in other words, you come up with a conclusion first, and then try to force-fit any and all evidence to support it."

QuoteCobain knew the truth, so he had to be kept silent.

Man, I laughed fit near to bust a gut.

I mean, pop musicians don't really fall into lethally self-destructive habits, nooooooo . . . .

Quote from: A Very Wise PersonThe Gubmint killed Kennedy because he was going to expose the Illuminati's plan to poison errbody with fluoride in the water so we can vaccinate their bsbies into autism.

This is precisely why Portland, OR is the place to live.  The citizens there recently voted down fluoridating their water, and they have one of the highest vaccine exemption rates in the country, meaning they can celebrate their liberty in all its toothless, sickly glory!

Quote from: karlhenning on June 04, 2013, 12:08:27 PM
Keine Scheiße!

OT: (Nice try, Karl, but "No Shit" doesn't translate too well into German, looses it's umph! My friends and I stick to the original.)

They said the same about Les Garçons de la Plage, but it isn't about the oomph . . . .

MishaK

QuoteYou'd much rather see yourself as a "free thinker", someone smarter than the "sheeple", someone who stands out. You'd like to justify your existence as a social misfit by convincing yourself that you're better and society just isn't smart enough to appreciate you. You're not.

I like this observation and more than ready to acknowledge how true it is. I'm not sure if I look down on people all the time but the extent to which someone identifies with their surrounding cultural presuppositions as propped up by the media, and can only question things from above that point, is a give-away to how meaningful a relation I can have with them. Most people quickly realize with horror that my idea of socializing isn't five hours of two second conversations and simplistic banter, stacked up on frightened world viewpoints in the background.

As you probably know every statement in your summary of 9/11 has been challenged and challenged. The most important point however is perhaps how the buildings should respond to the airliner impacts, and in Building 7's case how it should respond to no impacts. Take a look at the A&E documentary called something like ...explosive evidence, architects and engineers speak out..., over an hour of many professional architects explaining why the official account of the collapses is wrong and that there had to be some sort of accelerant.

The alternative false flag theory by contrast makes perfect sense in terms of the military industrial complex, oil access and geopolitics. Nanothermitic explosives were placed at the joints of the beams with the core columns and detonated by timed sequence to bring the buildings down. This is an extremely well understood process carried out by numerous companies around the world and doesn't involve the tortuous explanations about office fires up on a few out of 110 floors cause the failure of the rest of the building in a normal state with its enormous and redundant vertical resistance.

Also take a look at Richard Gage's Blueprint for truth and the various Steven Jones and David Ray Griffin, and David Chandler videos.

And see the film clip of the firefighter making a phone call when a huge explosion in Building 7 goes off, shortly before its demolition.
Explosive squibs are further visible all down the sides of the towers in all the videos you can find.

"Nanothermitic explosives were placed at the joints of the beams with the core columns and detonated by timed sequence to bring the buildings down."

     No one who worked at the WTC noticed or objected to what must have taken weeks for the contractors to complete? Who was the contractor for this job? Who were the subcontractors? Did they sign in and show their IDs? They must have been well known to get this job. This isn't something military or CIA types could do without anyone being tipped off not to question or even look at these guys 'cause it's a super big secret which no one can ever know ever, yet every conspiracy buff in the world knows aaalll about it!

   

Quote from: Sean on June 05, 2013, 11:15:42 PM
Jeffrey


A large chunk of the population just doesn't agree with you.

This merely proves a large chunk of the population doesn't know how to use their thinking skills.  (Which means you and I agree on one thing at least.)

Quote
And regarding mistakes in the programme for 9/11 there were several, the main one that Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania and didn't hit what was probably its target of Building 7. 7 was stuffed like a turkey with explosives and had no excuse to fall, but a decision had to be made at 5.20 to pull it after even the pitiful office fires had gone out, and it came down in perfectly symmetrical free-fall acceleration, a 47 story immense steel frame skyscraper, providing the most mysterious building collapse in the entire history of architecture.

Buildings demolished by explosions fall in a completely different fashion.  Exposure to intense heat and the latent effect of shock waves from the collapse of the other buildings, which can take some time to become apparent and therefore can not be expected to be simultaneous with the fall of the two "big" buildings, is all that is needed to account for Building 7. 
There's also the fact that if someone was to actually have engineered this conspiracy, it would be far more logical for them to pick a site with no connection to the WTC. 
Add to this the fact that if the Bush administration wanted the results you assert it wanted from this consipiracy,  far simpler, less dangerous options existed. 

Quote
As an aside, Towers 1 and 2 were hit by flights 11 and 175. 11 + 175 = 186. 186 / 2 = 93.

93, 93, 93. Apparently the number 93 has numerological significance...

It does, in Thelema.  But although I never joined the OTO, I do know a few members of it, and can vouch for the fact that they would not be involved in such nonsense--not as conspirators and not as conspiracy freaks.

Jeffrey, drogulus, MishaK et al, why don't you give in, admit your psychosis and make that phone call for some help.

(http://www.compression.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/men-in-white-coats-200.jpg)

Your thoughts are duly noted and duly binned. I commend you to Youtube and the relevant wealth of internet sites that deal with these objections...

I'll quote this statement of Sean a second time.
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,21862.msg720842.html#msg720842 (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,21862.msg720842.html#msg720842)

Quote
most people just absolutely do not want to know thank you very much if their little perspective on the world is going to be threatened.

Very considerate of him to make himself an immediate demonstration of the claim he makes there.

Quote from: Sean on June 06, 2013, 08:01:25 PM
Jeffrey, drogulus, MishaK et al, why don't you give in, admit your psychosis and make that phone call for some help.

(http://www.compression.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/men-in-white-coats-200.jpg)

Your thoughts are duly noted and duly binned. I commend you to Youtube and the relevant wealth of internet sites that deal with these objections...

Please, please; why are you leaving me out of the company of sane people?

Jeffrey you should be committed, even if I know there was a contradiction somewhere in my posts... Time for the next OTT topic.

Quote from: drogulus on June 06, 2013, 07:04:03 PM
"Nanothermitic explosives were placed at the joints of the beams with the core columns and detonated by timed sequence to bring the buildings down."

     No one who worked at the WTC noticed or objected to what must have taken weeks for the contractors to complete? Who was the contractor for this job? Who were the subcontractors? Did they sign in and show their IDs? They must have been well known to get this job. This isn't something military or CIA types could do without anyone being tipped off not to question or even look at these guys 'cause it's a super big secret which no one can ever know ever, yet every conspiracy buff in the world knows aaalll about it!

Which brings us back to Brian's surgical contribution:

Quote from: Brian on June 06, 2013, 09:58:32 AM
"Nearly all conspiracy theory "research" is done by doing the scientific method backwards--in other words, you come up with a conclusion first, and then try to force-fit any and all evidence to support it."

Quote from: Sean on June 06, 2013, 05:00:58 PM
I like this observation and more than ready to acknowledge how true it is.

Thank you. Truthfulness to yourself is the first step on the path to healing.

Quote from: Sean on June 06, 2013, 05:00:58 PM
I'm not sure if I look down on people all the time  [...] Most people quickly realize with horror that my idea of socializing isn't five hours of two second conversations and simplistic banter, stacked up on frightened world viewpoints in the background.

q.e.d.

Quote from: Sean on June 06, 2013, 05:00:58 PM
The alternative false flag theory by contrast makes perfect sense

But what IS the alternative theory? Please spell it out from A to Z. From planning to execution and aftermath, like I did with the standard theory. What is the theory? All I have seen is semi-competent, psudo-scientific challenges of this or that piece of evidence, not a coherent theory. That's all I'm asking you to do. Spell out the goddam theory. What is it?

Hi Mishak, I know you want me to try detailing out a scenario that may seem more complicated than the official account and thus with Ocam's razor etc it's unlikely to be true.

However Operation Northwoods as a pretext for a Cuban invasion for Kennedy was complicated, arranging the Reichstag fire was complicated, and the Gulf of Tonkin reports were complicated...

Quote from: Sean on June 07, 2013, 09:09:09 AM
Hi Mishak, I know you want me to try detailing out a scenario that may seem more complicated than the official account and thus with Ocam's razor etc it's unlikely to be true.

I didn't say it's more complicated. I have no idea whether it is or isn't more complicated. Complexity in and of itself isn't a killer. I just asked you for a theory. I have never heard the alternative theory set forth in a straightforward linear historic thread. Is that really too much to ask for?

Quote from: Sean on June 07, 2013, 09:09:09 AM
Hi Mishak, I know you want me to try detailing out a scenario ...

... but I have no scenario, just a kneejerk rejection of the official, and documented, account.

Quote from: MishaK on June 07, 2013, 10:33:45 AM
I didn't say it's more complicated. I have no idea whether it is or isn't more complicated. Complexity in and of itself isn't a killer. I just asked you for a theory. I have never heard the alternative theory set forth in a straightforward linear historic thread. Is that really too much to ask for?

Well I'm a bit jaded with 9/11 actually and if you want to chalk up this thread as one to MishaK & Karl then you're welcome... Best, Sean

Quote from: MishaK on June 07, 2013, 10:33:45 AM
I didn't say it's more complicated. I have no idea whether it is or isn't more complicated. Complexity in and of itself isn't a killer. I just asked you for a theory. I have never heard the alternative theory set forth in a straightforward linear historic thread. Is that really too much to ask for?

You see, it's very simple. The NSA has been fluoridating the water in New York City and administering vaccines to children for decades now, both of which render one susceptible to mind control waves broadcasted from cell phone towers. This brainwashing allowed their hired men to enter the World Trade Center & Pentagon unquestioned as they simply repeated the numerological codes that television advertisements have subliminally planted in people's minds, hypnotising people into being unable to see them. These hired men installed explosives within the buildings and Flight 93, unaware of what they were doing and believing they were installing smoke detectors (of course, bear in mind that so-called "smoke detectors" actually emit LSD fumes to keep the population in a continual state of susceptibility to suggestion, but this is a different story). On September 11th 2001, the American-funded and sponsored "terrorist group" Al Qaeda was given the ability to hijack several commercial airliners by the CIA, which arranged for NORAD to be down on the day in question. The explosives were detonated simultaneous with the "terrorist attacks" and a false black box recording was planted on Flight 93 to make it seem as though it was a genuine hijacking. People wonder why no one ever came forth to corroborate this story, but, of course, it's very easy to hide dead bodies in a site where bodies are already expected to be found! (And any who escaped the initial purge could be disposed of under the pretenses of some kind of "war in Iraq", of course.) Really, given all the assassinations of US citizens the government's ordered in the past seventy years (JFK, RFK, MLK, etc) and gotten away with, you'd think it would be obvious.

I'd add something along the lines of "WAKE UP SHEEPLE!" but as xkcd has demonstrated that can have unexpected results

Quote from: dyn on June 07, 2013, 10:50:46 AM
You see, it's very simple. The NSA has been fluoridating the water in New York City and administering vaccines to children for decades now, both of which render one susceptible to mind control waves broadcasted from cell phone towers. This brainwashing allowed their hired men to enter the World Trade Center & Pentagon unquestioned as they simply repeated the numerological codes that television advertisements have subliminally planted in people's minds, hypnotising people into being unable to see them. These hired men installed explosives within the buildings and Flight 93, unaware of what they were doing and believing they were installing smoke detectors (of course, bear in mind that so-called "smoke detectors" actually emit LSD fumes to keep the population in a continual state of susceptibility to suggestion, but this is a different story). On September 11th 2001, the American-funded and sponsored "terrorist group" Al Qaeda was given the ability to hijack several commercial airliners by the CIA, which arranged for NORAD to be down on the day in question. The explosives were detonated simultaneous with the "terrorist attacks" and a false black box recording was planted on Flight 93 to make it seem as though it was a genuine hijacking. People wonder why no one ever came forth to corroborate this story, but, of course, it's very easy to hide dead bodies in a site where bodies are already expected to be found! (And any who escaped the initial purge could be disposed of under the pretenses of some kind of "war in Iraq", of course.) Really, given all the assassinations of US citizens the government's ordered in the past seventy years (JFK, RFK, MLK, etc) and gotten away with, you'd think it would be obvious.

I'd add something along the lines of "WAKE UP SHEEPLE!" but as xkcd has demonstrated that can have unexpected results

I knew it!!!   ::)

Well, you certainly took the pressure off of Sean. :)

8)

Quote from: Sean on June 07, 2013, 10:48:20 AM
Well I'm a bit jaded with 9/11 actually and if you want to chalk up this thread as one to MishaK & Karl then you're welcome... Best, Sean

OK, so you're saying you don't have a theory of the crime at all? You just believe the bits and pieces that the truthers throw out there which don't at all add up to a coherent whole? And this makes you a free "thinker"?

Quote from: dyn on June 07, 2013, 10:50:46 AM
Really, given all the assassinations of US citizens the government's ordered in the past seventy years (JFK, RFK, MLK, etc) and gotten away with, you'd think it would be obvious.

Sh!t!! All of us people with last names starting in K are screwed! I never saw the connection!

Good thing I didn't change mine from Henningk.

Quote from: karlhenning on June 07, 2013, 11:57:15 AM
Good thing I didn't change mine from Henningk.

Of course I meant "starting" not ending.  ;)

Quote from: MishaK on June 07, 2013, 12:05:41 PM
Of course I meant "starting" not ending.  ;)

The conspiracy goes all the way back to The Castle.

Quote from: Parsifal on June 07, 2013, 12:25:13 PM
The conspiracy goes all the way back to The Castle.

Oh, shoot! You're right. And the Trial! K must have been framed.

MishaK, there are all the detailed linear timelines you're looking for on the net...

dyn, with a bit of editing that'll do fine.

I just watched this Avatar film from 2009.

One of the most successful of all time with this plot of simple but sophisticated locals who finally defeat aggressive American forces trying to take some daft expensive material called unobtainium.

Despite lines from the Americans like we will destroy the hostiles and we'll fight terror with terror, blatantly obvious references to the recent US-Western sicko subhuman bombings and invasions and horror that have brought yet more tens of thousands and millions of deaths in resource wars to prop up twisted Western living 'standards', the whole stupid film has to be couched in terms of the Friday-night-undead-idiot-masquerading-as-a-person such that its critique is lost to the exact system it's trying or thinks it's trying to oppose.

That was 2009 and you still think it's me who's crazy...

Quote from: Sean on June 07, 2013, 05:00:11 PM
MishaK, there are all the detailed linear timelines you're looking for on the net...

I've only seen incoherent poking of holes into this or that piece of evidence, not a coherent timeline anywhere. If you know of one, please provide the link, though I would much rather hear your own theory.

Quote from: MishaK on June 05, 2013, 12:40:22 PM


with a straight face if you haven't actually first read the article I linked above: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1001-24.htm

Not one mention of Building 7 collapsing even though no plane hit it. No mention of the 19 being escorted around security.

MT can blow me!! Yes, he IS a Gatekeeper. Look at what he DOESN'T write about,... perhaps??

WHY DID BUILDING 7 COLLAPSE mischa???? with a straight face...


I believe that 'they' have hit on a boogieman in the muslim,... ewww, dirty, beards, yucky, nasty looking arabs with foreskins,...ewwwwwwwww!!!!!,... so much easier to believe they do stuff rather than clean cut mossad agents. Every muslim terrorist IS a mossad agent by proxy.

Hey, you dual citizenship congessmen from israel,... GO HOME!!!!




btw- Stormfront??, the supposed white suprem=ists???,... guess WHAT?,... they're based in WEST PALM BEACH, haha,... that's like saying they're based in Tel Aviv. FAIL!!!!!!


oh, I knew I shouldn't have looked into this Thread today!!! no ofence intended


watch 'Century of the Self' on YT. 4 hours concerning Ed. Bernays, Freud's nephew, who created the discipline of Public Relations. Yes, amazing that a dirty arab wasn't involved with that.

dirty dirty boogiemen,...ewwww how can one stand next to one... ewwwww


genuflect towards Tel Aviv traitors. The US wasn't supposed to be a suburb of Tel Aviv. See if YOUR congessman has a dual-citizenship with the Master Country. Surely mine have honoraries if not fully blown.



And, just to bring the point around... MUSLIMS OWN ALL MEDIA!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!! IT'S REALLY MUSLIMS, NOT TALMUDISTS, WHO RUN THE BANKS!!! YOU'VE ALL BEEN DUPED!! THE TALMUDISTS STOLE THE IDEA OF FRACTIONALIZED RESERVE BANKING FROM THE MUSLIMS!!!!!

DON'T LET SHARIA REPLACE THE NOAHIDE LAWS!!! OMG!!!!

AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!


Who's last in the firing squad?









There, I feel so much better now. Thanks for bringing hope and light to my Monday morning.


MORE LIGHT!!!!

Forgot your medication, snypss?

Quote from: snyprrr on June 10, 2013, 08:30:02 AM
WHY DID BUILDING 7 COLLAPSE mischa???? with a straight face...

You know, buildings do regularly collapse from fire damage, even multi-story steel ones:

http://www.haifire.com/resources/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf

Having diesel tanks in the basement for fuel and all fire fighting resources diverted for hours to deal with bigger issues helps too.

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

Quote from: snyprrr on June 10, 2013, 08:30:02 AM
WHY DID BUILDING 7 COLLAPSE mischa? ??? with a straight face...

You're asking us to reply to a post of your'n, with a straight face?

I like your style, little fella!

Quote from: MishaK on June 10, 2013, 10:07:04 AM
Forgot your medication, snypss?

You know, buildings do regularly collapse from fire damage, even multi-story steel ones:

http://www.haifire.com/resources/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf

Having diesel tanks in the basement for fuel and all fire fighting resources diverted for hours to deal with bigger issues helps too.

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

Misha, how dare you bring up the facts in such an important matter as this!

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on June 10, 2013, 10:14:25 AM
Misha, how dare you bring up the facts in such an important matter as this!

I know, I'm such a pooper. I should just supply snypps and Sean with more drugs and join the party.

Well the argument often put forward by the experts is that no steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire, except the three in NYC, all on the same day and all for different concocted technical reasons- some coincidence... The article you link seems to be drawing in other types of building, but I haven't read it very closely.

Dragging me into this again... Have you seen Explosive evidence, experts speak out??

The problem for the official story isn't so much precedent though as why indeed should any steel frame collapse- the heat just dissipates away and the internal structure remains; the Madrid tower fire about eight years ago was an example of a skyscraper being obliterated by fire yet the steel remained- why shouldn't it?

MishaK, after an hour or so following the airliner impacts the WTC towers collapsed. What exactly happened at that moment? There were 47 massive steel core columns in each building, along with 280 or something perimeter columns. At the moment of collapse all 47 suddenly failed at around the point of the impacts. What on earth caused this, and furthermore why did the acceleration then continue down?

Let's say the 47 columns each instantaneously buckled at a single point, for some weird reason. The building would slide to the side with the columns still intact as usual all the way to the top, and all the way to the bottom. But no, the columns were either shattered all the way up and down or the floors were forcefully separated from them- why? It's been demonstrated many times by scholars that the pancaking theory doesn't work and any downward movement of upper material should be absorbed and stopped again.

Actually there's one interesting video where for a moment you can see the core columns hundreds of metres in the air on one of the towers before they collapse down, for some reason; however with the other tower the first thing it does at the moment of collapse is for the antenna to fall, indicating the core failed first. Either way they're no gravity induced collapses.

After the attacks in 9/11  I was in the machine shop of our facility where the chief machinist had the radio on, tuned to one of the national news networks.  When the news was announced that the first tower collapsed, the grizzled old machinist held forth.  "I tell ya what it was, it was all that steel.  When you get steel hot it looses its strength.  It doesn't melt, it just looses its strength.  It must have been the heat from all that jet fuel burning."  It turned out he was right.

Count on Sean to be deaf to that artisanal opinion.

If you put a cigarette lighter to the end of a spoon you have to drop the spoon instantly- heat is just conducted away.

You're saying the entire steel framework throughout the buildings was softened by a few dozen gallons of jet fuel?

The fact is that most people will accept any garbage rationalization to prop up their worldview.

This is a trailer for one of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth- if you've got Youtube you'll be able to access the whole thing. There are numerous other important films.

http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/fuLDhKKv794/

Quote from: Parsifal on June 10, 2013, 12:39:02 PM
After the attacks in 9/11  I was in the machine shop of our facility where the chief machinist had the radio on, tuned to one of the national news networks.  When the news was announced that the first tower collapsed, the grizzled old machinist held forth.  "I tell ya what it was, it was all that steel.  When you get steel hot it looses its strength.  It doesn't melt, it just looses its strength.  It must have been the heat from all that jet fuel burning."  It turned out he was right.

Yep.

Quote from: Sean on June 10, 2013, 11:18:56 AM
but I haven't read it very closely.

That's your general MO and the problem with all of your "analyses". It's kinda pointless to answer when you continue to not read the answers closely. I suppose you do that more or less consciously, so you won't have to change your opinion to which you're so dearly attached. All the answers to your questions can be found at the site I linked via the menus on the left: http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

Quote from: Sean on June 10, 2013, 11:18:56 AM
The problem for the official story isn't so much precedent though as why indeed should any steel frame collapse- the heat just dissipates away and the internal structure remains; the Madrid tower fire about eight years ago was an example of a skyscraper being obliterated by fire yet the steel remained- why shouldn't it?

MishaK, after an hour or so following the airliner impacts the WTC towers collapsed. What exactly happened at that moment? There were 47 massive steel core columns in each building, along with 280 or something perimeter columns. At the moment of collapse all 47 suddenly failed at around the point of the impacts. What on earth caused this, and furthermore why did the acceleration then continue down?

You simply don't understand structural damage. Nor do you understand that this was intentionally a lightweight structure in order to create open floor plans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOKJ4ZXgK4Q

I knew that building inside out. I knew how fragile that structure was. When I stepped outside of my apartment complex that morning and looked at the south tower and saw the damage to the facade (with the likelihood of substantial damage to the center core, given the evident force of the impact), my first thought was: that building is coming down sooner or later, I want to be at least as far away from it as it is tall. That was my first thought. I had no doubts that this building would come down from structural damage alone. Not for a second. I wasn't surprised at all when the south tower came down.

Quote from: Sean on June 10, 2013, 11:18:56 AM
Let's say the 47 columns each instantaneously buckled at a single point, for some weird reason. The building would slide to the side with the columns still intact as usual all the way to the top, and all the way to the bottom. But no, the columns were either shattered all the way up and down or the floors were forcefully separated from them- why?

If you don't read anything, at least look at the photo on the homepage of the debunking site I linked above. It's a photo from the beginning of the south tower collapse. Note that it caves toward the point of impact. It doesn't fall down straight, as it might have in a controlled demolition, but collapses towards the point of most structural damage, completely consistent with collapse from structural damage.

Quote from: Sean on June 10, 2013, 11:18:56 AM
It's been demonstrated many times by scholars that the pancaking theory doesn't work and any downward movement of upper material should be absorbed and stopped again.

No it hasn't. Not by any scholars of structural engineering. Not sure what "scholars" you refer to.

Quote from: Sean on June 10, 2013, 11:18:56 AM
however with the other tower the first thing it does at the moment of collapse is for the antenna to fall

You need new glasses. The entire top of the building above the point of impact collapses towards the side where the impact damage was. (The antenna indeed ended up in the graveyard of Trinity Church a few blocks away - so much for "controlled" demolition.)

Quote from: Sean on June 10, 2013, 11:18:56 AM
Either way they're no gravity induced collapses.

That sounds like science as understood by someone who doesn't understand science. What the heck is a "gravity induced collapse"? Aren't necessarily all collapses due to gravity, other than implosions in outer space? Are you saying the building was propelled downward by upward facing rockets?

Look, all of this arguing over individual bits of evidence and how unconvincing they might be to someone with mediocre middle school physics grades and who hasn't taken physics since is pointless unless you have an affirmative theory of the crime. Let's say you're right. Let's say arguendo that these were controlled demolitions. Why fly planes into the tower? Who organized this? How? With whose help? What for? How did they keep it secret in this day and age when far more trivial shenanigans of far lesser complexity with fewer moving parts and fewer co-conspirators end up being revealed on a regular basis? How did they do it so flawlessly? What's your theory?

Quote from: Sean on June 10, 2013, 12:53:02 PM
If you put a cigarette lighter to the end of a spoon you have to drop the spoon instantly- heat is just conducted away.

Really? Anticipation of a herion high must make junkies immune to this physical "fact"?

One short reply for now, in the early hours here-

Well MishaK, if you knew the tower was going to collapse you were in a small minority of people, most of whom are extremely suspicious characters, including Mayor Giuliani and leaseholder Silverstein.

More to the point, the fire department's 300 men not to mention 3000 others inside, never thought for a moment that a fire way up on a few floors would demolish the whole building.

You didn't think to make any calls to warn anyone with you great insight I suppose...

That's certainly a question Giuliani has sidestepped many times- he's on film marching down the street just after the impacts saying that he's been told the WTC is coming down...

Quote from: Sean on June 10, 2013, 01:33:45 PM
One short reply for now, in the early hours here-

Well MishaK, if you knew the tower was going to collapse you were in a small minority of people, most of whom are extremely suspicious characters, including Mayor Giuliani and leaseholder Silverstein.

More to the point, the fire department's 300 men not to mention 3000 others inside, never thought for a moment that a fire way up on a few floors would demolish the whole building.

You didn't think to make any calls to warn anyone with you great insight I suppose...

You're a weasel, Sean.

I was in a large group, all of whom had made the wise choice to vacate the area in as expedient and ordely a fashion as possible, because all of us were aware that staying close to a burning, flaming 100+ story tower with people and large chunks of steel facade falling from it would be an extremely boneheaded idea that would put us all in extreme danger. There was nobody I needed to warn because they were all a lot smarter than you, apparently, and were doing the right thing in the first place. The first responders on the scene had a duty to rescue people and save what could be saved, which is why they did what they did. I'm sure none of them knew at that moment exactly how much fuel was in those planes and how intensely that (and the contents of the offices) would burn or how extensive the structural damage was exactly until the first tower came down. After that, you bet they knew the second tower would likely follow the same fate and that's also coincidentally why they didn't even bother with WTC 7.

As to Giuliani, your answers are here: http://www.911myths.com/html/giuliani_and_the_wtc_warning.html

Buckling was visually evident on the facade before the south tower came down. Again, completely consistent with the structural damage and the weakening from the fire. No sinister conspiracies required for someone to observe the obvious and warn the people in charge.

I note that you are still failing to provide a positive theory that strings all of your beliefs about 9-11 together into a coherent narrative. Is it really that hard?

Actually, now thinking about it some more, the Giuliani point is probably the dumbest piece of circumstatial "evidence" put forth by the truthers. If Giuliani was in on the plot (which he necessarily had to have been), why did he go into the danger zone at all? Why did someone have to warn him only shortly before the collapse of the south tower of that tower's imminent collapse? This makes no sense at all.

QuoteIt's been demonstrated many times by scholars that the pancaking theory doesn't work and any downward movement of upper material should be absorbed and stopped again.

Quote from: MishaK on June 10, 2013, 01:08:04 PMNo it hasn't. Not by any scholars of structural engineering. Not sure what "scholars" you refer to.

Apparently there is a community of "scholars" who do not accept Newton's laws of motion.   When the structure in the damaged section of the building gave way the more-or-less intact top section of the building was unsupported and started to fall.  The more-or-less intact lower portion of the building was called upon to "catch" it.  Newton's second law tells us that an enormous force would have been necessary to neutralize the downward momentum of the falling upper section of the structure.  This is why the lower portion of the building was not strong enough to arrest the collapse, although it was strong enough to sustain the weight of the upper portion of the building.

Quote from: Parsifal on June 10, 2013, 02:46:24 PM
Apparently there is a community of "scholars" who do not accept Newton's laws of motion.   When the structure in the damaged section of the building gave way the more-or-less intact top section of the building was unsupported and started to fall.  The more-or-less intact lower portion of the building was called upon to "catch" it.  Newton's second law tells us that an enormous force would have been necessary to neutralize the downward momentum of the falling upper section of the structure.  This is why the lower portion of the building was not strong enough to arrest the collapse, although it was strong enough to sustain the weight of the upper portion of the building.

Also, these anti-Newtonians don't believe in the existence of kinetic energy, because according to them an aluminum aircraft obviously should not even be able to penetrate a steel building, much less cause its wholesale destruction.  ;)

Quote from: MishaK on June 10, 2013, 03:06:26 PM
Also, these anti-Newtonians don't believe in the existence of kinetic energy, because according to them an aluminum aircraft obviously should not even be able to penetrate a steel building, much less cause its wholesale destruction.  ;)

So Isaac is in on this WTC thing, too! :o

MishaK I just looked up weasel, meaning a deceitful or treacherous person- go on then, it's not easy to get by in life without a little deceit. I guess you're some other kind of rodent, not sure which right now but I'll make a choice.

QuoteNor do you understand that this was intentionally a lightweight structure in order to create open floor plans.

It was also a structure intentionally and successfully designed to withstand airliner impacts.

QuoteNote that it caves toward the point of impact.

Well there's a tilt in the top half when it falls, can't remember which one, but the thing still comes down vertically because the supports beneath are being rapidly removed- there's never a chance of it toppling over as anyone would expect.

QuoteNot sure what "scholars" you refer to.

Check out the Journal of 9/11 studies.

QuoteThe antenna indeed ended up in the graveyard of Trinity Church a few blocks away - so much for "controlled" demolition

Blown out sideways by forces beyond any gravitational collapse.

Which means the collapse of a building just from falling upper floors under gravity.

I already know about the debunking sites and they're full of quaint oddities I find myself talking to like you.

But from the questions you ask I know you haven't seen the relevant videos from the opposing view- see if you can bring yourself to, you might even have a catastrophic religious conversion. Really there are endless scholarly articles and discussions that answer your rather naïve questions in the last paragraph of that post...

Sign yourself up.

What it boils down is this:
The evidence is fully consistent with the "official" story,  and there exists a coherent, logical narrative in which the human actors act like human beings.  (I would have said "normal human beings" but obviously this does not apply to Mohammed Atta and companions.)

There is no actual evidence for the "alternative" story, which barely deserves the name, since there is no coherent, logical narrative behind it, and such narrative as if offered requires thousands of people to act against their own interests without any motivation to do so, for an extended (now more than a decade) period of time.


Like all conspiracy theories,  the WTC consipiracy theory is only superficially reasonable, and breaks down upon the stress of actual examination.  Those how believe it are motivated mainly by an intense disdain not only for government and mainstream media,  but also an intense disdain for the general public (for a close to home example, read Sean's post regarding his Chinese students); and to validate that disdain they must equip themselves with a gnosis not achievable by the hoi polloi--even if that gnosis must be made up out of whole cloth.  No matter what the actual evidence is,  they will adhere to their belief because it satisfies a psychological need.  They feel compelled to belong to an elite, and if they have to invent a reality to attain that status, they will.   So it's no use debating them.  They've already decided you are wrong and they are right.    All you will gain is the satisfaction of having them call you a rodent.

MishaK

QuoteBuckling was visually evident on the facade before the south tower came down.

The towers were readily supportable by the core columns alone, any buckling on the sides is irrelevant.

And it took five years or so to manufacture explanations of the towers 1-2 and eight years for the bizarre report on Building 7, each of which dismissed by thinking architects and physicists.

Yet Giuliani knew the towers were going to collapse even before they did- almost as much prescience as you.

Why didn't the bastard have the building evacuated and stop the firefighters going in, who know all about building collapse in fire? Because the phone call to him shouldn't really have been made... It stinks.

Jeffrey

QuoteWhat it boils down is this:
The evidence is fully consistent with the "official" story,  and there exists a coherent, logical narrative in which the human actors act like human beings.  (I would have said "normal human beings" but obviously this does not apply to Mohammed Atta and companions.)

Oh dear. Atta had nothing to do with this- he couldn't fly a plane and is probably still alive. See Loose Change etc etc.

QuoteThere is no actual evidence for the "alternative" story, which barely deserves the name, since there is no coherent, logical narrative behind it, and such narrative as if offered requires thousands of people to act against their own interests without any motivation to do so, for an extended (now more than a decade) period of time.

Youtube. Be brave.

QuoteLike all conspiracy theories,  the WTC consipiracy theory is only superficially reasonable, and breaks down upon the stress of actual examination.

No it doesn't. And debates in the end tend to side with the unofficial rather than official conspiracy theories.

QuoteThose how believe it are motivated mainly by an intense disdain not only for government and mainstream media,  but also an intense disdain for the general public (for a close to home example, read Sean's post regarding his Chinese students); and to validate that disdain they must equip themselves with a gnosis not achievable by the hoi polloi--even if that gnosis must be made up out of whole cloth.

Motives for interest in the subject aren't relevant to its claims.

QuoteNo matter what the actual evidence is,  they will adhere to their belief because it satisfies a psychological need.

This is also what I'm saying about the lamestreamers- perhaps we're closer than we think...

I really think though that you're just funnelling your views through the media, the carrier of the culture which you clearly identify with, however sadly despite posting on a fine arts forum, a critical platform with a basic distinction from the moronic masses and their trough fodder.

Jeffrey do yourself a favour and bin that brainwashing piece of trash in the corner of your living room...

Gurn, any chance of locking this thread- it's for complete wackos.

well, I did say it's useless debating with such people.  But it's very convenient to note that Sean has a deep contempt for the general public and have him supply an example of that contempt  twenty minutes later.

Quote
I really think though that you're just funnelling your views through the media, the carrier of the culture which you clearly identify with, however sadly despite posting on a fine arts forum, a critical platform with a basic distinction from the moronic masses and their trough fodder.

But FYI, about the only TV I watch nowadays is the Weather Channel Local on the 8s.  And I don't take in the newspaper.  All my information nowadays is gotten, in one way or another, off the Intertubes.

And one more thing:

Quote from: Sean on June 10, 2013, 07:17:44 PM
Gurn, any chance of locking this thread- it's for complete wackos.

If the heat in the kitchen is too hot for you,  you can lock this thread yourself,  since you are the Original Poster.

Quote from: Sean on June 10, 2013, 07:04:50 PM
MishaK

The towers were readily supportable by the core columns alone, any buckling on the sides is irrelevant.

And it took five years or so to manufacture explanations of the towers 1-2 and eight years for the bizarre report on Building 7, each of which dismissed by thinking architects and physicists.

Yet Giuliani knew the towers were going to collapse even before they did- almost as much prescience as you.

Why didn't the bastard have the building evacuated and stop the firefighters going in, who know all about building collapse in fire? Because the phone call to him shouldn't really have been made... It stinks.

Sean,  do you have any understanding of physical science at all?  I have a lot of training and experience in the practice of classical physics.  Upon watching the video of the failure of the two towers the mechanism was immediately obvious.  The structural members in the fire zone were compromised.  When one fails its load is taken by the adjacent one, and with each subsequent failure the accumulating load is distributed among a smaller and smaller number of remaining members.  As more members fail the cascade becomes more rapid, causing an apparently sudden failure.  At that point the intact but unsupported top portion of the building is like an enormous hammer pulled down at high velocity by gravity, pulverizing the the building below as it falls.  It was the most spectacular demonstration of classical mechanics ever seen, and it was obvious to anyone with technical training that this was the outline of what happened.  It took some time to do a detailed analysis to elucidate the exact mechanism of failure.

Your bizarre statements that the collapse couldn't have happened as it did, or that some other absurd thing should have happened if had not been for Dick Cheney's diabolical scheme just reveals you to be a crack-pot without even an elementary school student's understanding of Newton's laws of motion. 

Okay Parsifal

Newtons' Third Law states that a force on one object produces an equal and opposite force in response.

The most the upper 15 floors could have done is destroy another 15 floors, then there'll be nothing but rubble.

Once again Parsifal you're another poster who hasn't seen a blink of anything past CNN who thinks that 'conspiracy theorists' ie a group of serious scientists and architects who just happen to take a different view on an issue are somewhere less than a joke.

Quote from: Sean on June 10, 2013, 08:56:40 PM
Okay Parsifal, Wagner's last opera for some reason, what was ever wrong with your name may I ask?

Newtons' Third Law states that a force on one object produces an equal and opposite force in response.

The most the upper 15 floors could have done is destroy another 15 floors, then there'll be nothing but rubble.

Fair enough, as the top comes down floors below are being pulverized by the falling top section and at the same time floors in the top section are being pulverized by their impact with the bottom section.  That's more or less what is seen in the video.

But that doesn't change anything.  The top of the building was presumably reduced to rubble by the time it had descended 15 floors into the lower part of the building.  So what?  That rubble still weights 100,000,000 kg and descending at 30 meters per second, would be just as effective in crushing whatever is below as the intact segment of the building.  It would take just as much force to withstand that falling rubble as it would to withstand the falling of an intact structure of the same weight.

Quote from: Sean on June 10, 2013, 08:56:40 PMCome back to me to when you know what you're talking about.

Come back when I know what I am talking about?  If you want to debate physics with me, better study your Landau and Lifshitz.  :)

Here's a quiz for you.  A 1 kg mass falls under earth gravity a distance of 10 meters then lands in a bed of sand, which brings it to rest after traveling 1 meter.   What the force required to hold the mass at rest, and what is the average force exerted on the mass by the sand?  Hint:  If you can solve this high-school physics problem you can understand why the WTC collapsed.

Zero Hedge

Resilience

Desdemona's Despair

Parsifal, sorry I didn't mean to talk to like that. I'll try not to post on this thread, before it fills up with vitriol.

I understand the argument about the rubble. However calculations show the collapse should slow and stop because the resistance is greater than the falling momentum.

One famous article considers the 110 massive concrete floors as if they were hovering in mid air with no core or perimeter supports to be dislodged: even here the floors' stationary inertia alone has to be overcome to get them moving, and the material above just doesn't have the force to do it as fast as observed. Only timed explosions below the demolition wave can get them falling.

Not sure about your physics test but I am sure all the qualified physicists involved in this would be sure.

The building came down at free fall while also destroying itself and that's impossible- energy expended in destruction would have slowed the collapse.

Quote from: Sean on June 10, 2013, 11:32:44 PMOne famous article considers the 110 massive concrete floors as if they were hovering in mid air with no core or perimeter supports to be dislodged: even here the floors' stationary inertia alone has to be overcome to get them moving, and the material above just doesn't have the force to do it as fast as observed. Only timed explosions below the demolition wave can get them falling.

That doesn't make any sense.  If they were hovering with no supports they would simply fall with the acceleration of gravity, planes or no planes.  If they are "hovering" with the assumption that gravity is removed, of course the collapse would dissipate.  Gravity is the sole force driving the collapse and if you take it away there is no collapse.  Every time the collapsing upper section/rubble hits another floor, the structural support of that floor is destroyed and that floor starts to free-fall, until it hits the next fall.
[/quote]

QuoteThe building came down at free fall while also destroying itself and that's impossible- energy expended in destruction would have slowed the collapse.

That is simply not true.  The building did not come down in free fall.  It came down at roughly constant velocity.  This is obvious because debris ejected from the building as each floor pancakes does experience free fall and you can see it descending faster than the progress of the building collapse. 

Yet each building collapsed in about 10 seconds, indistinguishable from free-fall; the collapse I expect is analysable for acceleration.

The paper about the levitating floors is just a thought experiment to say that even without having to dislodge the floors there's not enough force even to move them fast enough because of their basic inertia.

Quote from: Sean on June 10, 2013, 06:54:15 PM
It was also a structure intentionally and successfully designed to withstand airliner impacts.

Oy vey.... Listen to me. I work with airliners for a living. It was designed to withstand an impact by a 707, an aircraft with little more than half the mass of a 767. And that calculation didn't at all take into account fuel, nor high speed, as normally in the event of an accident, an airliner would be going at 250kts maximum due to low altitude speed restrictions. The two aircraft that struck WTC were 767-200s, much heavier aircraft fueled for a transcontinental flight, which they had just begun, going nearly 500kts. This is several orders of magnitude larger than an impact by a 707. Kinetic energy is one half times mass multiplied by the square of the velocity. You do see that if you more than double both the mass and the velocity you end up with eight times as much energy, right? If you do not see that, you simply don't have the scientific understanding to say any of the nonsense you're saying (because your sources are as educationally deprived as you are).

Quote from: Sean on June 10, 2013, 06:54:15 PM
Check out the Journal of 9/11 studies.

I suspect this is peer reviewed only in the sense that loonies reviewing loonies constitute peers.

Quote from: Sean on June 10, 2013, 06:54:15 PM
Blown out sideways by forces beyond any gravitational collapse.

All collapses within a gravitational field, such as the one we have on earth, are gravitational, Sean. Give it up.

Quote from: Sean on June 10, 2013, 06:54:15 PM
But from the questions you ask I know you haven't seen the relevant videos from the opposing view- see if you can bring yourself to, you might even have a catastrophic religious conversion. Really there are endless scholarly articles and discussions that answer your rather naïve questions in the last paragraph of that post...

Dude, I've seen them all. They're bunk science and lack a coherent affirmative theory of the crime. What is the f76cking theory of the crime? Spell it out! Just try it for yourself. Who did it? How?

Quote from: Sean on June 11, 2013, 12:23:57 AM
Yet each building collapsed in about 10 seconds, indistinguishable from free-fall; the collapse I expect is analysable for acceleration.

Nope. The fall took well over 10 seconds, more like 13 or 14. You just can't see very well due to the dust clouds and the buildings in the foreground. But you can see clearly pieces of facade falling faster than the rest of the towers, which plainly refutes the "free fall" nonsense. Also, in controlled demolition, buildings don't fall at "free fall speed" either, whatever that is supposed to be. A collapse is a collapse. This is simply bunk science on every level.

Quote from: Sean on June 10, 2013, 07:04:50 PM
The towers were readily supportable by the core columns alone, any buckling on the sides is irrelevant.

Nope. Simply wrong. The exterior tube was essential. If you'd ever have been to the building you'd have known. I went in and out of it all the time. The lobby was a marvellous, cathedral like open space. I was amazed that 100 stories rested on it. That's exactly why it was apparent to me that it would collapse. Saying that the building should have stood without the facade is like saying Notre Dame should be able to stand without all the flying buttresses.

Quote from: Sean on June 10, 2013, 07:04:50 PM
Yet Giuliani knew the towers were going to collapse even before they did- almost as much prescience as you.

Maybe that's because we were actually there and saw it with our own eyes and it was plainly obvious to anyone who didn't fail physics in middle school?

Quote from: Sean on June 10, 2013, 06:54:15 PM
Well there's a tilt in the top half when it falls, can't remember which one, but the thing still comes down vertically because the supports beneath are being rapidly removed- there's never a chance of it toppling over as anyone would expect.

It comes down vertically because gravity acts vertically. Absent a lateral force (and there was only a gentle breeze that day), no one with a brain would "expect" for it to topple over.

Quote from: Seanyet each building collapsed in about 10 seconds, indistinguishable from free-fall; the collapse I expect is analysable for acceleration.

Quote from: Parsifal on June 10, 2013, 11:46:39 PMThat is simply not true.  The building did not come down in free fall.  It came down at roughly constant velocity.  This is obvious because debris ejected from the building as each floor pancakes does experience free fall and you can see it descending faster than the progress of the building collapse.

Quote from: MishaK on June 11, 2013, 07:02:36 AMNope. The fall took well over 10 seconds, more like 13 or 14. You just can't see very well due to the dust clouds and the buildings in the foreground. But you can see clearly pieces of facade falling faster than the rest of the towers, which plainly refutes the "free fall" nonsense. Also, in controlled demolition, buildings don't fall at "free fall speed" either, whatever that is supposed to be. A collapse is a collapse. This is simply bunk science on every level.

To illustrate, look at this picture

(http://cdn.lightgalleries.net/4bd5ebf2966e6/images/collapse-01-2.jpg)

Look to the left of the tower, where a sizable chunk of the steel facade of the building is falling.  It visible just above the shorter building in the immediately forground of the tower.  That piece of dibris is in free-fall.  Notice it is below the progress of the collapse and therefore tha piece of dibris must be falling faster than the progress of the collapse.  The collapse is obviously slower than free-fall.

Can you understand this simple argument?
 

Quote from: Parsifal on June 11, 2013, 08:38:54 AM
Too illustrate, look at this picture

(http://cdn.lightgalleries.net/4bd5ebf2966e6/images/collapse-01-2.jpg)

Look to the left of the tower, where a sizable chunk of the steel facade of the building is falling.  It visible just above the shorter building in the immediately forground of the tower.  That piece of dibris is in free-fall.  Notice it is below the progress of the collapse and therefore tha piece of dibris must be falling faster than the progress of the collapse.  The collapse is obviously slower than free-fall.

Can you understand this simple argument?

That pic is great. There is actually lots of debris on both sides of the building falling faster than the rest of the structure. The building is not falling in free fall. q.e.d.

Lol, it will be interesting to see what Sean's counter-argument to that picture will be.

Quote from: Sean on June 10, 2013, 12:53:02 PM
If you put a cigarette lighter to the end of a spoon you have to drop the spoon instantly- heat is just conducted away.

You're saying the entire steel framework throughout the buildings was softened by a few dozen gallons of jet fuel?

The fact is that most people will accept any garbage rationalization to prop up their worldview.

The all would need to see pics of Buish Senor & Mejor b***f****** 6th graders in order to believe anything. Sean, since all the Presidents are technically related to each other, and all Media is owned by 6 Corps., and US elected a community organizer twice,... you can trust everything that Popular Science (Chertoff) (or was that Mechanics?) and The Washington Post, I meAN NYTIMES...

Take this Snow down guy today. Apparently he's a lifer,... maybe he's just there to make 'whistleblowers' look like 'traitors'?? So they can scare the reporters more??

How many of the Posters here have gubmint jobs... sorry, careers???

Hey kids, wanna spy on yer neighbors??


Most Knee Yakkas believe the demo theory, so, whatever, you can bask in AmeriKa while it lasts.

Look, BOTH SIDES have pretty well geared up for the NEXT incident. Whatever it is that happens, there will be those who slavishly believe whatever Blitzer tells them (which he was told to say by his Masters the Editors (remember the 6 Media Companies that Control Most All Media?)). Then there are those who will pick every motive apart. I call the second group inquisitive minded. What of the first group? Dirty stinky muslims make perfect bogies for the pearly 'white' of NY and LA,... yea, you heard me.

If Israel is behind Stormfront, then Israel is behind 911. Anyone here from WPB???


Assholes are trying to link people who simply do their homework with 'conspiracy theorists' to make anyone who questions anything to look crazy to their peers.

All we can hope for is that the takeover happens quickly and all the libtards are executed in one night. Sure, we'll die in concentration camps, but, hey, I fully expect to be gulliotined(sic) for my Beliefs, if that's where we're heading.

Barry Bush

Any other building and they'd ALL say it was demo. Who was the landlord? Silverman, said "Pull it?" Pull my finger!!!!!!

Quote from: snyprrr on June 11, 2013, 09:36:05 AM
Take this Snow down guy today. Apparently he's a lifer,... maybe he's just there to make 'whistleblowers' look like 'traitors'?? So they can scare the reporters more??

Fantastic! Now even the guys who turn their back on the apparatus are in on the conspiracy! This is ultimate hysteria. Foul is fair and fair is foul.

Quote from: snyprrr on June 11, 2013, 09:36:05 AM
but, hey, I fully expect to be gulliotined(sic) for my Beliefs, if that's where we're heading.

How quaintly romantic. I fear you're nowhere near important enough, nor are your beliefs threatening enough to anyone to merit that much effort.

PS: you may want to check what sic means. You use it in peculiar ways.

Quote from: snyprrr on June 11, 2013, 09:36:05 AMbut, hey, I fully expect to be gulliotined(sic) for my Beliefs, if that's where we're heading.

You'd have to express your beliefs cogently enough for someone to comprehend them, so I think you are safe.   :D

Quote from: MishaK on June 11, 2013, 09:45:31 AM
PS: you may want to check what sic means. You use it in peculiar ways.

Inconceivable!

Quote from: snyprrr on June 11, 2013, 09:36:05 AM
How many of the Posters here have gubmint jobs... sorry, careers???

I have a government job.

I am copying down all your posts and reporting them to my masters.

I am telling you this because you've been on GMG a long time and I don't like it when I have to call for a rendition of someone I know.

This is your only warning.

Well, we all work for the government, really. It's the government of, by and for the people.

Quote from: karlhenning on June 11, 2013, 10:39:15 AM
Well, we all work for the government, really. It's the government of, by and for the people.

They died hundreds of years ago, just like the naaazis.

Quote from: Parsifal on June 11, 2013, 09:52:23 AM
You'd have to express your beliefs cogently enough for someone to comprehend them, so I think you are safe.   :D

Have you ever seen Vincent Price as the 'Witchfinder General'? :laugh:

I'm eating veggie samosas and cheese naan... oh, wait,... wrong Thread...

Quote from: MishaK on June 11, 2013, 09:45:31 AM
Fantastic! Now even the guys who turn their back on the apparatus are in on the conspiracy! This is ultimate hysteria. Foul is fair and fair is foul.

Well, you know he dint reeeally say anything that people who have simply been keeping abreast of Current Issues for the last, oh, 10 years doesn't know. You seem to think the IC is made of dolts? Remember when we imported the naaazis after ww2, those smart naaazis who ver perfectink der mind kontrol methods,... eh, herr mischa? nein? IC is made up of... oh wait, tell me, WHICH NATION'S 'CIA''s mottot is 'Waar by decepcion"??????

waaar by de-cept (cion)

If IIII can do this, haha, you don't think gubs would pay hi dolla for the DeNiro character in 'Wag the Dog'>

I know, it's ONLY a movie. Keep telling yourself that when you leave the theater.

Quote from: snyprrr on June 11, 2013, 11:05:26 AM
Well, you know he dint reeeally say anything that people who have simply been keeping abreast of Current Issues for the last, oh, 10 years doesn't know.

This I actually agree with. However, that goes more to show that he is just a lowly outside contractor employee, not someone who's part of a vast conspiracy, Herr Scharfschütze.

Quote from: Greg on June 11, 2013, 08:59:01 AM
Lol, it will be interesting to see what Sean's counter-argument to that picture will be.

Looks like Sean has made himself scarce.  Maybe he's studying physic books.  I suggest he start with Galileo and his experiment at the tower of Piza.

Quote from: Parsifal on June 11, 2013, 08:02:05 PM
Looks like Sean has made himself scarce.  Maybe he's studying physic books.  I suggest he start with Galileo and his experiment at the tower of Piza.

See Reply 119. 
Apparently he defines "vitriol" as "argument based on facts".

Quote from: MishaK on June 11, 2013, 11:51:00 AM
This I actually agree with. However, that goes more to show that he is just a lowly outside contractor employee, not someone who's part of a vast conspiracy, Herr Scharfschütze.

I vill tell you that I got some interesting local info on this guy. You know, I grew up in Defence Contractor Heaven, so, it's really no surprise who he is. No, this guy could be a gung ho lifer simply following orders (do you not watch movies for the last 30 years??).

He has what?, some 'Save-the-Internet-from-Spooks' sticker on his laptop, but is reading Cheney's auto?

He's holed up in a Hong Kong hotel with the CIA right down the road??? He's actually gonna eat the room service??? Come on, he could be deep cover, that's all. Manufacture consent.

Apparently, even the German's are wondering about our Stasi tactics!!

Anyway, what's the guy's name, Binney?, who 'leaked' all this last summer?


Yea, you see life differently in Defence Contractor Heaven, Mischa. Have you seen 'Lord of War'???



Remember in 'Disctrict 9', how the Jamaican wanted to EAT the alien??? Well, what if it's really old grey four star generals who get to do all that fun stuff???? Why is the Medal of Honor an UPSIDE DOWN FIVE POINTED STAR??, known through every metal band in history as Satan's Coolest Symbol??? why why why

I mean, peter pan and fiberglass, it doesn't matter that you don't do anything wrong. Once they target you, God only knows. YOU don't get to choose what's illegal. It's the naaaaaazzzzzziiiiiiiiiiiiisssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!


uh,... what's this Thread about again???

Quote from: snyprrr on June 11, 2013, 08:20:30 PM

uh,... what's this Thread about again???

We all know what this thread is about, but some of us are wondering what your posts are about.

Quote from: The new erato on June 11, 2013, 11:34:20 PM
We all know what who this thread is about, but some of us are wondering what your posts are about.

This is thread of Sean, by Sean, for Sean. I don't think we should hope that it shall not perish from the Earth, though.

Quote from: The new erato on June 11, 2013, 11:34:20 PM
We all know what this thread is about, but some of us are wondering what your posts are about.

There may never be a satisfactory answer, so I am set to enjoy the ride in any event.

Parsifal

QuoteLooks like Sean has made himself scarce.

Not exactly, I just happen to have some employment right now for my sins, which also takes up my time.

MishaK's 9/11 brainwashed ravings indeed aren't a priority but I'll get some liquor out later to soften the pain and tell him again what I think of his ideas.

Quote from: Sean on June 12, 2013, 08:09:57 PM
Parsifal

Not exactly, I just happen to have some employment right now for my sins, which also takes up my time.

MishaK's 9/11 brainwashed ravings indeed aren't a priority but I'll get some liquor out later to soften the pain and tell him again what I think of his ideas.

What about the photograph?

Quote from: Parsifal on June 12, 2013, 08:27:36 PM
What about the photograph?

+1

Quote from: Sean on June 12, 2013, 08:09:57 PM
MishaK's 9/11 brainwashed ravings indeed aren't a priority but I'll get some liquor out later to soften the pain and tell him again what I think of his ideas.

I know what you think of "my ideas." You do realize that there isn't much brainwashing involved when you were on site and saw the thing with your own eyes (in addition to having some technical understanding of the subject matter)?

I don't really care to get into an extended pissing contest with you, since you lack a basic understanding of science and refuse to acquire it, and without it any discussion of factual matters with you is pointless. Heck, you can't even confront evidence that contradicts your so-called "argument", such as the pic above.

What I really want to hear from you is this: let's suppose, arguendo, that you've convinced me. The towers couldn't have been brought down by planes and Atta & Co. couldn't have pulled it off, so they aren't the likely culprits. What I then want to know then is exactly who did it? Why? And, especially, why the f^$k did they bother with planes at all when they were going to bring down the towers with explosives anyway? Why the smoking hole in the middle of nowhere in PA? Why increase the number of moving parts, the number of people involved, the complexity of the whole operation and hence exponentially increase the likelihood of something going wrong, yet nothing supposedly goes wrong? How did they keep the preparations and execution of this, which necessarily would have involved thousands of collaborators, secret? In the middle of one of the most heavily trafficked and camera-saturated spots in the US? How come in the troves of data that wikileaks et al. have found, there isn't the slightest hint of anything about a 9/11 conspiracy? Why blame the whole thing on a motley crew of Saudis, Egyptians, Yemenis and Morroccans, if supposedly the objective is to attack Iraq, Afghanistan and maybe Iran? That's like blaming the Gulf of Tonkin on a bunch of Fijians and then attacking Vietnam anyway. Did you ever bother to ask any of these questions yourself?

Quote from: MishaK on June 13, 2013, 06:37:10 AM
+1

I know what you think of "my ideas." You do realize that there isn't much brainwashing involved when you were on site and saw the thing with your own eyes (in addition to having some technical understanding of the subject matter)?

I don't really care to get into an extended pissing contest with you, since you lack a basic understanding of science and refuse to acquire it, and without it any discussion of factual matters with you is pointless. Heck, you can't even confront evidence that contradicts your so-called "argument", such as the pic above.

What I really want to hear from you is this: let's suppose, arguendo, that you've convinced me. The towers couldn't have been brought down by planes and Atta & Co. couldn't have pulled it off, so they aren't the likely culprits. What I then want to know then is exactly who did it? Why? And, especially, why the f^$k did they bother with planes at all when they were going to bring down the towers with explosives anyway? Why the smoking hole in the middle of nowhere in PA? Why increase the number of moving parts, the number of people involved, the complexity of the whole operation and hence exponentially increase the likelihood of something going wrong, yet nothing supposedly goes wrong? How did they keep the preparations and execution of this, which necessarily would have involved thousands of collaborators, secret? In the middle of one of the most heavily trafficked and camera-saturated spots in the US? How come in the troves of data that wikileaks et al. have found, there isn't the slightest hint of anything about a 9/11 conspiracy? Why blame the whole thing on a motley crew of Saudis, Egyptians, Yemenis and Morroccans, if supposedly the objective is to attack Iraq, Afghanistan and maybe Iran? That's like blaming the Gulf of Tonkin on a bunch of Fijians and then attacking Vietnam anyway. Did you ever bother to ask any of these questions yourself?

Shhhhh!  We're trying to lure the terrified little mouse out of his hole.  Turn down the lights, be very, very quiet, and wait.

Hi guys, lately I've been sending emails to the management here so critical I've been advised I need to cool it or the boot might be in my direction. I work at this university which is all very nice but has the initiative and dynamism of a drugged fat panda and I guess some of my griping rubs off over here when it shouldn't. I don't mean to be completely nasty. Last night I had the graveyard shift and while lurking in the shadows afterwards having broken open some spirit along comes this girl I've being half trying to seduce and though she wouldn't come back to mine she did get another meal out of me, so by then I was in no state to think about the state-sponsored crime of the century.

(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSMZha0JTrxoD3C0jgxiuQwbuxjhyOdAbX9AztAcY0rUFrcWY_NMw)

(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTsKKc4YOxyY7U75D4ATtVk5uJNrSeDjsZf3c45mBOaTS17GSibIg)

(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR2Ij7wZOuB8gYgYTgn3IXaoipI7plUQOPAAUo3sRYbS1gWXG19)

Still trying to change the subject from the photo, I see...

Hi MishaK

It was designed to withstand an impact by a 707, an aircraft with little more than half the mass of a 767. And that calculation didn't at all take into account fuel, nor high speed, as normally in the event of an accident, an airliner would be going at 250kts maximum due to low altitude speed restrictions. The two aircraft that struck WTC were 767-200s, much heavier aircraft fueled for a transcontinental flight, which they had just begun, going nearly 500kts. This is several orders of magnitude larger than an impact by a 707. Kinetic energy is one half times mass multiplied by the square of the velocity. You do see that if you more than double both the mass and the velocity you end up with eight times as much energy, right?

Go on then, I'm sure Parsifal will check the maths sorry math for you; what the retort is here I can't say but I'm certain there is one.

QuoteI suspect this is peer reviewed only in the sense that loonies reviewing loonies constitute peers.

Well the most well-known loony is Steven Jones who was a physics professor at Brigham Young University- they kicked him out after he asked them about this new scientific principle they were charging him with neglecting but which he'd never heard of, called unhealthy criticism.

QuoteDude, I've seen them all. They're bunk science and lack a coherent affirmative theory of the crime. What is the f76cking theory of the crime? Spell it out! Just try it for yourself. Who did it? How?

Well influential elements of the US government dressed the WTC with explosives for demolition while arranging for a few aircraft to be redirected by remote control, speciously blaming the disaster on the dastardly Islamic terrorists who they had to go after right away without the beginnings of an analysis. Artificially escalating small scale issues to major events seems to be an American speciality.

There are distinct interest groups benefitting from this, plus the resource maggot that the US is- why else do you think a debate we're having, which is a debate even if both sides take the other to be nonsense on stilts, is absolutely persona non grata for the media?

Quote...the fall took well over 10 seconds, more like 13 or 14. You just can't see very well due to the dust clouds and the buildings in the foreground.

Nice excuse. What you mean is that nobody can distinguish the collapse from free-fall.

QuoteBut you can see clearly pieces of facade falling faster than the rest of the towers, which plainly refutes the "free fall" nonsense. Also, in controlled demolition, buildings don't fall at "free fall speed" either, whatever that is supposed to be. A collapse is a collapse. This is simply bunk science on every level.

Do see the David Chandler video against the picture you post; it's only ten minutes but gives a different view on this...

QuoteThe lobby was a marvellous, cathedral like open space.

I walked through the one with the tour available in 1997, the desk was closed though.

QuoteMaybe that's because we were actually there and saw it with our own eyes and it was plainly obvious to anyone who didn't fail physics in middle school?

Hey, it blinking well wasn't obvious to the fire department nor to the 2800 in the first tower to collapse- it surprised the world and took many years to explain even officially. First rule of rescue work is assure your own safety or you just have another casualty, including the truth...

snyprrr, take note of Karl's pertinent observation...

QuoteWell, we all work for the government, really. It's the government of, by and for the people.

Quote from: Parsifal on June 12, 2013, 08:27:36 PM
What about the photograph?

See the ten minute David Chandler video for a detailed rebuttal on this exact topic- it's on YT and elsewhere but I can't get you the link right now.

Mish, there are some simple answers all over the internet to these questions...

QuoteWhat I then want to know then is exactly who did it? Why?

The military industrial complex, plus the American need to continue consuming 25% of the world's oil while being 4% of the population.

QuoteAnd, especially, why the f^$k did they bother with planes at all when they were going to bring down the towers with explosives anyway?

(http://www.processexcellencenetwork.com/people-performance-and-change-in-process-improveme/columns/i-can-t-believe-you-want-me-to-use-that/images/article_images/small/FrustratedManComputer.jpg)

An excuse was and continues to be needed to get the new series of terrorism wars underway.

QuoteWhy increase the number of moving parts, the number of people involved, the complexity of the whole operation and hence exponentially increase the likelihood of something going wrong, yet nothing supposedly goes wrong?

Building 7 was the enormous failing and enormous problem for the 9/11 perpetrators. That's why its collapse has never been shown on television since 9/12/01, and why it was rebuilt as fast as possible

I read your other questions but there are well defined and entirely plausible answers which others can better articulate. I like the one about the hijackers from various Arabian countries but not Afghanistan- maybe a mistake on the flight manifest I guess...

My parting remark, you seem almost as interested in this as me. However I happen to have other interests also in life and as long as the world hangs in there with the oil supplies and corrupt resource access to prop me up, I'll read your informative posts but will try not to reply, just for my own sanity. Over to you; yours Sean

Painful Questions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlF1J3V5AYc

Quote from: Sean on June 13, 2013, 03:26:54 PM
See the ten minute David Chandler video for a detailed rebuttal on this exact topic- it's on YT and elsewhere but I can't get you the link right now.

Deflecting the question again.  Referring to the photograph again

(http://cdn.lightgalleries.net/4bd5ebf2966e6/images/collapse-01-2.jpg)

how could debris ejected by the collapse fall faster than the building collapse if the building collapse was "free fall."  Free fall is, by definition, the fastest a passive object can fall.  Do you have any coherent reply to that question? 

David Chandler doesn't.  That's for certain.  I saw his video and it consists of a lot of confused ramblings about this or that law of physics which he then applies incorrectly.  That fact that he claims to be a "physics teacher" is a sobering commentary of the degraded state of science education in the US. 

All I can conclude is that you have no ability to analyze rational argument.  Like the "sheeple" you bemoan you will swallow whatever you are fed, no matter how absurd or implausible, as long as it contradicts the established view.

Quote from: snyprrr on June 13, 2013, 04:13:51 PM
Painful Questions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlF1J3V5AYc

Painful to watch, that's certain.

Quote from: Parsifal on June 13, 2013, 07:06:46 PM
Painful to watch, that's certain.

It does say something when Snyprrr's contributions to a thread are more coherent and intelligent than Sean's. 

Add to that the fact that Snyprrr does not indulge himself in misanthropy, name calling, and a disdain that is universal in its application.

Parsifal

Nice that you found the video, I thought it just great.

If I remember he suggests that the falling debris is ahead of the point of demolition because it's been detonated outwards. The speed and distance of ejection from the tower is completely inconsistent with a purely gravity driven collapse and requires explosive accelerants.

Please also notice bottom left the smoke pouring furiously off the ends of the steel sections that are white hot with nanothermitic melting. Do explain otherwise.

Duly noted Jeffrey, the sheeple horde are due more from me than they're getting I guess.

QuoteAdd to that the fact that Snyprrr does not indulge himself in misanthropy, name calling, and a disdain that is universal in its application.

Quote from: Sean on June 13, 2013, 03:19:34 PM
Go on then, I'm sure Parsifal will check the maths sorry math for you; what the retort is here I can't say but I'm certain there is one.

There isn't one. Unless of course you're saying that by accident the WTC engineers happened to make the building eight times as strong as they were planning to.

Quote from: Sean on June 13, 2013, 03:19:34 PM
Well the most well-known loony is Steven Jones who was a physics professor at Brigham Young University- they kicked him out after he asked them about this new scientific principle they were charging him with neglecting but which he'd never heard of, called unhealthy criticism.

Nor peer reviewed. The measly papers they publish don't lead to any meaningful conclusions. Just speculative hypotheses which in and of themselves could or could not be supportive of more juicy claims, if several other assumptions were to be proven. And many who initially collaborated with him left his project because the science could not be substantiated. Besides, BYU might as well be considered a Mormon religious school, not a serious research institution.

Quote from: Sean on June 13, 2013, 03:19:34 PM
Well influential elements of the US government dressed the WTC with explosives for demolition while arranging for a few aircraft to be redirected by remote control, speciously blaming the disaster on the dastardly Islamic terrorists who they had to go after right away without the beginnings of an analysis. Artificially escalating small scale issues to major events seems to be an American speciality.

Why airplanes when you are going to demolish it anyway? If it's as patently implausible as you say it is that aircraft would destroy these buildings, why stretch the public's credulity (which you desperately need to pull of a staged event), by adding an unnecessary layer of complexity that accomplishes nothing? If you answer nothing else, answer at least that!

Quote from: Sean on June 13, 2013, 03:19:34 PM
Nice excuse. What you mean is that nobody can distinguish the collapse from free-fall.

You can't. Everyone else can, in part because we see that debris is falling faster than the building and we see from other less obstructed videos that the collaps was several seconds slower than "free fall". 

Quote from: Sean on June 13, 2013, 03:19:34 PM
Hey, it blinking well wasn't obvious to the fire department nor to the 2800 in the first tower to collapse- it surprised the world and took many years to explain even officially. First rule of rescue work is assure your own safety or you just have another casualty, including the truth...

This is idiocy. You do realize that it took a while before the building started visibly buckling, while the rescue effort was already well under way and many firemen were inside the building? Has this occurred to you? Even if all of them had been notified once it started buckling, it takes a while to get out. There were various investigations into chain of command and communication issues. After the first tower collapsed, the other was quickly abandoned. The 2800 in the first tower? Do you mean the casualties there? You do realize most of them were trapped above the point of impact. You really think they stayed voluntarily, oblivious to the possibility that ththe tower might collapse? What you write is so unbeleivably stupid, I don't know how you even come up with this stuff and why since it doesn't even support your point.

Quote from: Sean on June 14, 2013, 12:21:58 AM
Please also notice bottom left the smoke pouring furiously off the ends of the steel sections that are white hot with nanothermitic melting. Do explain otherwise.

Fancy words, the concepts which they denote you don't understand. Heat rises. It doesn't fall. What is coming off those bis of facade that are falling ahead of the rest of the structure is dust, crushed plaster from plasterboard used as walls and bits of concrete. It's a cloud of particulate matter, heavier than air. Not hot gas. If you watch the video it all goes down. There isn't a hot plume that rises up, nor any "smoke" that would by necessity need to rise were it truly "white hot". Please don't lecture on thermodynamics. You're illiterate in this field. You should stay away from all stoves, heaters, fireplaces and the like for your own safety. With these opinions you're a danger to yourself.

Quote from: Sean on June 13, 2013, 03:42:59 PM
The military industrial complex, plus the American need to continue consuming 25% of the world's oil while being 4% of the population.

Afghanistan has no oil. The war on terror has not appreciably changed US access to middle eastern oil. This is nonsense.

Also, the power of the military industrial complex is vastly overrated. They can't even get the Pentagon to buy enough F-35s and Boeing's tanker project has been stuck for years. Have you heard of the sequester? Base closures? Just by way of example. But once again, this is in the real world, not in the fantasyland you inhabit.

Quote from: Sean on June 13, 2013, 03:42:59 PM
An excuse was and continues to be needed to get the new series of terrorism wars underway.

Cui bono isn't that simple. All kinds of regimes from Belarus to Myanmar to China to Russia to Venezuela have profited from 9-11 in being able to castigate any dissenters as "terrorists". In a global perspective, the US wasn't even particularly egregious in this respect. If that's all you've got, then it's at least as plausible to say that 9-11 was perpetrated by a nefarious alliance between Lukashenko and the Burmese junta.

And that excuse still doesn't answer at all my question: why use planes at all if you're going to bring down the towers with explosives anyway? That simply makes no sense at all, no matter what your motive or who the perpetrator was. This is simply the existential flaw in all the conspiracy theorys whose point of departure is that the planes didn't do it. There is simply no reason to use the planes at all if they didn't accomplish anything. It's absurdly complex for no purpose.

Quote from: Sean on June 13, 2013, 03:42:59 PM
Building 7 was the enormous failing and enormous problem for the 9/11 perpetrators. That's why its collapse has never been shown on television since 9/12/01, and why it was rebuilt as fast as possible

It wasn't rebuilt. It was replaced by a completely different complex and a street now runs through where 7 used to be. You might recall that the reason why the new 7 was built faster than the rest of the complex was the squabbles over the architectural masterplan and the various lawsuits related to it - also a certain amount of inefficiency, if you hand the main oversight job to GWB's best buddy from college instead of someone competent at running major construction projects. 7 was unaffected by these delays because it wasn't part of the main complex's master plan.

And it's a myth that it took "years" to explain any of the collapses. All of them were basically understood at the time.

Quote from: Sean on June 13, 2013, 03:42:59 PM
I read your other questions but there are well defined and entirely plausible answers which others can better articulate.

I'm asking YOU to articulate them. If you can't, then you don't understand this issue yourself and you are in no position to so vehemently deny reality, as you can't offer an alternate one.

Quote from: Sean on June 13, 2013, 03:42:59 PM
I like the one about the hijackers from various Arabian countries but not Afghanistan- maybe a mistake on the flight manifest I guess...

I thought they never existed and Atta is still alive? What does the manifest have to do with anything if the flight was fake with fake passengers? Surely they could have faked the right nationality?

Quote from: Sean on June 13, 2013, 03:42:59 PM
My parting remark, you seem almost as interested in this as me. However I happen to have other interests also in life and as long as the world hangs in there with the oil supplies and corrupt resource access to prop me up, I'll read your informative posts but will try not to reply, just for my own sanity. Over to you; yours Sean

Weasel! I call shenaningans on you. You have no understanding of science and no alternate theory. You're just masturbating off stuff you find on the internet that coddles your soul to believe that you are superior to the rest of society because you are "smart" enough not to buy official propaganda. But none of what you say adds up to an even remotely coherent story.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on June 13, 2013, 07:37:33 PM
It does say something when Snyprrr's contributions to a thread are more coherent and intelligent than Sean's.

(* chortle *)

Quote from: MishaK on June 14, 2013, 07:34:35 AM
Afghanistan has no oil.

Actually it has.

Quote from: Wikipedia
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimated in 2006 that northern Afghanistan has an average 2.9 billion (bn) barrels (bbl) of crude oil [...] In December 2011, Afghanistan signed an oil exploration contract with China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) for the development of three oil fields along the Amu Darya river in the north.

Quote from: Florestan on June 14, 2013, 08:43:30 AM
Actually it has.

Very well. Thanks for correcting that. Note, though, that the cited geological survey was post 9-11 and the Chinese are getting the contract. So my point still stands that the GWOT hasn't appreciably made a dent in the US position vs. middle east oil.

Quote from: Sean on June 14, 2013, 12:21:58 AM
Parsifal

Nice that you found the video, I thought it just great.

If I remember he suggests that the falling debris is ahead of the point of demolition because it's been detonated outwards. The speed and distance of ejection from the tower is completely inconsistent with a purely gravity driven collapse and requires explosive accelerants.

This is contrary to physics.  Horizontal and vertical motion is independent.  Any horizontal component given to a free particle has no effect on its rate of fall.   Chandler also makes a claim that it is impossible for the material to be ejected faster than the collapse rate without explosives.  That is also nonsense.  As the floors pancake the air has to escape and is forced out of the windows.  Since the combined area of the windows is very small compared with the the area of the ceiling the air must move at high velocity to escape.  The falling building is like an enormous piston forcing air out of a series of small holes (the windows).

Quote
Please also notice bottom left the smoke pouring furiously off the ends of the steel sections that are white hot with nanothermitic melting. Do explain otherwise.

Dust (pulverized concrete, plaster and other building materials) illuminated by sunshine?  An object moving fast through a fluid (such as a piece of steel fallig in air air) creates a wake and tends to entrain dust.

Anyway, I have my answer here.  You are incapable of following any reasoned argument.  You may actually have some intellectual ability, but it is all dedicated to maintaining the self-delusion that you are some sort of ubermensch, rather than an nonproductive social outcast. 

Quote from: MishaK on June 14, 2013, 09:17:09 AM
Very well. Thanks for correcting that. Note, though, that the cited geological survey was post 9-11 and the Chinese are getting the contract. So my point still stands that the GWOT hasn't appreciably made a dent in the US position vs. middle east oil.

Ironically, China now controls most of the oil production in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/world/middleeast/china-reaps-biggest-benefits-of-iraq-oil-boom.html?pagewanted=all

Quote from: Parsifal on June 14, 2013, 09:33:35 AM
This is contrary to physics.  Horizontal and vertical motion is independent.  Any horizontal component given to a free particle has no effect on its rate of fall.   Chandler also makes a claim that it is impossible for the material to be ejected faster than the collapse rate without explosives.  That is also nonsense.  As the floors pancake the air has to escape and is forced out of the windows.  Since the combined area of the windows is very small compared with the the area of the ceiling the air must move at high velocity to escape.  The falling building is like an enormous piston forcing air out of a series of small holes (the windows).

Which potentially means the forced escape of air resulted in a greater thrust of energy than an explosion, since the energy of the explosion could go in all directions, vertically and horizontally, whereas forcing the air through the windows  means all that energy is aimed in one direction.


I have, btw, only a superficial knowledge of physics, and will freely admit that I may be totally wrong in this,  and at the very least am probably using the wrong terms to describe what I mean to describe.

Jeffrey, you are still testing your thoughts and words, and expressing yourself with sober caution? Have you learnt nothing from Sean here?

Quote from: sanantonio on June 14, 2013, 09:53:40 AM
I generally have a low opinion of rubber-necking motorists  - but I must admit, I am perversely attracted to the inanity of this thread.  Like a slow motion wreck.

Yes, is it not impressively attention-grabbing? Like an old B&W film where the car has gone over the cliff at 80mph and is heading towards the ocean, hitting every ledge (twice) on the way to its doom. And he tumbles yet again.... :)

8)

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on June 14, 2013, 09:47:00 AM
Which potentially means the forced escape of air resulted in a greater thrust of energy than an explosion, since the energy of the explosion could go in all directions, vertically and horizontally, whereas forcing the air through the windows  means all that energy is aimed in one direction.

That is a reasonable speculation.  If a building is taken down by explosives, there is no reason the explosives would be blowing material out the windows.  In a controlled demolition the explosive charges are rather small and are position to destroy key structural elements of the building.  Once those key supports are gone gravity pulls the building down.

The irony is that if the WTC were brought down by explosives it would look more or less the same as the actual event, because that's what the aircraft impact and fire did.  It destroyed key supports so that gravity could pull the structure down.  There would be no need to put explosives on every floor because in a controlled demolition gravity does the work.  The primary difference is that in the typical controlled demolition the structural supports are removed at the bottom and in the WTC the impacts removed the structural supports in the middle.

It goes to show that the "truthers" are morons who don't even know how a controlled demolition works.

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 14, 2013, 10:03:18 AM
Yes, is it not impressively attention-grabbing? Like an old B&W film where the car has gone over the cliff at 80mph and is heading towards the ocean, hitting every ledge (twice) on the way to its doom. And he tumbles yet again.... :)

8)

http://www.hulu.com/watch/31870

Quote from: karlhenning on June 14, 2013, 09:50:01 AM
Have you learnt nothing from Sean here?

Well, yes.   I might send in my resume to some Chinese universities.  True, I know about five words of Chinese
(not counting chop suey and chicken chow mein), but if they were desperate enough to hire someone like him, certainly I have a better than decent shot.

Quote from: Parsifal on June 14, 2013, 10:05:02 AM
The irony is that if the WTC were brought down by explosives it would look more or less the same as the actual event, because that's what the aircraft impact and fire did.  It destroyed key supports so that gravity could pull the structure down.  There would be no need to put explosives on every floor because in a controlled demolition gravity does the work.  The primary difference is that in the typical controlled demolition the structural supports are removed at the bottom and in the WTC the impacts removed the structural supports in the middle.

NOOOOO! It wouldn't. You would see very very small flashes and plumes from explosives ***well before*** the building started moving (not during the building's collapse, as the truthers would want to make you beleive). Only then would the building collapse by gravity pulling the top down as the compromised supports failed below. How and where the explosives are placed, whether at the bottom or throughout the structure, would depend on the exact structure of the building and how much damage you want to do to the surroundings/where exactly you want the debris to land/how much space is available for landing debris.

Quote from: Parsifal on June 14, 2013, 09:39:39 AM
Ironically, China now controls most of the oil production in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/world/middleeast/china-reaps-biggest-benefits-of-iraq-oil-boom.html?pagewanted=all

Bingo! That's primarily because the strategists in the GWB administration were anti-state ideologues. So, instead of going in full bore like an occupying power the way the US did in postwar Germany, essentially taking over the entire economy and infrastructure at least temporarily, they did it in a minimalist way, leaving as much as possible to private entities who had limited short term horizons and no long term plans that could have aligned with a long term strategic US interest in the region. Many left as soon as they could when the local situation became to sketchy for them.

Quote from: MishaK on June 14, 2013, 11:18:34 AM
NOOOOO! It wouldn't. You would see very very small flashes and plumes from explosives ***well before*** the building started moving (not during the building's collapse, as the truthers would want to make you beleive). Only then would the building collapse by gravity pulling the top down as the compromised supports failed below. How and where the explosives are placed, whether at the bottom or throughout the structure, would depend on the exact structure of the building and how much damage you want to do to the surroundings/where exactly you want the debris to land/how much space is available for landing debris.

You have misunderstood my comment.  If an unknown organization wanted to cause a collapse by placing explosives in the aircraft strike-zone there would be small, hardly detectible charges set in the strike zone, then the collapse would have proceeded just as it did, with all of the plumes of dust and debris caused by the gravitational collapse, just as in the real event.   Of course, then they would have had to make sure the planes hit just where they had  planted the explosives, which is another layer of absurdity.

Quote from: MishaK on June 14, 2013, 11:22:51 AM
Bingo! That's primarily because the strategists in the GWB administration were anti-state ideologues.

Their anti-state ideology was just a cover up for their own private interests. There is no more convenient position for an "anti-state ideologue" than that of being in control of the administration (ie, the State power). ;D

Quote from: Parsifal on June 14, 2013, 11:58:56 AM
You have misunderstood my comment.  If an unknown organization wanted to cause a collapse by placing explosives in the aircraft strike-zone there would be small, hardly detectible charges set in the strike zone, then the collapse would have proceeded just as it did, with all of the plumes of dust and debris caused by the gravitational collapse, just as in the real event.   Of course, then they would have had to make sure the planes hit just where they had  planted the explosives, which is another layer of absurdity.

Yes, sorry. You are right. Which is also what I was saying above. Once the explosive charges did their work, the building would have collapsed the same way as once structurally weakened by aircraft impact and fire. This whole "free fall" nonsense is the reddest of red herrings.

Quote from: Florestan on June 14, 2013, 12:07:45 PM
Their anti-state ideology was just a cover up for their own private interests. There is no more convenient position for an "anti-state ideologue" than that of being in control of the administration (ie, the State power). ;D

Absolutely! Libertarianism and anti-state conservatism are most often co-opted by powerful private interests who merely want to escape regulatory oversight and use state power to their ends.

Quote from: MishaK on June 14, 2013, 12:34:03 PM
Absolutely! Libertarianism and anti-state conservatism are most often co-opted by powerful private interests who merely want to escape regulatory oversight and use state power to their ends.

A libertarian candidate for the US Presidency has always stricken me as the top of intellectual  inconsistency...  ;D

MishaK

Well I don't care too much for the Mormon religion but it doesn't seem to be relevant here.

The Journal of 9/11 Studies is peer reviewed and reviewed at least as carefully as other journals because of its content's implications- it's online only with occasional articles as contributors are encouraged to publish in regular journals first.

Don't forget the important Jones et al paper in the Open Chemical Physics journal on why the towers collapsed, I think in 2009.

MishaK, the planes were the excuse for the three towers' demolition- this is very simple to understand and I can't make out why you're asking about this. People aren't going to buy Osama bin Laden creeping into the building to rig it with explosives.

One key point about the towers' collapse in all three cases was the sudden onset, suggestive of controlled demolition- none of them showed any deformation leaning in any direction and all fell in perfect vertical symmetry.

How the occupants were distributed in the tower I don't know but many were advised to remain where they were because the fires up above were going out.

At this point of course the demolition had to be started because suspicion would increase when the fires were entirely gone.

Even so, you know of the famous picture of the lady standing in the hole the first aircraft made, in her perfectly good clothes and all the fire out?

You'll notice that despite heating your stove, even though it's only made of steel, to several hundred degrees perhaps a few times a week it has never softened, partially melted or collapsed.

The US is in Afghanistan for geopolitics- it puts troops between China and the Middle East oil fields.

Repressive regimes are happy with the surveillance culture following 9/11, I'm aware of this point.

The twin towers weren't replaced for many years because the scam was working well and with nothing there people weren't going to forget about 9/11 so easily. The truly incredible fiasco of Building 7 by contrast had to be covered up with all possible haste.

And finally, no, I'm not into the alternative views here because I think I'm superior enough to see them. I am superior but I already know that, as Parsifal may also observe. I do have an ulterior motive though- it's that I mistrust major components of my society and I see so much injustice and inhumanity all around me. Hence to see one of the key events of recent times exposed as a fraud is heartening.

I will redouble my efforts not to respond further- you're welcome to have the last word.

Quote from: Parsifal on June 14, 2013, 09:39:39 AM
Ironically, China now controls most of the oil production in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/world/middleeast/china-reaps-biggest-benefits-of-iraq-oil-boom.html?pagewanted=all

Oil was tangential to Iraq. A small group of neocons really pushed for that war when America was still reeling from 9/11 with the purpose of making the middle east safer for Israel, and Bush and America went along out of a desire for revenge against that part of the world.  These neocons are not embarrassed in the least about Iraq being in chaos or unstable for decades on end...because that serves Israeli hegemonic interests all the more, though I sense that Americans by and large regret letting their emotions rush them into an unnecessary war.

This thread's done and dusted but it just occurred to me that I ought to thank the contributors- well done whatever your views.

A short while ago in one of my staff group emails to about 20 people at work here I asked them what they thought of the mainstream media, and 9/11 and its alternative views. There were almost no replies- it's such a big thing psychologically and at least MishaK et al have the objectivity of mind to provide a discussion, and not try to see it fearfully as beneath contempt.

Best, Sean

Quote from: Sean on July 01, 2013, 12:40:08 PM
This thread's done and dusted but it just occurred to me that I ought to thank the contributors- well done whatever your views.

A short while ago in one of my staff group emails to about 20 people at work here I asked them what they thought of the mainstream media, and 9/11 and its alternative views. There were almost no replies- it's such a big thing psychologically and at least MishaK et al have the objectivity of mind to provide a discussion, and not try to see it fearfully as beneath contempt.

Best, Sean

Perhaps that WAS a reply, Sean.

In any case, this thread did provide some interest, in a twisted sort of way, so it was good of you to get it started. :)

8)

Hi Gurn, no problem, and MishaK likes 9/11 issues same as me. I signed up with GMG again because of some of the characters over where I am who're supposed to be part of an intellectual environment instead break into a run when they see me...

The only one running away from anything is you when faced with incontrovertible evidence. You've still not addressed the fact that the facade debris in the posted pic is evidently falling faster than the rest of the WTC, which completely eviscerates the "free fall" bunk theory and you still have not provided a coherent chain of events, an affirmative theory of the crime. You have no standing to criticize others for preferring not to engage with you when what you present is so self-evidently incoherent.

(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcStnseIdi4aLrXOPiQQVoaxIZoSW11P7C8TD4Nh5OEuZG4LT2JjCQ)

(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQoHgbNc0olxoFcL8cjmjjdah1i8gAhTkbCxIfK6nt8uK_YrWDA)

Quote from: Sean on July 02, 2013, 03:49:57 PM
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQoHgbNc0olxoFcL8cjmjjdah1i8gAhTkbCxIfK6nt8uK_YrWDA)

That's another great picture showing debris from the facades falling faster than the rest of the building. Your "free fall" theory is looking more and more idiotic. What exactly was the point of your post?

(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m71/SeanMcHugh02/China%20Zhuhai/003_zpsa74155e0.jpg)

You expect a coherent reply from someone who thinks this makes him appear "cool?"

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything, as we've seen here.

Quote from: MishaK on July 03, 2013, 08:12:31 AM
That's another great picture showing debris from the facades falling faster than the rest of the building. Your "free fall" theory is looking more and more idiotic. What exactly was the point of your post?

If you don't have an argument, try a cartoon.

MishaK, how about the debris in advance simply started falling after the columns failed but before the collapse initiated- wow, that was hard to think up...

And here is the man himself in his little cave!!! Those banks of Norad-defeating computers must be just out of sight in this shot!
(http://outernationalist.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/cave-300x212-e1284215562623.jpg)

The great Bin Laden underground bunker!!! What a manipulated berk that Colin Powell was.
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTAi1tkEmvzXsLIMC52RA5WFkcQlHtzRugpP0KyWF2pyCK0M8qf6g)

(http://dudelol.com/img/this-is-the-first-911-joke-ive-actually-laughed-at.jpg)

(http://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/1/16793000/ngbbs486ebe73dd805.jpg)

(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSOOrq94i7Iz4OMoQhOpBQbxRsIVwEXZzocYKxOAnOF_yhqMOOn)

(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSTZV62RQfDWK6nkxyUjAkT1LgoozL3WzyOw3TlSM4S1OPYmQOfBA)

(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ma808oHBZ61qhoq9ho1_500.jpg)

(http://www.e90post.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=474489&stc=1&d=1294953028)

Quote from: Sean on July 03, 2013, 10:24:58 AM
MishaK, how about the debris in advance simply started falling after the columns failed but before the collapse initiated- wow, that was hard to think up...

You thunk up that little gem because you don't even understand high-school physics.  If the colums failed and the building collapsed in free-fall, as was claimed, the debris and the collapse would proceed at exactly the same rate starting at exactly the same moment.  The debris could not have gotten ahead of the collapse if the collapse was free-fall. 

Quote
And here is the man himself in his little cave!!! Those banks of Norad-defeating computers must be just out of sight in this shot!

What need is there to defeat Norad?  Norad operated outside US territory to detect aircraft approaching from the Soviet Union.  The US had no aircraft assigned to intercept civilian aircraft before 9/11.  In 1994 someone crashed a small plane, unmolested, on the lawn of the White House.

I have to remember.  Don't feed the troll, don't feed the troll, don't feed the troll.

Scarpia, I see why you chose that name.

QuoteThe US had no aircraft assigned to intercept civilian aircraft before 9/11.

Hey that's way out- many aircraft are intercepted every year and there are two protocols, fast and slow. The fast was curtailed six months before 9/11 making a phone call to the secretary of state necessary before any action was taken first. It was reinstated on the 12th the next day.

And where was Donald Rumsfeld on 9/11? At his desk waiting for those calls and dealing with the country's 'emergency'??

He was out on the Pentagon helping with a stretcher, so very gallantly of him!!

(http://www.newsfocus.org/images/rumsfeld_911_wrong_duty.jpg)

(http://cdn.historycommons.org/images/events/642_rumsfeld_help2050081722-9252.jpg)

Quote from: Sean on July 03, 2013, 10:52:29 AMHey that's way out- many aircraft are intercepted every year

If the rules of argument allow us to make up "facts" that are not true we can "prove" anything, obviously.

I'm done.

Quote from: Sean on July 03, 2013, 10:52:29 AM
It was reinstated on the 12th the next day.

Now if that's not an obvious sign of a conspiracy...

Quote from: MishaK on July 03, 2013, 08:12:31 AM
That's another great picture showing debris from the facades falling faster than the rest of the building. Your "free fall" theory is looking more and more idiotic. What exactly was the point of your post?

Here, argue with these people. Buildings turned into powder by demolition, end of story. Yes, I'm sure you'll comment about the site, oh well, why not just read the replies, m'kay?? please??

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread201098/pg1

Just keep in mind that the 'Popular' magazine article was written by Chertoff relative.

Why are people so loathe to think that the powers that be (you know, those guys who lie to us about everything ELSE!!) would do something like this to consolidate power?

What did Silver-steen-man whateva his name, the landlord,... what did he mean when he said, "Pull it"??

Ya'll really going crazy over a foot of 'freefall',... how many 'contractors' on this site anyway??


I still can't believe thinking people really believe 19 muzzie ninjas did it ALL... ALL of it... no help... no one escorted them around airport security, nope, couldn't have happened...


Who would you have been had you been born 150 years ago??????

Does Angela Merkel look like Hitler or WHAT???

Quote from: snyprrr on July 04, 2013, 06:57:32 AM
Does Angela Merkel look like Hitler or WHAT???

Yeah - and why is that arm up like that?  ::)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Angela_Merkel_(2008).jpg)

snyprrr

QuoteWhy are people so loathe to think that the powers that be (you know, those guys who lie to us about everything ELSE!!) would do something like this to consolidate power?

That's the point to make. The horde have to say to themselves that before 9/11 Bush was a liar after 9/11 he was a liar, but concerning 9/11 he's just gospel.

I can't believe you sheople still believe 9/11 really happened. The news media obviously faked it at a sound stage on Area 51, that's why the "experts" are so inconsistent with their official explanation. But I guess you're all too busy listening to the lies and propaganda about the people who supposedly "died" (in actual fact government agents planted at the Twin Towers and Pentagon and since relocated into witness protection) from the mouth of Generalissimo Admiral Doctor Pope Sir Lord Obama the Magnificent CBE, Supreme President-for-Life of the American Soviet Communist States of Tyranny. Don't drink the LSD infested kool-aid, people.

i'm impressed this thread is still going

Quote from: Sean on July 03, 2013, 10:24:58 AM
Those banks of Norad-defeating computers must be just out of sight in this shot!

NORAD doesn't fight airliners. You do realize that, right? You also do realize that it takes a while for fighter jets to reach a target, right?

Quote from: Sean on July 03, 2013, 10:36:03 AM
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSTZV62RQfDWK6nkxyUjAkT1LgoozL3WzyOw3TlSM4S1OPYmQOfBA)

That's a well known fake. It was a very warm day. That guy is dressed for winter. The aircraft behind him is a 757 taken from this photo (http://www.airliners.net/photo/American-Airlines/Boeing-757-223/0131660/L/:). Wrong type of aircraft.

Expert MishaK...  http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,21963.0.html

Quote from: Sean on July 08, 2013, 07:33:20 AM
Expert MishaK...  http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,21963.0.html

What was your point?

Looks like I'm persona non grata on that thread- harmless posts deleted in a disingenuous effort to put me beyond discussion, oh well. I was just asking why the airplane might have ran into trouble, being one of the smoothest rides in the sky- how could the crew have made such mistakes, or does your expertise lead you to think there were mechanical or traffic control errors?

Who are THESE people?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2diNojgJF9c

On one hand, I base my reality on my assumption that I truly truly believe that Napoleon existed, and that I have all that I need to place him in time and space. I can go backwards and forwards from there.

Or, George Washington: can't I pretty well find out what he had for breakfast on any given day? Isn't the Book on GW closed?,... an 'open' Book I mean? We seem to know he was a Mason, but we also seem to know that he didn't step foot in a Lodge for 3o years?

So, I'm saying, can't I judge you by what you say about GW (your grasp of history, your prejudices)?


I liken it to how 'prophets' in the modern christian church are judged. One can predicts anything one wants, but as soon as they say "Thus Saith the Lord", then one is held to the eternal standard: if what you Thus Saith does NOT come to pass, no one is ever supposed to listen to you again.

So, if IIIIIIIIII knew 9/l l was going to happen (and the Northw00ds Document from the '60s DOES depict a plane/skyscraaper Phalse Phlag scenario as a menu of options, then, surely, I could not have been the only one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods


Why not ask the folks in this vaaan?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk6638cAf1M



Dear Fellow Travellrs,...

Quote from: Sean on July 08, 2013, 08:34:45 AMhow could the crew have made such mistakes

Because he'd never landed there before? Because he'd only flown that plane a couple times before? Because mistakes are things people make?

gent(i)le reader

I think snyprrr's posts are being generated by Horse_ebooks (https://twitter.com/Horse_ebooks).

How can one person make all the mistakes that Sean makes?

Quote from: Brian on July 08, 2013, 09:09:00 AM
I think snyprrr's posts are being generated by Horse_ebooks (https://twitter.com/Horse_ebooks).

Well, but not the posts on the Roger Sessions symphonies.

Quote from: Sean on July 08, 2013, 08:34:45 AM
I was just asking why the airplane might have ran into trouble, being one of the smoothest rides in the sky- how could the crew have made such mistakes, or does your expertise lead you to think there were mechanical or traffic control errors?

Are you even half serious?! You're saying this is a conspiracy? Look, aviation history is full of stupid pilot errors causing CFIT (controlled flight into terrain). As someone else put it: "A determined pilot can crash even the safest plane." Guy came in too high, too fast, overcompensated by putting engines at idle, ended up below glideslope at excessive angle of attack and too low airspeed (20kts below Vref) with engines at idle (take a good six seconds to spool up to full power again), leaving him with not enough altitude to correct his error. He allowed himself to get behind the curve. Very similar sort of screwup to the Turkish Airlines crash at AMS (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20090225-0). You're welcome to read this five part thread (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5810696/) for more info.

I guess this is the whole issue with your conspiracy religion. You just have an irrepressible urge to beleive in someone's infallibility. A "safe" plane just doesn't crash in your imagination. The idea that human society is vastly complex, with many moving parts and lots of people only paying half attention to what they are doing, with no overarching "master plan" is just too much for you to take. Hence you are inclined to beleive in byzantine plots, so complex that even taking all the top graduates of the best schools together you couldn't pull them off without something going wrong or some telltale evidence leaking out.

Quote from: MishaK on July 08, 2013, 10:12:14 AM
. . . and lots of people only paying half attention to what they are doing . . . .

Sean, of all people, ought to get this.

Karl as you know geniuses who see through life's fog have to put up with their clinching insights being taken for mistakes- it's our station in life, and doesn't trouble us in the least. And sometimes you only see things when the attention isn't entirely lost...

MishaK, no I wasn't being conspiratorial actually, I was just curious about the crash; I fly every so often but find it all very scary and unnatural to be in the air. One of the most impressive aircraft is this 777 and it seems odd that with all its technical strengths and traffic control systems that it could crash because of some simple mistake like getting the speed wrong- the thing can land all by itself if it wants to for goodness sake. And how did it get so burnt?

No Byzantine deviousness though, and conspiracy isn't exactly my religion.

Thanks for the notes anyway.

Quote from: MishaK on July 08, 2013, 10:12:14 AM
Are you even half serious?! You're saying this is a conspiracy? Look, aviation history is full of stupid pilot errors causing CFIT (controlled flight into terrain).

Although one report I read seems to indicate this wasn't controlled flight.  An NTSB official commenting on the initial data-recorder readout said that a member of the flight crew is hear announcing "speed 138 knots" although the actual speed was significantly below 138 knots.  If that is true, the plane seems to have stalled on its approach to the runway. 

Can't recall where I read that, though.

This article has some of the information I recall, maybe my memory is playing tricks on me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/veteran-pilot-was-a-rookie-on-plane-that-crashed/2013/07/08/99936560-e7e1-11e2-a301-ea5a8116d211_story.html


I wonder when the report will be available for that cargo 747 that stalled and crashed on takeoff a few months back.

Quote from: Sean on July 08, 2013, 10:35:34 AM
MishaK, no I wasn't being conspiratorial actually, I was just curious about the crash; I fly every so often but find it all very scary and unnatural to be in the air. One of the most impressive aircraft is this 777 and it seems odd that with all its technical strengths and traffic control systems that it could crash because of some simple mistake like getting the speed wrong- the thing can land all by itself if it wants to for goodness sake. And how did it get so burnt?

Thanks for the sober response. Those are questions I can answer. Basic aerodynamics are the same, whether you're talking about a 777 or a paper airplane. If you're not thinking ahead of your aircraft and anticipating what it's doing, you'll be in trouble. As with all crashes, this isn't one "simple mistake" but a series of errors and failures to heed warnings, both of the natural kind (runway appears to short because you're below glideslope) and of the automated warnings generated by the aircraft itself. The big focus of the inquiry is sure to be crew resource management. I.e. why were warnings not heeded, why did the pilots who were not at the controls not give additional warnings to the pilot flying, why didn't they initiate a go around earlier, etc. One can design the safest aircraft in the world. It's still humans who have to fly it and pay attention to what they're doing. It's sadly not a rare psychological issue that after a long flight, the pilot in command just wants to land, leading to the situation where he's trying to make an unstable approach work even though he should have aborted and gone around long ago. But a go around involves getting re-slotted by approach control, together with the ensuing half hour delay and general embarassment.

The plane can land itself only if it knows where to go. It needs a functioning ILS to do so. At that particular runway at SFO, one part of the ILS was down for maintenance. An ILS consists of a "localizer" (a radio beam indicator that shows you whether you are laterally to the left or right of the approach path) and of a glideslope (a radio beam indicator that shows you whether you're above or below the ideal approach path). The latter was deactivated. In this case, an automatic landing isn't possible. However, you don't need it at all. Any pilot with a commercial license as a routine matter ought to be able to manually land a functioning airliner on a sunny day with calm winds on an amply proportioned runway with nothing more than his eyes and an airspeed indicator (the 777 has four independent ones). Additionally, the airfield (like almost all others) has a visual aid consisting of four lights to the left of the runway touchdown point which will be half red, half white when you're exactly on the glide slope, and will be all red if you're too far below and all white if you're too far above. SFO is only mildly more challenging because there is more traffic and there is water before the runway threshold. It may very well be that some airlines rely so much on (and excessively encourage for reasons of efficiency) the use of automated approaches that their pilots get too little hands on experience with flying manual "stick-and-rudder" approaches. This effect may be even more exacerbated in the case of pilots who fly long range jets, who accordingly log comparatively few landings for their many flight hours. But it would be speculation to attribute this as part of the cause at this point.

As to why it got so burned, the wing tanks (and possibly one of the center tanks) will have still had plenty of fuel. You plan a long trip taking into account how much additional fuel you will need for taxi at the destination, any delays and holding patterns, possible go-arounds and diversions due to closure of the destination airport (typically you might take on fuel for an extra 90 minutes of flying time). With a severly damaged and hence probably leaking fuselage, all you need is a source of ignition for a fire. The pictures of the crash show one of the engines detached but right next to the fuselage and wing. That thing will have ample residual heat from just having been operated to ignite a fire. The interior of the plane is designed to withstand fire for a good two minutes or so, in order to ensure safe evacuation. But eventually all the discarded baggage, service items etc. will feed a fire. I know from the previous discussion that you have trouble visualizing fuel/furniture fires melting metal, but that's what happened to the aliuminum skin of the aircraft cabin. Heat rises, so it makes sense for the cabin roof to have been destroyed by fire, with the rest remaining largely intact.

EDIT: here is some sober perspective on this from a pilot: http://www.askthepilot.com/sfo-asiana-crash/

Quote from: Scarpia on July 08, 2013, 10:41:27 AM
Although one report I read seems to indicate this wasn't controlled flight.  An NTSB official commenting on the initial data-recorder readout said that a member of the flight crew is hear announcing "speed 138 knots" although the actual speed was significantly below 138 knots.  If that is true, the plane seems to have stalled on its approach to the runway. 

"Controlled Flight into Terrain" is a technical term. It simply means the aircraft was at all times perfectly functional and could be controlled as designed (i.e., it was not "out of control" due to mechanical problems or weather phenomena), the crew, however, for whichever reason failed to properly control it. This 777 was perfectly controllable, except that the crew seems to have failed to properly monitor airspeed, which bled off rapidly in the last phase of flight - they were descending steeper than usual with engines idle, then when intercepting the glideslope from *above* (which you're ideally not supposed to do in the first place), they raised the nose and thereby the angle of attack, which increases drag, for which you need to compensate with more engine power, which they failed to do, hence airspeed bled off to more than 20 knots below the landing Vref of 138kts. At that point the "stick shaker" stall warning activated but the aircraft was already so low above the ground/sea that the crew had no room to correct their error. When exactly who in the cockpit (there were apparently four people in there) called out the 138 knots we will find out eventually. At the moment, media reports should be taken with a grain of salt. They are not really written with the most accurate aviation expertise. The article you linked is good, but doesn't seem to mention that speed being called out at an incongruent point in time. At any rate, there should have been ample indicators of an unstable approach well before the point of no return. Why no go around was initiated earlier is the big mystery.

Quote from: Scarpia on July 08, 2013, 10:41:27 AM
I wonder when the report will be available for that cargo 747 that stalled and crashed on takeoff a few months back.

I'd be surprised if it was anything other than a catastrophic cargo shift causing sudden excess angle of attack and resulting stall. The pilots' reactions were exactly what you're supposed to do: go to full takeoff power and lower the nose to gain airspeed. They had almost regained control when they ran out of altitude.

MishaK

I see. I particularly like the point about crashes being a series of errors and failures to heed warnings- I always notice this on television series like Seconds from disaster or such and I guess the principle applies well in life generally.

About the tiredness, when I go travelling in foreign places and make mistakes it's usually when my awareness is low and of course it's hard for your awareness to be properly aware that it's low when it's low. No matter how well I understand this I'll still make mistakes, so what you say resonates with me... My little file of travel health notes runs like this-

...Reduced awareness from tiredness, sickness, alcohol, lack of food, poor diet, jetlag, culture shock, disappointment or having just woken increases risk of accidents and problems of all kinds- attention is more easily split for errors to occur, which can in turn worsen the situation further, leading to that series of small errors resulting in a serious one: be aware of your awareness level and take steps to avoid activity and decision making, whether outdoors or indoors...

Moreover although I can't fly a plane I can drive a bus, though only a little part-time a few years ago. Once when driving from England to France in a convoy everyone kept inside their legal hours of course but you could feel that the rules only really worked on paper- both there and back I began to get sleepy at the wheel and had to swap with my partner, and one of the drivers did indeed lose it and hit the roadside barriers...

Automated landings plus long haul trips with fewer landings anyway, plus those tiredness issues, very interesting...

It sounds like they pursued a situation that had unresolved issues that they didn't address properly and didn't have the clear headedness to just go around again, as you say.

The Mount Erebus crash comes to mind, the New Zealand disaster where a plane full of Antarctic tourists flew clean into a huge mountain in daylight and perfect flying conditions. The crew were wrong-footed because they thought they weren't where they actually were and it seems they carried on pursuing their conceptual reasoning about faulty information instead of literally coming to their senses and just looking out the window. Only in the last few moments did it dawn on them they were going to fly into the mountain and needed to take evasive measures. I think I've had experience of exactly the same psychological trap, though fortunately without quite such results.

About the fire, on another of the television episodes a fire in one engine of a plane that had landed was causing no serious problems until the pilot turned the plane to taxi off the runway. He forgot to think about the wind direction. Once he turned the flames blew round the fuselage and set the whole plane on fire...

Quote from: Sean on July 08, 2013, 12:31:00 PM
plus those tiredness issues, very interesting...

I wasn't really speaking about tiredness. They had a double crew and a crew rest area, so the pilots doing the landing wouldn't have been the same ones doing the takeoff. They should have been well rested. More the psychological urge - a sort of antsiness, you might say - to complete the landing even though there are signs that it's about to get botched. It's also known as "get-there-itis" - a disease, wherein the pilot either due to his own psychological pressures or due to external pressure from a superior has an irrepressible urge to just "get there", causing him to ignore warning signs and permit a continuing reduction of his margin of error until, if he's unlucky, he finds himself on the wrong side of the curve.

I can imagine. The captain who takes a decision to abort I guess doesn't get too many compensating merit points for facing up to it and taking the right time-consuming corrective measures.

Well, I'm not going to go into 9/11 trutherism.  There are a number of alternative new sources, some of them are fairly mainstream. Actually, the MSM do fairly well on little events like murders, robberies, the Zimmerman trial, even the Boston Marathon bombing, given a little time. When it gets to big policy issues like the economy, foreign affairs, the financial system, taxation, and so on, not so well. But here are some sites for news and commentary that I frequent.  They all pick out interesting stories mostly from othr sources such as Salon and Alter-net, some of the MSM, and the criticize the MSM, especially, but not exclusively, Fox:

Truthout:  http://www.truth-out.org/

Truthdig:  http://www.truthdig.com/

Counterpunch:  http://www.counterpunch.org/      Declined after Alexander Cockburn died, IMHO.

The Young Turks:  http://www.tytnetwork.com/shows/     Ana Kasparian is a beautiful gal.

Sometimes the BBC, Reuters, and the CBC are interesting, and at least they offer a non-American point of view.  Current TV's site used to be quite interesting. I haven't made up my mind on it now that Al Jazeera has bought it, but so far it looks OK.

Xenophanes, thanks for that.

I take a different view on the merits of even beginning to consider a glance at any of the mainstream providers you mention, but you're most welcome.

The New York Times has a very interesting graphic. 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/07/07/us/asiana214-uneven-descent.html?ref=us

Seems like the pilot found himself above the ideal glide path, overcompensated, lost too much altitude too fast and never recovered.

No conspiracies really and MishaK's notes make a highly informative read, but a double crew on a colossal 777 can't land it under normal conditions? What? These guys seriously need boots in their behinds or there must be a bit more to the story.

Quote from: Scarpia on July 08, 2013, 08:44:19 PM
The New York Times has a very interesting graphic. 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/07/07/us/asiana214-uneven-descent.html?ref=us

Seems like the pilot found himself above the ideal glide path, overcompensated, lost too much altitude too fast and never recovered.

Exactly. Someone on the airliners.net forum also posted a graph comparing Asiana 214's approach of that day to the previous days, which shows the same pattern: too high, too fast, then over compensates by idling the engines and dropping rapidly. At that point, when he intercepted the glideslope from above, he should have increased throttle to maintain speed (which you also need to maintain the glideslope, as decreasing speed means decreasing lift), but he didn't. As the aircraft bled off speed, the angle of attack increased, which increased drag, which again reduced speed, an so on in a feedback loop until the plane was so slow that it remained aloft merely due to ground effect, before finally crashing into the seawall with its tailcone at an absurdly high angle of attack.

Quote from: Sean on July 08, 2013, 10:52:50 PM
but a double crew on a colossal 777 can't land it under normal conditions? What? These guys seriously need boots in their behinds or there must be a bit more to the story.

Sadly, not entirely unusual. The recent Air France A330 that crashed in the ocean showed a similar lack of situational awareness and ineffective crew resource management by a "double" crew of four, and again with the most inexperienced person of the four at the stick.  And the Turkish Airlines crash at AMS likewise had a crew including one extra pilot in the jump seat and a very experienced senior instructor pilot at the controls, yet they allowed too much speed to bleed off in a very similar scenario with an excessive angle of attack on short final. In all these situations it will be interesting to find out from the flight deck recordings whether the pilots who weren't at the control actually were monitoring the situation and helping things, or were instead engaged in distracting banter about unrelated topics. The latter would violate the "sterile cockpit" rule, whereby the only people who should be in the cockpit are pilots and instructors and the only things to be discussed are matters immediately pertaining to the flight situation at hand. If you start chatting about your weekend plans and get involved in that, there's an increased likelihood that you fail to monitor one of the many variables around you that pertain to keeping your plane in the right bit of airspace.

Might be time for a rule touching on the least experienced pilot being the one to land the bird.

Quote from: karlhenning on July 09, 2013, 07:17:06 AM
Might be time for a rule touching on the least experienced pilot being the one to land the bird.

Wouldn't work, as that would preclude the least experienced pilot from ever becoming more experienced.  ;) When else should he get to practice but on a clear day with picture perfect weather and two additional senior pilots in the cockpit? Ultimately, the buck stops with the senior instructor pilot who was sitting in the jump seat. Asiana as much as acknowledged this in their press conference. The question is why didn't he pipe up earlier?

Quote from: Sean on July 08, 2013, 10:52:50 PM
No conspiracies really and MishaK's notes make a highly informative read, but a double crew on a colossal 777 can't land it under normal conditions? What? These guys seriously need boots in their behinds or there must be a bit more to the story.

Doesn't it seem like....


no, nevermind


Someone said CEO Sandberg was supposed to be on the plane? eh, where did this happen, California?


Isn't there supposed to be an earthquake????? >:D



...caffeine headache morning...



"Every night I tell myself, I Am the Cosmos"

MishaK Idling engines to drop rapidly sounds quite alarming enough but if this is anything like standard practice you're indeed going to be 110% sure about getting up to speed the moment you're on that glideslope.

I still find it all very hard to believe as it stands at the moment- how to land a plane is an extremely well understood process...

And how many accidents these days are actually down to pilot error rather than some other factor?

Those characters we're supposed to have faith in and with more training than doctors as I read it must be on $3000/ week or so. I assume they weren't all just blind drunk.

And I wonder what the price tag is in on a 777...

I'll find out about the recent Air France crash, again in a highly reliable aircraft- can you say when and where it was?

snyprr

Are you okay?

Quote from: Sean on July 09, 2013, 06:24:04 PM
[

I'll find out about the recent Air France crash, again in a highly reliable aircraft- can you say when and where it was?

snyprr

Are you okay?

I believe the Air France crash is the plane that crashed into the South Atlantic for what seemed at first glance no reason at all.  That one there were,  unfortunately, no survivors.

Apparently you don't have enough experience of snyprr.  That's normal for him (apart from the headache).

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 09, 2013, 06:54:39 PM
I believe the Air France crash is the plane that crashed into the South Atlantic for what seemed at first glance no reason at all.  That one there were,  unfortunately, no survivors.

The final report was not entirely conclusive.  The airspeed gauge iced over and the autopilot switched off.  The pilots were so disoriented that they immediately stalled the plane and sent it into free-fall.   Had they simply done nothing they would probably have been fine.  I believe the last thing on the cockpit voice recorder was the pilot looking at the altitude gauge, which was rapidly going to zero, and saying "that can't be right."

Thanks guys. I'm most interested in the psychology of accidents and how they develop from a series of small errors.

In my Indian philosophy there's a very old analogy of walking at dusk and seeing an long slender object ahead of you. It's a snake!! You run off, slip and fall and sprain your ankle badly or worse.

It was only a rope though.

Is it correct to run of from what might be a snake? More philosophy some other time...

(http://swamishivapadananda.typepad.com/swami_shivapadananda/images/2007/08/09/rope_masquerading_as_snake.jpg)

Quote from: snyprrr on July 09, 2013, 08:29:03 AM
"Every night I tell myself, I Am the Cosmos"

(http://bananascoop.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/king-of-the-cosmos.jpg)
"No, I am."

Here is an article that tries to summarize what is known so far (and I'd be interested to hear any comments): http://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-happened-cockpit-asiana-flight-001233881.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-happened-cockpit-asiana-flight-001233881.html)

mc

Thanks, I had a look.

The big problem for me is that I absolutely don't believe a word or a comma that any mainstream media prints or flickers at you. It's just mindless sick trash.

They don't really know anything but they know that their audience and consumers also don't really want to know, so they all get along quite nicely.

Investigative journalism packed up and wrote its memoirs many many years ago.

Quote from: Sean on July 09, 2013, 10:49:20 PM
mc

Thanks, I had a look.

The big problem for me is that I absolutely don't believe a word or a comma that any mainstream media prints or flickers at you. It's just mindless sick trash.

They don't really know anything but they know that their audience and consumers also don't really want to know, so they all get along quite nicely.

Investigative journalism packed up and wrote its memoirs many many years ago.

You're right, it is a big problem for you. 

Quote from: Sean on July 09, 2013, 11:45:25 PM
No thinking person disagrees.

A quote for the ages.

Quote from: Scarpia on July 09, 2013, 11:13:36 PM
You're right, it is a big problem for you. 

Quote from: North Star on July 10, 2013, 12:45:44 AM
A quote for the ages.

Quote from: Brian on July 09, 2013, 08:02:34 PM
That's the one on Sony now? If so, I agree with every word you said.

Surgically (and mercifully) done, gents.

Quote from: karlhenning on July 10, 2013, 04:07:42 AM
Surgically (and mercifully) done, gents.

That last quote is much too sensible for this thread.

Oops!

Let it stand . . . .

Quote from: mc ukrneal on July 09, 2013, 09:16:16 PM
Here is an article that tries to summarize what is known so far (and I'd be interested to hear any comments): http://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-happened-cockpit-asiana-flight-001233881.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-happened-cockpit-asiana-flight-001233881.html)

The article is consistent with other accounts I've read and highlights an interesting detail.  The pilot said that the auto-throttle was on and he expected it to maintain speed as he adjusted the rate of descent.   Its failure to do so was a major contributing cause of the accident.  The article also mentioned that the auto-throttle was found switched on, but that it may or may not have been active depending on the setting of other controls.  This suggests that unfamiliarity with the 777 may have led to pilot to believe that the auto-throttle was function when in fact it was not.

It is ironic that sophisticated safety system can sometimes have the effect of making a system more fragile.

In this case (not that you mean to suggest at all otherwise), the irony is bitter.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2357585/Crash-landing-San-Francisco-mirrors-Boeing-777-crash-London-Heathrow-years-ago.html

This article makes links with the BA 777 crash a few years ago and a similar inability of the aircraft to find thrust moments before landing. Looks to be more on the right lines than pilot error theories. Is there something too complicated about 777s...?

Quote from: Scarpia on July 10, 2013, 08:02:40 AM
The article is consistent with other accounts I've read and highlights an interesting detail.  The pilot said that the auto-throttle was on and he expected it to maintain speed as he adjusted the rate of descent.   Its failure to do so was a major contributing cause of the accident.  The article also mentioned that the auto-throttle was found switched on, but that it may or may not have been active depending on the setting of other controls.  This suggests that unfamiliarity with the 777 may have led to pilot to believe that the auto-throttle was function when in fact it was not.

NTSB says autothrottle was "armed". Unfortunately simply arming the autothrottle on a 777 doesn't do anything. You also have to engage one of the autopilot flight modes that actually engages that autothrottle. This, btw, is the same also on a 747-400 or 737NG, which were the other types with which these pilots had familiarity. So, simple lack of familiarity with the 777 is still a poor explanation, as virtually all other modern jetliners would have done the same thing under these circumstances. And none of this excuses four pilots from (a) failing to monitor speed (and ergo whether the autothrottle was indeed doing what they though they were doing) (b) looking out the window and seeing well in advance of the crash that they completely botched the approach, are too low, too slow, have too high of an angle of attack and are well below glideslope. You don't need any instruments at all besides your eyes for that.

Quote from: Scarpia on July 09, 2013, 07:19:12 PM
The final report was not entirely conclusive.  The airspeed gauge iced over and the autopilot switched off.  The pilots were so disoriented that they immediately stalled the plane and sent it into free-fall.   Had they simply done nothing they would probably have been fine.  I believe the last thing on the cockpit voice recorder was the pilot looking at the altitude gauge, which was rapidly going to zero, and saying "that can't be right."

The pilot at the controls kept pulling the yoke back. Whatever systems issues you may or may not have. Constantly pulling the yoke back and expecting the plane to continue flying and not bleed of speed is wrong. It's simply the wrong reaction to whatever he may have thought was going on. Doing nothing might have been better. But the proper reaction in any case would have been to increase thrust a bit. There is a mode on the autopilot for turbulence penetration, which makes the plane fly a little faster than you would normally, specifically in order to avoid the possibility of a stall due to an unexpected strong gust or change of wind direction. Even without a functioning speed indicator, with the right instincts, the proper reaction would have been to at least increase thrust a little.

Quote from: Sean on July 09, 2013, 06:24:04 PM
MishaK Idling engines to drop rapidly sounds quite alarming enough but if this is anything like standard practice you're indeed going to be 110% sure about getting up to speed the moment you're on that glideslope.

Steep descents with idle engines and airbrakes out are completely normal and nothing scary. Like with anything else in flying you just need to keep your eyes on the ball as you transition to the next phase.

Quote from: Sean on July 09, 2013, 06:24:04 PM
And I wonder what the price tag is in on a 777...

List price is around $250 million. But no airline with any bargaining power (and one that buys whole fleets of 737NGs, 777s of three variants, 744s and 763s as Asiana does certainly has lots of barganing power) pays anything close to that. This was a seven year old plane. Not sure what exactly the residual value would have been, but I'm guessing mid to high eight digits.

Quote from: Sean on July 09, 2013, 06:24:04 PM
I'll find out about the recent Air France crash, again in a highly reliable aircraft- can you say when and where it was?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_447

Quote from: Sean on July 10, 2013, 10:17:11 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2357585/Crash-landing-San-Francisco-mirrors-Boeing-777-crash-London-Heathrow-years-ago.html

This article makes links with the BA 777 crash a few years ago and a similar inability of the aircraft to find thrust moments before landing. Looks to be more on the right lines than pilot error theories. Is there something too complicated about 777s...?

Completely different cases. The BA flight had a fuel issue. Ice crystals from condensation in the fuel lines to the engines caused the engines to starve of fuel while on short final, leading to loss of thrust in a critical phase of flight. This was an issue found to be particular to the type of Rolls Royce engines on BA's 777s. The 777 is available with engines from three different manufacturers. I'm not sure which type Asiana used, but the fix for this fuel issue was mandated and impletented shortly after on the RRs. It didn't affect the other types and if Asiana had RR engines the fix for this issue would have been implemented long ago.

The Asiana crash was entirely different as the only reason the engines didn't deliver enough thrust was because the pilots failed to command enough thrust in a timely manner. The engines worked just fine. They spooled up pretty quickly and powerfully, too, when the pilots belatedly went to takeoff power seconds before impact. You can see that on the amateur video of the crash that was on CNN and youtube which shows a spray of water being kicked up by the engines behind the plane as they increase power. The problem was that with that steep of an angle of attack, the wings are generating an unbelievable amount of drag, so in the absence of the ability to drop the nose and lose some altitude, it would have taken them an extremely long time to pick up speed even with the engines running at full blast.

Really the only similarity between the BA and Asiana crashes are that they showed that the 777 is an extremely well built plane with high crash survivability.

Quote from: Sean on July 10, 2013, 10:17:11 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2357585/Crash-landing-San-Francisco-mirrors-Boeing-777-crash-London-Heathrow-years-ago.html

This article makes links with the BA 777 crash a few years ago and a similar inability of the aircraft to find thrust moments before landing. Looks to be more on the right lines than pilot error theories. Is there something too complicated about 777s...?

The 777 has been in service for nearly 20 years with more than 1000 planes delivered and there were two accidents in which a total of 2 people were killed.   You conclude that there is something wrong with the plane?

The accident at Heathrow occurred because unusual conditions caused the fuel heat exchanger to get plugged with ice, causing a loss of power.  (The unit was redesigned).  The NTSB has reported that the engines were operating normally on the plane that crashed at SFO. 

The accident at SFO is a demonstration of the law of averages.  Given the number planes in service, there have likely been millions of uneventful 777 landings.  But with enough repetitions, even a very improbable event is likely to occur eventually.

Quote from: MishaK on July 10, 2013, 11:27:07 AMThe Asiana crash was entirely different as the only reason the engines didn't deliver enough thrust was because the pilots failed to command enough thrust in a timely manner. The engines worked just fine. They spooled up pretty quickly and powerfully, too, when the pilots belatedly went to takeoff power seconds before impact. You can see that on the amateur video of the crash that was on CNN and youtube which shows a spray of water being kicked up by the engines behind the plane as they increase power. The problem was that with that steep of an angle of attack, the wings are generating an unbelievable amount of drag, so in the absence of the ability to drop the nose and lose some altitude, it would have taken them an extremely long time to pick up speed even with the engines running at full blast.

One of the things mentioned at the NTSB press conference is that the decision to abort the landing was taken only 1.5 seconds before impact, which would be 75 meters from the point of impact, given the speed.  Raising the vertical elevators would have pushed the tail down just as the plane approached the sea wall without giving it any substantial time to gain altitude.  Maybe if the pilot had not tried to abort the landing the plane would have skimmed the sea wall and flopped on the runway without ripping the tail off.

Quote from: Scarpia on July 10, 2013, 11:55:40 AM
One of the things mentioned at the NTSB press conference is that the decision to abort the landing was taken only 1.5 seconds before impact, which would be 75 meters from the point of impact, given the speed.  Raising the vertical elevators would have pushed the tail down just as the plane approached the sea wall without giving it any substantial time to gain altitude.  Maybe if the pilot had not tried to abort the landing the plane would have skimmed the sea wall and flopped on the runway without ripping the tail off.

Even without elevator input just revving up the engines to takeoff power on a plane with underwing engines will (and apparently did) result in a pitch up of the nose. It's an academic point. I think even before the go around command his angle of attack was so high that the tail would have impacted first. The more important thing is that he never should have been that low, that nose high and that slow all at the same time.

All very interesting, makes me wish I was in the aviation business...

I once visited the Rolls Royce headquarters in Derbyshire England to measure a roof for refurbishment. Looking down on the site it went off into the distance endlessly; I asked the official I was with what on earth it was all for and he said that was classified information...

Hey I guess the passengers experiencing that steep angle of attack before landing knew there was something wrong...

     The actual air speed on the approach was 103 knots, about 34 below landing speed. The autothrottle was not operating but the pilots did not realize it until it was too late.

There's a video circulating showing the Boston Acting Director of Emergency Management at the scene of the Boston Bombing, running around and basically directing the 'exercise' while it's happening. She was there from the beginning. Busted.

Quote from: snyprrr on July 16, 2013, 06:22:07 AM
There's a video circulating showing the Boston Acting Director of Emergency Management at the scene of the Boston Bombing, running around and basically directing the 'exercise' while it's happening. She was there from the beginning. Busted.

I see.  The Marathon is probably the biggest public event of the year in Boston, where ambulances and EMS technicians are standing by to aid runners with medical emergencies.  The idea that the Emergency Management director would be there to keep an eye on things is implausible?

There was a guy who lived down the road from Sandy Hook School in Newtown CT who told a story to a TV News reporter, about how he came home from an errand to find a group of first graders standing in his front yard.  They told him their teacher was dead and he took them inside and gave them milk and cookies.  Later there was a report in the press saying that as a result of that interview he feared for his life because he was getting hundreds of harassing and threatening e-mails, accusing him of being a government disaster-reenactment actor.  Geniuses like you, I suppose.   ::)

Quote from: Scarpia on July 16, 2013, 06:44:05 AM
I see.  The Marathon is probably the biggest pubic event of the year in Boston, where ambulances and EMS technicians are standing by to aid runners with medical emergencies.  The idea that the Emergency Management direction would be there to keep an eye on things is implausible?

Not implausible if they had something pre-planned.


Maybe some government should hire me, seeing as I'm the only kind of person who comes up with these ideas. "Oh, you want to justify spying on the public? Well, let's set up a fake terrorist attack,... that'll bring the people on board."

Amazing that no government employee thinks like me. Don't people who think like me go into politics? Two faced people?

I would set up fake events, hire actors to play dead, do whatever it took ('Wag the Dog' style) to get my masters' bidding done.

So, 'Wag the Dog' was created out of thin air? No one's trying to deceive me on any point? The gov, the media, and everyone in the 'Complex' are all just public servants doing good?

Maybe if you just looked into this lady and what she's about??......

Each and every former, current and future government of any country was / is / will be in permanent conspiracy against the people. Can we move on?  ;D :P :D

Quote from: snyprrr on July 16, 2013, 06:59:23 AM
Not implausible if they had something pre-planned.

Maybe some government should hire me, seeing as I'm the only kind of person who comes up with these ideas.

Dude, I wonder why you don't come up with the simple, day-to-day idea that there are always emergency medical personnel in a tent at the end of the Boston Marathon, because there are tens of thousands of runners (in addition to  spectators), and that having that many people exerting themselves in so long a race means there will be need for professional medical attention.

Every day, first thing, promise us to take three extra deep breaths, okay?

Quote from: snyprrr on July 16, 2013, 06:59:23 AM
Maybe some government should hire me, seeing as I'm the only kind of person who comes up with these ideas. "Oh, you want to justify spying on the public? Well, let's set up a fake terrorist attack,... that'll bring the people on board."

They should. If for no other reason than for you to prove to the world via your incompetence just how impossible it is to actually pull off any of these byzantine plots successfully. I'd give you the Nobel Peace Prize just for inevitably screwing up. It would be a service to humanity.

My recommendation is that when the next 'event' happens, we should all go over ever fibre of information we are given... mostly videos... and start searching the names that are given immediately, looking for websites and facebook pages that we just created a day before the event, and such things... before there is a chance to scrub things.

Wouldn't it be great if I got a 'name' before the event happened, and I could go the day BEFORE Sandy Hook and go to the web and find all the info I could on Adam Lanza (or whomever). A day BEFORE. Or Snowdon... I'd like to have punched in his name the day before his story broke,... I'd like to know what would have happened had I punched 'Trayvon Martin' into the search engine one day BEFORE the story broke.


I'm simply at the place where 6 companies own ALL media, and these folks seem to have quite a chummy relationship with our masters. When it has been clearly shown that Anderson Cooper stands in front of a green screen PRETENDING to be at Sandy Hook, well, why should I believe anything that comes from the box, or the rag (Washington Pissed).

Besides the box or the rag, where does one get ANY info on ANYTHING???


I know... you have this 'uncle' deeply embedded in the Dept. of.......


WHERE do you get your info, and in WHOM do you trust/believe???


My mumsy has read The Washington Pissed my entire life, so, whatever Tel Aviv says, my mumsy believes it. It's her ONLY news source , ever. Of course, she is basically a socialist, so, well, there ya go, buuut, I'm sayin'.........

Who is the originator of the story in the paper/tube that you believe?? We truly don't know, do we? We can certainly guarantee that the EDITORS CHOOSE ever last item, and (with the Asiana Airlines flap) we KNOW that talking heads ONLY READ what's given them (Ron Burgundy, haha).



I simply ask, that, at the time of the next event (and you know there will be one) please put on the detective cap and begin to TRUST, YET VERIFY every last bit of info given to you by the powers that be.

TRUST, YET VERIFY

TRUST, YET VERIFY

How can you verify if the only source is the Lamestream Media???

Remember, they are the ones who blanketed the screen with Zimmermann when they SHOULD HAVE BEEN COVERING IRS< NSA, etc.,....

IS YOUR TASK COMPLETED? PUNCH THE CARD!!!!!

All right, buddy, no more sugar for you for the rest of the day.

Hey, snyprrr, I've been meaning to ask you, what's the deal with Michael Hastings?

The greatest conspiracy of them all, the mother of all conspiracies from which all the other stems --- the creation of Adam and Eve. Everything went downhill from then on.  ;D :D :P

(http://dumbadmin.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/energizer-bunny.jpg)

Scarpia, your post was mostly excellent for one reason, but this part was excellent for another reason:

Quote from: Scarpia on July 16, 2013, 06:44:05 AMThe Marathon is probably the biggest pubic event of the year in Boston

I still think snyprrr is horse_ebooks.

Quote from: Todd on July 16, 2013, 07:21:17 AM
Hey, snyprrr, I've been meaning to ask you, what's the deal with Michael Hastings?

Quote from: MishaK on July 16, 2013, 07:09:28 AM
They should. If for no other reason than for you to prove to the world via your incompetence just how impossible it is to actually pull off any of these byzantine plots successfully. I'd give you the Nobel Peace Prize just for inevitably screwing up. It would be a service to humanity.

Uh, is there not Billions of $$$ missing from the Treasury or Fed or whatnot??? Where did this money go??

Apparently, with idiots as one's constituency, one can pull off practically any scheme one wants. Apparently you don't live near DC??!!

Remember, the BIGGER the Lie, the more people WANT to believe it.


How dare you say these things can't be pulled off. I mean, really.

Frankly, when I talk to people like this, it's not that they don't believe me, it's that they just don't flippin caaare. me me me me me...

Do Trayvon protesters even know what they're doing?? NO. Just a bunch of... idiots... ranting and raving about how if there's no 'justice' there will be no 'peace' (so, is this blanket approval for violence?).




mischa, do you know what people with Soros/Koch type money do with their time and money???? Perhaps they BUY 'events'???

Quote from: Florestan on July 16, 2013, 07:03:47 AM
Each and every former, current and future government of any country was / is / will be in permanent conspiracy against the people. Can we move on?  ;D :P :D

yea, there is no conspiracy, it's out in the open. The conspiracy is the absolute retardation of the critical mind. My problem is with the people who just go along with anything their god (GovCorp) says. My mumsy is one of these people. She'd turn on me in in an Orwellian instant if that's where The WashPost wants her to go. (well, we're already diametrically opposed so to speak)


Anti-Racist Hitler Video, funny ha ha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKDeyuM0-Og

He will destroy wonderfully... with flatteries...

Quote from: Todd on July 16, 2013, 07:21:17 AM
Hey, snyprrr, I've been meaning to ask you, what's the deal with Michael Hastings?

Wasn't he working on the Bengazi thing, and told his friend on the phone, "I'm on something huge, have to be incommunicado for a while."

And then a drone missle... a tree threw itself at his car, causing a Hollywood explosion?


Apparently, in the movie 'Michael C_______" (with Clooney), someone is offed with a 'heart attack gun'. Seen it? Breitbart???









Ok folks, here is snyprrr's BOTTOM LINE: it was during the second Waco hearing (when it was brought back, forget the year). They were going on and on about the FLIR (forward l_____ infra red) tape, who the 'people' said that machine gun fire was shown from the helicopter footage (of the tank), whilst the 'gov' said that it was the sun reflecting off the tank.

So, on TV news, we got to see the talking heads conclude that it was the sun, WHEN IN REALITY they had a 'look here' circle on the tank, where the sun WAS actually reflecting, WHILST AT THE CORNER OF THE TANK one CLEARLY can see burst of machine gun fire.

Well, I'm having trouble locating the exact part in the video footage.

Anyhow, I saw on live local news them showing the damning video, but with the 'look here' circle, when, if fact, one can clearly see FLIR machine gun bursts along the side of the tank.

THEEEEEEEN, at the same time, the head FLIR investigator here in the DC area was found 2-weeks dead in his office (surely the pastrami). The same guy doing the research for the investigation who 'interpreted' the FLIR footage for the 'people'.

google 'government witnesses suicided' or something like that. Amazing how many of these types of people kill themselves with a bullet TO THE BACK OF THE HEAD!!!!!!

"He slit his own wrists and then shot himself in the back of the head." (Oklahoma/McViegh police officer).



No one here has an uncle in the CIA??? No one???? "Here, son, I want to tell you something..."



ok, I came. Done. :P :laugh:

Quote from: Brian on July 16, 2013, 07:39:25 AM
I still think snyprrr is horse_ebooks.

A horse walks into a bar ;)...

Quote from: snyprrr on July 16, 2013, 07:47:50 AM
Remember, the BIGGER the Lie, the more people WANT to believe it.

I see. . . .

Quote from: Someone, I forget just who at the momentNot implausible if they had something pre-planned

So what's your favorite conspiracy movie?

Murder By Decree- the only film I know that outs the masons

btw- 'Winter Kills' is a spoof.

Quote from: snyprrr on July 16, 2013, 07:51:08 AM
So what's your favorite conspiracy movie?

Mary Poppins

Think about it!

Quote from: snyprrr on July 16, 2013, 07:47:50 AM
The conspiracy is the absolute retardation of the critical mind.

I wholeheartedly agree that a critical mind should be applied to anything that comes from any government. I just add that the same should be applied to anything, conspiracy theories included.  ;D

Wait, how can you be critical of the conspiracy theories, unless your water has been fluoridated??!!??!!!!

Quote from: karlhenning on July 16, 2013, 08:08:02 AM
Wait, how can you be critical of the conspiracy theories, unless your water has been fluoridated??!!??!!!!

You kiddin' me? Fluoridated water is a governmental tool for brainwashing people...  ;D

And tofu, keep away from the soy lecithin!

Quote from: karlhenning on July 16, 2013, 08:22:17 AM
And tofu, keep away from the soy lecithin!

Wein, Weib und Gesang / Keep away the govt. gang!  ;D ;D ;D

Quote from: Scarpia on July 16, 2013, 06:44:05 AM
I see.  The Marathon is probably the biggest public event of the year in Boston, where ambulances and EMS technicians are standing by to aid runners with medical emergencies.  The idea that the Emergency Management director would be there to keep an eye on things is implausible?

Quote from: snyprrr on July 16, 2013, 06:59:23 AM
Not implausible if they had something pre-planned.

Your thought process is invalid.

1) The emergency management director was at the scene as soon as the bomb went off at the Boston Marathon.

2) Emergency services personnel are deployed at the Boston Marathon in advance to provide aid for runner who need medical attention and there is a high probability that the Emergency Management director would be there to supervise.

Since the Emergency service director would be at the Boston Marathon with or without a conspiracy, her presence provides no evidence of a conspiracy. 

Quote from: snyprrr on July 16, 2013, 07:51:08 AM
So what's your favorite conspiracy movie?

All the President's Men. Great movie. Woodstein....

Quote from: mc ukrneal on July 16, 2013, 11:20:11 AM
All the President's Men. Great movie. Woodstein....

Really enjoyed it, but I've not (yet) felt any need to watch it again.

Quote from: Todd on July 16, 2013, 07:21:17 AM
Hey, snyprrr, I've been meaning to ask you, what's the deal with Michael Hastings?

Heeryago Todd. Apparently AL QEUDA can take over your car's computer and make you crash,... (just pay no mind to whomever's behind curtain no.3),... buuut, I'm sure there's nooooo one in N0rthren Virginiia who could?!?!?!?! joy stick capital of the world???

http://xrepublic.tv/node/4445

btw- this link DOES fulfill the Thread Requisite Topic Focus!! never heard of thems before, not that I hang around shady forums...

Quote from: snyprrr on July 17, 2013, 10:34:52 AMApparently AL QEUDA [sic] can take over your car's computer and make you crash

I worry about that every time I drive.  Al-Qaeda and other Islamist terrorists are sneaky: they dwell under every staircase, in every closet, in every dark alley, just waiting for the moment to strike.  They're like Commies of the old days, I tell you.  The NSA needs a bigger budget to combat such widespread wickedness.

Look at this neat-o flash drive shaped like a minaret!

Quote from: Scarpia on July 16, 2013, 09:29:58 AM
Your thought process is invalid.

1) The emergency management director was at the scene as soon as the bomb went off at the Boston Marathon.

2) Emergency services personnel are deployed at the Boston Marathon in advance to provide aid for runner who need medical attention and there is a high probability that the Emergency Management director would be there to supervise.

Since the Emergency service director would be at the Boston Marathon with or without a conspiracy, her presence provides no evidence of a conspiracy.

She's smiling and having a ball at a tragedy? Look at the video yo'seff

Quote from: Todd on July 17, 2013, 10:42:24 AM


I worry about that every time I drive.  Al-Qaeda and other Islamist terrorists are sneaky: they dwell under every staircase, in every closet, in every dark alley, just waiting for the moment to strike.  They're like Commies of the old days, I tell you.  The NSA needs a bigger budget to combat such widespread wickedness.

why those dasterds!!! why, I tell ya...


I start to get the feeling that the Germans made much better Fascists than we are making of the Americans. And I mean that in a good way for the Germans, chortle! :laugh: God Help Us :o

Quote from: karlhenning on July 17, 2013, 10:52:39 AM
Look at this neat-o flash drive shaped like a minaret!

Where ???, Karl where?? ??? Was it implanted in your hand ??? or forehead?? ??? You're going to have to cut that out you know. I can help you, I've done it before. $:) yupp yupp

... which way did he go?, which way did he go?...

ah, I see mischa's here. wassup?

Quote from: snyprrr on July 17, 2013, 11:20:19 AMI start to get the feeling that the Germans made much better Fascists than we are making of the Americans.

American Fascism, were such a thing to ever come into existence, would take on a new form not yet tried, and I think the closer model would be Italy rather than Germany, though the relationship between corporate interests and the government would probably be reversed.  It would also be sophisticated in that it would allow for political "competition" between at least two parties that espouse policies that sound different on the surface but really are just different in degree and not kind.  American Fascism would also be characterized by a submissive press, one which advocates imprisoning whistleblowers, and one that more or less focuses on personalities and wedge issues rather than substantive policy issues.  In such a system, the most popular non-mainstream press outlets would simply be more militant and nationalistic.  American Fascism would also be characterized by perpetual, low-level warfare, complete with unstinting devotion to veterans, with the primary goals of securing energy resources and maintaining unfettered trade for the largest domestic and transnational corporations so as to placate the shallow consumerism so beloved by the populace.  Thank goodness no such thing could ever happen.

Quote from: karlhenning on July 17, 2013, 10:52:39 AM
Look at this neat-o flash drive shaped like a minaret!

Speaking of which, I don't know exactly why you posted just that thing, but there are warnings on the TV down here to let the morons know not to be greedy, because unscrupulous hackers (and you know who you are, you bastards!) are dropping flash drives next to peoples' cars so they will happily pick them up and bring them home and plug them in to their computers. They then join the zombie drone computer army that is sending out all the spam and ganging up on DNS attacks.

I never put 2 & 3 together until now and realized it was based on the unholy alliance of hackers and Al-Q!!!!  :o  :o

8)

Quote from: snyprrr on July 17, 2013, 11:12:44 AM
She's smiling and having a ball at a tragedy? Look at the video yo'seff

To change the subject from your defective thought processes, what video are you talking about?

Quote from: Todd on July 17, 2013, 11:46:05 AM


American Fascism, were such a thing to ever come into existence, would take on a new form not yet tried, and I think the closer model would be Italy rather than Germany, though the relationship between corporate interests and the government would probably be reversed.  It would also be sophisticated in that it would allow for political "competition" between at least two parties that espouse policies that sound different on the surface but really are just different in degree and not kind.  American Fascism would also be characterized by a submissive press, one which advocates imprisoning whistleblowers, and one that more or less focuses on personalities and wedge issues rather than substantive policy issues.  In such a system, the most popular non-mainstream press outlets would simply be more militant and nationalistic.  American Fascism would also be characterized by perpetual, low-level warfare, complete with unstinting devotion to veterans, with the primary goals of securing energy resources and maintaining unfettered trade for the largest domestic and transnational corporations so as to placate the shallow consumerism so beloved by the populace.  Thank goodness no such thing could ever happen.

'Murica, woot!!

"pew pew pew pew"

'Murica, fuck yea!! WOOO!!

"pew pew pew pew"

Hey... hey, Rodney,... you ok?... Rod?..

aw heck... 'Murica, WOOO!! Don' mess with US!!

"pew pew pew pew"

...Ma?... Ma?, you ok?...

Quote from: Scarpia on July 17, 2013, 12:03:21 PM
To change the subject from your defective thought processes, what video are you talking about?

It's really the group of videos we've all seen. I just think all the people of interest have been id'd by, I guess, people who sit around all day in the folks's basements with banks of geekgear? search something like "boston emergency management acting director at scene of bombing" or something like that.

I suuuuuuuuure do wish we had that video of the plane hitting the pentagon, don't you? That would just be so convenient. It would be an even more awesome thing if we had some video of the Shanksberg crash, that would be sweet.

Nothing beats really good video, eh?

Would have loved to have seen video of Liddy rifling through drawers, eh?

Quote from: snyprrr on July 17, 2013, 12:10:48 PM
It would be an even more awesome thing if we had some video of the Shanksberg crash, that would be sweet.

Video or no video, simple question: why fake a plane crash in the middle of nowhere when you can already accomplish the supposed goals of the conspiracy by destroying the WTC? Why would anyone bother with that?

Quote from: snyprrr on July 17, 2013, 12:03:49 PM
'Murica, woot!!

"pew pew pew pew"

'Murica, fuck yea!! WOOO!!

"pew pew pew pew"

Hey... hey, Rodney,... you ok?... Rod?..

aw heck... 'Murica, WOOO!! Don' mess with US!!

"pew pew pew pew"

...Ma?... Ma?, you ok?...

https://twitter.com/Horse_ebooks

Quote from: snyprrr on July 17, 2013, 12:10:48 PM
It's really the group of videos we've all seen. I just think all the people of interest have been id'd by, I guess, people who sit around all day in the folks's basements with banks of geekgear? search something like "boston emergency management acting director at scene of bombing" or something like that.

There's a video which has convinced you that the Boston Marathon Bombing was a conspiracy/fake but you are not sure what video it is?  Astonishing that no matter how disorganized your thought processes are, there is room for further disintegration!

There is enough disturbing stuff that the government is doing that there is no need to be distracted by these delusional accusations.

Quote from: Scarpia on July 17, 2013, 12:29:38 PMThere is enough disturbing stuff that the government is doing that there is no need to be distracted by these delusional accusations.

Exhibit 17,425 (a)(iv) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/watch-him-pull-a-usda-mandated-rabbit-disaster-plan-out-of-his-hat/2013/07/16/816f2f66-ed66-11e2-8163-2c7021381a75_story.html)

Good stuff Todd. Snowdon is a bit of a distraction though- he didn't reveal anything not already known...

QuoteAmerican Fascism, were such a thing to ever come into existence, would take on a new form not yet tried, and I think the closer model would be Italy rather than Germany, though the relationship between corporate interests and the government would probably be reversed.  It would also be sophisticated in that it would allow for political "competition" between at least two parties that espouse policies that sound different on the surface but really are just different in degree and not kind.  American Fascism would also be characterized by a submissive press, one which advocates imprisoning whistleblowers, and one that more or less focuses on personalities and wedge issues rather than substantive policy issues.  In such a system, the most popular non-mainstream press outlets would simply be more militant and nationalistic.  American Fascism would also be characterized by perpetual, low-level warfare, complete with unstinting devotion to veterans, with the primary goals of securing energy resources and maintaining unfettered trade for the largest domestic and transnational corporations so as to placate the shallow consumerism so beloved by the populace.  Thank goodness no such thing could ever happen.

MishaK

QuoteVideo or no video, simple question: why fake a plane crash in the middle of nowhere when you can already accomplish the supposed goals of the conspiracy by destroying the WTC? Why would anyone bother with that?

Shortly before Flight 93 crashed it had turned north. It was waiting for the two towers to fall to have a clear view of Building 7- hit it near the top as with the others, let the explosives do the rest and people can argue about it just nicely.

Webster Tarpley on form here- click on the first one, summarizing the Syrian war and Wall Street corruption.

http://tarpley.net/

Quote from: Scarpia on July 17, 2013, 12:29:38 PM
There's a video which has convinced you that the Boston Marathon Bombing was a conspiracy/fake but you are not sure what video it is?  Astonishing that no matter how disorganized your thought processes are, there is room for further disintegration!

There is enough disturbing stuff that the government is doing that there is no need to be distracted by these delusional accusations.

Thank you,... I think

Quote from: Sean on July 17, 2013, 06:36:08 PM
MishaK

Shortly before Flight 93 crashed it had turned north. It was waiting for the two towers to fall to have a clear view of Building 7- hit it near the top as with the others, let the explosives do the rest and people can argue about it just nicely.

Haha! That's hilarious! So what happened? Why did it fail in its mission? I though there were no planes and these were just missiles/holograms as per your theory? What crashed in Shanksville? Do you even realize that even without WTC 1 & 2 in the way (and ignoring for the moment that you wouldn't have a "clear view" due to the plume of smoke from WTC 1& 2), it would be very hard to hit WTC 7 due to other surrounding taller buildings, like Deutsche Bank, Millennium Hilton, Woolworth, World Financial Center etc.?

Quote from: Sean on July 17, 2013, 06:36:08 PM
MishaK

Shortly before Flight 93 crashed it had turned north. It was waiting for the two towers to fall to have a clear view of Building 7- hit it near the top as with the others, let the explosives do the rest and people can argue about it just nicely.

That makes sense to you?  The collapse of WTC I and II was behind schedule, so they had to ditch the third plane and decided to simply blow up WTC7 without bothering to hit it with a plane?  How did the collapse of the WTC get behind schedule anyway, it it was a simple demolition job?

Quote from: Todd on July 17, 2013, 11:46:05 AM


American Fascism, were such a thing to ever come into existence, would take on a new form not yet tried, and I think the closer model would be Italy rather than Germany, though the relationship between corporate interests and the government would probably be reversed.  It would also be sophisticated in that it would allow for political "competition" between at least two parties that espouse policies that sound different on the surface but really are just different in degree and not kind.  American Fascism would also be characterized by a submissive press, one which advocates imprisoning whistleblowers, and one that more or less focuses on personalities and wedge issues rather than substantive policy issues.  In such a system, the most popular non-mainstream press outlets would simply be more militant and nationalistic.  American Fascism would also be characterized by perpetual, low-level warfare, complete with unstinting devotion to veterans, with the primary goals of securing energy resources and maintaining unfettered trade for the largest domestic and transnational corporations so as to placate the shallow consumerism so beloved by the populace.  Thank goodness no such thing could ever happen.

Sarcasm much?  ;D

MishaK & Scarpia Flight 93 was shot down either because someone not in the know saw through the deliberate confusion of simulated and real 'terrorist' games, or something went wrong with the Black Hawk guidance system and it was best to get rid of it lest there were any survivors or revealing black boxes to be found.

None of the four black boxes officially were found of course, as unique and smelly a situation as three steel frame skyscrapers collapsing in three different ways on the same morning in the same place, all assuredly due to office fires and burning curtains and such.

Why do people pay all this money to expert demolition teams? All you need to do to demolish a colossal steel and concrete structure neatly into its own footprint is light a smoky fire way up on one of the floors, and hey there you go, down it comes!! Maybe MishaK can patent the idea and make lots of money.

Indeed there was no crater or anything much to suggest the plane crashed in Shanksville, and the Hollywood movie was another heap of propaganda almost as quickly put together as the new Building 7, and instead the debris was spread over a large area.

Big big problem for Building 7 and a decision had to be made to pull it, as Silverstein said. It looks like they were waiting for nightfall but the pitiful fires had gone out so...

The no-plane theory is just agent provocateur stuff and no one takes it seriously; it's unlikely a plane hit the Pentagon though- the visual evidence is overwhelmingly against it. There's a Youtube compilation video of about 40 films of the second tower impact...

A few Richard Gage videos here
http://blip.tv/search?q=richard+gage

Architect Richard Gage lecture

http://blip.tv/our-world-in-depth/architects-and-engineers-for-9-11-truth-part-1-5461011

Quote from: Sean on July 18, 2013, 06:00:56 PM
MishaK & Scarpia Flight 93 was shot down either because someone not in the know saw through the deliberate confusion of simulated and real 'terrorist' games, or something went wrong with the Black Hawk guidance system and it was best to get rid of it lest there were any survivors or revealing black boxes to be found.

Haha. You're getting better and better. So now there were real planes with real people, but they were remote controlled? And someone "not in the know" screwed it up?! Are we supposed to take this half seriously? Again, you ignore counterarguments routinely. You just don't have a "clear shot" at WTC 7 even with 1 and 2 out of the way. Btw, also, UA 93 at no point in its flight path "turned north". That's just bunk.

Quote from: Sean on July 18, 2013, 06:00:56 PM
None of the four black boxes officially were found of course,

Umm... wrong: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/penn.attack/ The notion of "four" black boxes is also new to me. There are two on a commercial aircraft and neither one is actually black.

Also, why should there be no flight data recorders? Even if a remote control is doing the inputs, the data on the FDRs would be no different and in any case we know the flightpath from radar, so what mystery would the FDR hold that should be kept secret?

Quote from: Sean on July 18, 2013, 06:00:56 PM
as unique and smelly a situation as three steel frame skyscrapers collapsing in three different ways on the same morning in the same place, all assuredly due to office fires and burning curtains and such.

Why do people pay all this money to expert demolition teams? All you need to do to demolish a colossal steel and concrete structure neatly into its own footprint is light a smoky fire way up on one of the floors, and hey there you go, down it comes!! Maybe MishaK can patent the idea and make lots of money.

You're exceptionally resistent to learning. I think I'm about ready to throw in the towel, as apparently all of your grade school teachers prematurely did long ago, which is why you turned out the way you did.

Let's get this clear once and for all: NONE of the WTC buildings collapsed "neatly into its own footprint", OK? None! The two towers took out the Marriott Hotel (a.k.a. WTC 3, St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, WTC 4, 5 & 6 (an office complex with a large shopping mall and transportation hub), plus they cause severe damage to WTC 7, World Financial Center, the Millennium Hilton, Deutsche Bank, and several others. The sheer size of the WTC might make it look to a bonehead with religious-conspiracy-theorist myopia that it collapsed "neatly into its own footprint". But no professional demolition expert would ever permit his name to be attached to such a completely botched "controlled demolition" that destroyed so many structures around it!

Quote from: Sean on July 18, 2013, 06:00:56 PM
Indeed there was no crater or anything much to suggest the plane crashed in Shanksville, and the Hollywood movie was another heap of propaganda almost as quickly put together as the new Building 7, and instead the debris was spread over a large area.

The no-plane theory is just agent provocateur stuff and no one takes it seriously; it's unlikely a plane hit the Pentagon though- the visual evidence is overwhelmingly against it. There's a Youtube compilation video of about 40 films of the second tower impact...

You know you contradict yourself here, right? Was there a plane at Shanksville or no? Be careful. Because if you say yes, then the crater was made by a plane. If you say no, then your whole WTC 7 theory goes poof. (Not that you would necessarily notice either way)  ::)

He doesn't feel that he needs a coherent narrative; much easier just to make a game of denying facts.

MishaK, don't you have a kid to raise? (i.e, anything better to do than refuting Sean's theories?)  ;D ;D ;D

Quote from: Florestan on July 19, 2013, 08:05:34 AM
MishaK, don't you have a kid to raise? (i.e, anything better to do than refuting Sean's theories?)  ;D ;D ;D

Not when I'm at work.  ;) I don't bother with this board when my son is around.

MishaK

Well either the commercial planes were just commandeered by remote control or were swapped with others...

About just what downtown Manhattan high rise buildings there are I don't quite know but there couldn't have been many between 7 and the sea...

There's a nice article on the net somewhere about the flight path but maybe get you the link some other time...

I know the fluorescent black boxes are a misnomer... If the planes were taken under remote control though it'd be rather interesting to hear what the pilots had to say about that, and about the fact there were no hijackings...

There wasn't much of a crater at Shanksville, certainly no obvious tail sections, wing sections, engines etc- all very strange.

One of us is doing this, and it's one thing I'm not mad enough for...

(https://ariel51.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/petit.jpg)

Building 7 into its footprint-

(http://www.911review.com/attack/wtc/imgs/7795.jpg)

(http://www.american-buddha.com/ae911truth.11h_small.jpg)

(http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc7/wtc7_debris.jpg)

(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSwbUymAl0-iKtREOC3kf7IX7tPgPXYTGGf-kNMI6j9cf7SfD6oVA)

(http://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/119420.jpg)

Quote from: Sean on July 19, 2013, 01:55:24 PM
Well either the commercial planes were just commandeered by remote control or were swapped with others...

Which means what? Were there planes or were there no planes? If a plane was meant to crash into WTC 7 then there must have been a plane and then the crater in Shanksville was made by a plane. Can you at least give us a coherent theory of this part of the plot, if not the whole conspiracy (which I have asked for repeatedly, but which you have steadfastly avoided)?

Quote from: Sean on July 19, 2013, 01:55:24 PM
About just what downtown Manhattan high rise buildings there are I don't quite know but there couldn't have been many between 7 and the sea...

Your knowledge of geography is even more challenged than I thought. Manhattan is on the Hudson and the East Rivers. No sea at all. If you mean the Hudson, then World Financial Center, Deutsche Bank (Bankers Trust), Verizon and Travellers buildings would be in your way, among others. WTC7 was not exceptionally tall compared to its neighbors.

Quote from: Sean on July 19, 2013, 01:55:24 PM
I know the fluorescent black boxes are a misnomer... If the planes were taken under remote control though it'd be rather interesting to hear what the pilots had to say about that, and about the fact there were no hijackings...

If you're going to all these bizarre lengths that your conspiracy theory implies, it would not have been an additional complication to just plant a recording for playback or simply plant a fake CVR. I note that you fail to acknowledge the falseness of your prior claim that the boxes were never found, but instead obfuscate in your usual style by sidestepping the issue entirely.

There of course was a CVR, which was recovered, and it recorded this:

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/04/12/flight93.transcript.pdf

Quote from: Sean on July 19, 2013, 01:55:24 PM
There wasn't much of a crater at Shanksville, certainly no obvious tail sections, wing sections, engines etc- all very strange.

right... unless of course you just refuse to understand the difference between high speed crashes and low speed crashes and unless you refuse to look at the evidence:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/UA93_fuselage_debris.jpg)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/UA93_livery_debris.jpg)

There were indeed planes...

Flight 93 was shot down when it wasn't doing what it was supposed to, whatever that was; Rumsfeld also hinted that it was shot down. As for further evidence I'm afraid I can only refer to the relevant documentaries...

I hadn't seen the 93 spoken transcript before but I've heard lines from it analysed; the WTC black boxes weren't recovered, I know that much.

Don't know about Flight 77 that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon either. However the claim is that despite the fire vaporizing its twin titanium engines, so there are no marks at all on the walls where they should have hit, there were still several dozen passenger remains whose body tissue could be identified.

So if you believe that there are more smoke and mirrors than either of us know...

(http://www.american-buddha.com/loosechange2nd.84b.jpg)

(http://www.real-debt-elimination.com/images/pentagonxox30.jpg)

Quote from: Sean on July 19, 2013, 02:48:37 PM
There were indeed planes...

Good! We're making progress. The last time we were discussing this matter, IIRC, you insisted that there were no planes at all, just holograms. Gets us back to the question of why use planes at all, if you're going to blow up the buildings anyway? Also: how did Flight 93 stop doing what it was supposed to?

Quote from: Sean on July 19, 2013, 02:48:37 PM
Don't know about Flight 77 that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon either.

The CVR was, shall we say, a bit mangled from the impact and the fire and thus unreadable:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Flight_77_CVR.jpg)

Would have been the same with the two WTC aircraft had they ever been found in the rubble. Again, if there was a conspiracy, it would have been fantastically easy to plant a prerecorded CVR that conveniently contained the dialogue you want it to contain. Makes no sense to pretend that they had been destroyed. Compared to the complexity of the rest of the alleged conspiracy, planting a fake CVR would have been far and away the easiest part.

Quote from: Sean on July 19, 2013, 02:48:37 PM
However the claim is that despite the fire vaporizing its twin titanium engines, so there are no marks at all on the walls where they should have hit, there were still several dozen passenger remains whose body tissue could be identified.

This is still complete nonsense. The "engines" aren't titanium, some parts of it are and the rest is designed to more or less shred itself. Plenty of recognizable and easily identifiable parts of the Rolls-Royce RB211 engines of the AA 757-223 were found at the Pentagon.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

This might help you understand as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDbo1hyXsuQ

Quote from: MishaK on July 22, 2013, 08:00:20 AM
This might help you understand as well:

Good luck leading that horse to water.

Quote from: karlhenning on July 22, 2013, 09:42:17 AM
Good luck leading that horse to water.

Note word usage: ***might***

Yes, an expertly deployed modal!

MishaK

The average person is pretty damn stupid I agree but I'm not sure if they'd fall for the WTC being stuffed with explosives by disguised Muslims, past all the security. Hence hatch a plan involving planes, add to the psychological impact and blame the collapse on them. All very simple...

Something went wrong with the Black Hawk guidance system for 93. The guidance for the second plane to hit the towers, 11 or 175 whichever, also showed problems- it nearly missed and only hit the corner with all the fuel exploding outside the building. No core column damage and an even more pitiful fire- time to bring the demolition sequence forward and get the damn things down.

Mangled black boxes? Made from some of the toughest materials known to science?

A paper passport from a hijacker survived though, jumping out of his jacket pocket, past the wreckage, through the fireball and landing gently on a nearby sidewalk for a policeman who happened to be there to pick it up. Proving nothing anyway except that the guy forgot that you don't need a passport on an internal fight.

I can't access Youtube right now...

Karl, no leading and no drinking. At least it isn't water that MishaK leads me to drink.

(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSqQRyxdYHsDWL8o175kLWdVloZ3yQ0mSV2AFnEOSbLQx46_KdS)

Quote from: Sean on July 22, 2013, 10:51:28 AM
The average person is pretty damn stupid I agree but I'm not sure if they'd fall for the WTC being stuffed with explosives by disguised Muslims, past all the security. Hence hatch a plan involving planes, add to the psychological impact and blame the collapse on them. All very simple...

Except that this worked just fine for the 1993 attack. So why shouldn't it have worked in 2001? Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Using planes if you're going to do controlled demolitions anyway only increases complexity and risk of failure.

Quote from: Sean on July 22, 2013, 10:51:28 AM
Something went wrong with the Black Hawk guidance system for 93.

WTF are you talking about? What is Black Hawk. The only Black Hawks I know are a helicopter, an NHL hockey team and a bird of prey.

Quote from: Sean on July 22, 2013, 10:51:28 AM
Mangled black boxes? Made from some of the toughest materials known to science?

Last I checked, black boxes are not made of diamonds, which would be the toughest material known. Black boxes have repeatedly been damaged so much as to be useless. Scroll down a bit on this page:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/The_Black_Boxes

All you are exhibiting is the disbelief of someone with no technical or scientific understanding of the subject matter and a lack of abilty or interest in empirically acquiring the necessary knowledge.

Quote from: Sean on July 22, 2013, 10:51:28 AM
A paper passport from a hijacker survived though, jumping out of his jacket pocket, past the wreckage, through the fireball and landing gently on a nearby sidewalk for a policeman who happened to be there to pick it up. Proving nothing anyway except that the guy forgot that you don't need a passport on an internal fight.

Debris gets ejected from explosions without completely burning up. This is not unusual at all. Something with as little weight and as much air resistance as a passport would indeed land as gently from 70 stories up as it would when you dropped it off your desk. It won't pick up much more speed in the interim due to its air resistance. I know these basics of Newtonian physics are rather difficult for you to grasp. That's really the crux of the matter here.

Quote from: Sean on July 22, 2013, 10:51:28 AM
I can't access Youtube right now...

How terribly convenient. You really should when you get a chance, as that video provides what you and the other conspiracy nuts don't: an affirmative theory of the events of the final moments of AA 77 which explains *all* of the available evidence coherently.

When a guy buys that passport story I know there's nothing I can do for him.

MishaK at work

(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRIBAZivgTQhZb1QzhTkNQRSZao6hr5citsCWSFx_OoAXhNQ41bUg)

And home

(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSVmZRSz7-YvXi0qQmSa6bYoFiRWA6C1Pm3i-3Y0GGa0wJUu81Z)

(http://www.secretsofthefed.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/sheeple-1aa-wakeupsheeple.jpg)

(http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/1/0/3/0/7/Stupid-Sheeple-107810087070.jpeg)

(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQxn6T3CmDPD6j7WpSnIM2TQ-_j7NMfIVsPmJMVUAQDGDp_7vSe6Q)

I take it you belatedly realized that you have no tenable arguments, so now it's time for the ad hominems?

PS: it wasn't Atta's passport and it's not that strange at all:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Personal_Effects_and_the_Crash-Proof_Passport

Quote from: Sean on July 22, 2013, 11:32:05 AM
When a guy buys that passport story I know there's nothing I can do for him.

That passport story is perfecty reasonable, whereas your attempts at explanations are pretty vapid, not to put too fine a point on it. And your last post seems to be some sort of grasping at straws.

We all realized you ran out of reasonable and believable arguments a long time ago; this last post seem to prove that that fact is dawning on you as well.

Quote from: The new erato on July 22, 2013, 11:38:02 AM
That passport story is perfecty reasonable, whereas your attempts at explanations are pretty vapid, not to put too fine a point on it. And your last post seems to be some sort of grasping at straws.

Following up, I lived in the general area and made a brief pilgrimage to lower manhattan in the week following the 9/11 attack.  The streets around the site were littered with pieces of paper, printed pages from financial statements and other routine business documents that were in file cabinets of sitting on desks at the moment the planes hit.  An explosion can create a shockwave that blows material away from the source of the explosion before it has time to be burned.  You might say it is unlikely that any given passport on the plane would be found, but there is nothing physically impossible about it.

(http://rememberbuilding7.org/10/images/poster-5.jpg)

(http://www.mediaite.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/igiveup.jpg)

Quote from: Scarpia on July 22, 2013, 11:53:39 AM
Following up, I lived in the general area and made a brief pilgrimage to lower manhattan in the week following the 9/11 attack.  The streets around the site were littered with pieces of paper, printed pages from financial statements and other routine business documents that were in file cabinets of sitting on desks at the moment the planes hit.  An explosion can create a shockwave that blows material away from the source of the explosion before it has time to be burned.  You might say it is unlikely that any given passport on the plane would be found, but there is nothing physically impossible about it.

The hot air from the fires blew documents all the way over to Brooklyn where it rained financial statements from the sky.

Quote from: Sean on July 22, 2013, 11:56:00 AM
(http://rememberbuilding7.org/10/images/poster-5.jpg)
(http://www.mediaite.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/igiveup.jpg)

It is perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of media reports and to wonder whether the account given of the 9/11 attacks is accurate in all of its details.  However one must be equally skeptical of the alternate theories.  What you have done here is deny obvious facts based on arguments which are logically inconsistent, violate physical laws or just plain make no sense and you have accepted an alternate theory which is illogical, wildly improbably, physical impossible, and based on factual assertions that are just plain wrong.  I can't say I've ever come across a more gullible person.

Scarpia, it's interesting that one event can be explained reasonably well by two radically different theories; historians of science have also made this point...

Your idea that the 9/11 Truth movement ideas are illogical and improbable and so on is just incorrect. Even if they are indeed wrong they're offering an entirely scientific and plausible explanation- you sound like the typical kind of sceptic wanting to dismiss it out of fear...

That may well not be your motive at all but the conspiracy theory, which is a bad name for the alternative view since the official theory is also a conspiracy theory about an unproven shadowy group of perpetrators, is not in the least wild in the way that say the Apollo moon landings hoax theory is. That theory has a few interesting points to make but the rest is undermined by hard science. With 9/11 you have dozens of hard scientists saying the official theory is wrong. It's worth anyone's consideration.

(http://www.marcofolio.net/images/stories/fun/imagedump/faces_everywhere/face_vase.gif)

(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ5OeRBxFEM0TjkJMGpWoP1ip-StIddJGAVf4-tevr_EsxFEiNcbQ)

Quote from: Sean on July 22, 2013, 07:49:09 PM
Scarpia, it's interesting that one event can be explained reasonably well by two radically different theories;

No. It can't. You haven't provided an affirmative theoy of the crime. Please do. Than we can talk about the potential equivalence of the theories. As long as you have failed to provide an affirmative theory, you don't have a theory or an explanation. All you have is a hodgepodge of incredulous questions and doubts about this or that piece of evidence. None of that amounts to anything and much of it is inconsistent and contradictory. Please provide an affirmative theory of the crime.

And a lot of it is just the flawed logic of kneejerk suppositions like How is it possible that a passport survived?!

Of all the zillions of paper blown skyward, something interesting was bound to be found. When you search among a nearly unlimited number of objects, all with a very small possibility of being exactly there , sooner or later you are going to find an interesting object that you wouldn't believe possible should haven been found where it was found. If not a passport, then something else. That's more or less certain, and one of the fallacies behind much false reasoning.

You wackos and loonies, tell me just what on the moronic smiling-sport-celebrity-rancid nightly news would you question?

In some countries dictators have to pull people's fingernails out to get them to go along with what they say but in the West, no problem at at!! Television for the horde is the primary carrier of the garbage culture they're born into so it comes first.

We all know I'm wasting my time, and the 9/11 perpetrators rely on and chuckle over your limp psychosis.

http://tarpley.net/

Excellent intelligent analyses, not for you.

Quote from: Sean on July 24, 2013, 02:23:51 AM
You wackos and loonies, tell me just what on the moronic smiling-sport-celebrity-rancid nightly news would you question?

In some countries dictators have to pull people's fingernails out to get them to go along with what they say but in the West, no problem at at!! Television for the horde is the primary carrier of the garbage culture they're born into so it comes first.

We all know I'm wasting my time, and the 9/11 perpetrators rely on and chuckle over your limp psychosis.

I question everything. And I don't watch TV at all since I don't have one. I don't follow celebrities at all either. You can't address the crucial issue here, so you're lashing out at "garbage culture", whatever that is, as if we were somehow connected to it simply by virtue of disagreeing with you. It's you who is lacking basic critical thinking abilities. It is you who is emotionally so attached to the idea of being an "independent thinker", a dissident even, who must by nature disagree with the "official version", whatever you make that out to be. But you still fail the basic test: you claim that your theory explains the event at least as well, if not better, than the official version. Yet you offer no affirmative theory. Only incredulity of the "official theory." What the F#&@ is Your Theory? Who did what and how in what order? Who is it who is supposedly chuckling over our "limp psychosis"? If you cannot fill the words you fling at us with meaningful content, then you're as empty as the television culture you deride.

Quote from: MishaK on July 24, 2013, 06:21:08 AM
I question everything. And I don't watch TV at all since I don't have one. I don't follow celebrities at all either. You can't address the crucial issue here, so you're lashing out at "garbage culture", whatever that is, as if we were somehow connected to it simply by virtue of disagreeing with you. It's you who is lacking basic critical thinking abilities. It is you who is emotionally so attached to the idea of being an "independent thinker", a dissident even, who must by nature disagree with the "official version", whatever you make that out to be. But you still fail the basic test: you claim that your theory explains the event at least as well, if not better, than the official version. Yet you offer no affirmative theory. Only incredulity of the "official theory." What the F#&@ is Your Theory? Who did what and how in what order? Who is it who is supposedly chuckling over our "limp psychosis"? If you cannot fill the words you fling at us with meaningful content, then you're as empty as the television culture you deride.

1SR@3L... shhhhh

So, how bout that Weiner? gaaaahhh :laugh: He just looks soooo creepy, hope he doesn't have any nieces.

Quote from: MishaK on July 24, 2013, 06:21:08 AM
I question everything. And I don't watch TV at all since I don't have one. I don't follow celebrities at all either. You can't address the crucial issue here, so you're lashing out at "garbage culture", whatever that is, as if we were somehow connected to it simply by virtue of disagreeing with you.

Same here.  I haven't watched television or cable TV news with any regularity for several decades.  I collect information from a variety of sources and subject it to scrutiny before I accept anything.  This involves evaluation of how trustworthy the source is. 

You have lampooned the NIST report on 9/11 as a fabrication and characterized NIST as a hive of government conspirators tasked with spreading propaganda.  It turns out I am acquainted with the former head of the Physical Measurement Division at NIST and other NIST scientific and administrative staff.  Just last week I was at NIST in Gaithersburg and had a chance to chat with a physicist who is working on a new standard for the kilogram.  I put trust in the information provided by NIST because I trust the source.  The idea that NIST would distribute misinformation on 9/11 is ludicrous.

On the other hand, why should I accept your "theory."  The most obvious thing is that none of the fragmentary theories you float about 9/11 survive even the most rudimentary scrutiny.  You claim that elements of the consensus explanation are impossible based on factual misstatements, flawed reasoning and lack of understanding of math, physics and statistics.  You replace the consensus narrative with one which is absurd and for which there no supporting evidence.  Even by the standards of the info-tainment pseudo-news that fill up TV news you claims are comical.

For some years now,  I turn on the TV to get the weather forecast and to listen to the top stories--usually simply to get a sense of what other people are saying, as opposed to learning the facts of the stories.  Most of my real "news" comes from the Internet in one form or another.

BTW, I've found the weather forecasts to be as unreliable as anything else on TV.


One thing about the 9/11 truth movement that has always amused me is that many of the "truthers" are from the political right--that is, from the end of the political spectrum that views government as inherently corrupt and incompetent, or at least unforgiveably inefficient and therefore to be made use of only when actually necessary.  Yet the basic belief of the truthers is in a version of reality in which government works at one 100 percent competency and efficiency, and on a vast scale to boot.

Sean addressing anyone as You wackos and loonies . . . my week is complete.

Quote from: snyprrr on July 24, 2013, 06:56:45 AM
So, how bout that Weiner? gaaaahhh :laugh: He just looks soooo creepy, hope he doesn't have any nieces.

No one can doubt that the US of A is the world's Entertainment King, when we have exclusives like the I'm okay with my husband having no moral compass, and you, the voting public, ought to be cool with it, too Press Conference.

Quote from: karlhenning on July 24, 2013, 08:52:09 AM
No one can doubt that the US of A is the world's Entertainment King, when we have exclusives like the I'm okay with my husband having no moral compass, and you, the voting public, ought to be cool with it, too Press Conference.

http://www.someecards.com/workplace-cards/anthony-weiner-huma-abedin-work-funny-ecard

If you've no television MishaK you've gone up a rung or two for me; in my present apartment when I arrived there was this standard huge great flat screen thing which I had removed as soon as I could a few days later. No kettle or toaster but there has to be this propaganda machine at some obscene cost; the officials when they call look at me strange, but not as strange as I look at them...

Emotionally attached to being an independent thinker and a dissident, yes something to bear in mind, but not the case here.

Nice post Scarpia, info-tainment, hadn't heard of that, one to remember, but like MishaK you do seem to want it both ways. So you admirably won't just side with the government media mouthpiece and the horde's identity-thinking and reassuring model of the world needs, but you don't want to take the next step and question the independence of the NIST and FEMA government agencies either.

As for the technical details of course I'm not trained in architecture, aviation or physics but the big point here is that there are several thousands professionals who are, and who indeed can't be written off as easily as some weirdo poster like me... Your idea that it's just bunk is bunk.

By the way I don't think either of you are too moronic. A bit moronic but not too much- you know what music is and thus have an aesthetic and hence critical sense that goes beyond simplistic rationale. One book on the alternative views is Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Centre Disaster- great title I think, most people being ready to follow causal lines no matter how daft.

As I think I said, when group-emailing the staff around me here a while back on thoughts on 9/11 nobody replied. I nearly sent them a picture of frightened mice in holes but discretion prevailed, so you get my vote...

Jeffrey, similar thoughts to you though not sure about the government incompetence arguments...

Quote from: Sean on July 25, 2013, 06:49:04 AM
If you've no television MishaK you've gone up a rung or two for me

I've lived in a TV-free household for over 13 years now and don't miss it at all.

Quote from: Sean on July 25, 2013, 06:49:04 AM
As for the technical details of course I'm not trained in architecture, aviation or physics but the big point here is that there are several thousands professionals who are, and who indeed can't be written off as easily as some weirdo poster like me... Your idea that it's just bunk is bunk.

Firstly, the credentials of your sources are questionable. But that's not the point. An appeal to authority isn't an argument but a logical fallacy, and having a certificate in one or another discipline does not shield one from error or the egomaniacal urge for fame beyond one's own mediocre existence as an unknown, middling researcher at an insignificant institution. The point that I have been making all along is not that this or that piece of evidence could absolutely not have been interpreted to have been generated by any other means than the "official story". (That said, the alternate explanations still are pathetically weak, though. E.g. the actual "study" on the alleged presence of thermite at WTC is exceptionally weak on reliable conclusions and does not address alternate possibilities for the data collected.) The point is that all of the other explanations of individual bits of evidence, taken together, do not amount to a coherent story. That is what I have been asking you for from my first post in this thread: provide a coherent affirmative theory of the crime. That is the crux of the problem with the conspiracy theories. They add up to a completely inconsistent and preposterous story of an all powerful, infallible secret government machinery, involving essentially a substantial chunk of the US workforce, miraculously free of leaks, which concocts an absurdly boneheaded plot of byzantine complexity, even though all the alleged goals could have been accomplished by far simpler means. You don't need any technical training to see with a sane mind that that is ridiculous. That's what the Taibbi article I posted at the outset gets at quite eloquently. (And, btw, Taibbi is as anti-establishment as it gets. You should read his pieces on Goldman and the financial crisis.)

Edit: underlined for emphasis.

MishaK, I'll agree to disagree...

* There's a wide range of academics involved in 9/11 Truth- see the documentaries and perhaps the online Journal of 9/11 Studies

* The thermite article was peer reviewed with particular care, published four years ago in the Open Chemical Physics Journal

* On the contrary there certainly does seem to be evidence not accountable for by the official conspiracy theory, for instance the war games simulating the same events on the same day, molten metal under all three buildings, and Building 7 the worst and most mysterious building failure in history

* The complaints about complexity of 9/11 being an inside job have been answered in detail by others, and as I said the official conspiracy theory about Al Qaeda, caves in Afghanistan, Norad and so on can also be well perceived as ridiculous

* It's really not wacky or comparable with Roswell or the Face on Mars- these guys have solid arguments to make; take a look at architect Richard Gage's Blueprint for Truth presentation

* In passing, have you see Ring of Power in 30 or so parts on Youtube? That's a lot more speculative but packed with great stuff to think about...

* As for this timeline you want it would take me too long to write it and you can find it elsewhere; there's plenty of clandestine motives for 9/11- the enormous military industrial complex sales, the Homeland Security Bill surveillance sales and controls, the oil, the geopolitics, and even Silverstein's profits- everyone's happy

Quote from: Sean on July 25, 2013, 12:46:23 PM
* The thermite article was peer reviewed with particular care, published four years ago in the Open Chemical Physics Journal

It was "peer reviewed" by other people who share the same biases/work for the same "institutes"/publications. That's not peer review. That's conflict of interest. And still the conclusions are super weak.

Quote from: Sean on July 25, 2013, 12:46:23 PM
* On the contrary there certainly does seem to be evidence not accountable for by the official conspiracy theory, for instance the war games simulating the same events on the same day, molten metal under all three buildings, and Building 7 the worst and most mysterious building failure in history

All very much accountable and accounted for.

Quote from: Sean on July 25, 2013, 12:46:23 PM
* The complaints about complexity of 9/11 being an inside job have been answered in detail by others, and as I said the official conspiracy theory about Al Qaeda, caves in Afghanistan, Norad and so on can also be well perceived as ridiculous

* It's really not wacky or comparable with Roswell or the Face on Mars- these guys have solid arguments to make; take a look at architect Richard Gage's Blueprint for Truth presentation

* In passing, have you see Ring of Power in 30 or so parts on Youtube? That's a lot more speculative but packed with great stuff to think about...

* As for this timeline you want it would take me too long to write it and you can find it elsewhere; there's plenty of clandestine motives for 9/11- the enormous military industrial complex sales, the Homeland Security Bill surveillance sales and controls, the oil, the geopolitics, and even Silverstein's profits- everyone's happy

NO. There are no timelines. There is no coherent story anywhere. Not in Ring of Power, not anywhere. Just a bunch of incredulous/incompetent idiocy and innuendo. I take it you don't know the story either, since you've been noodling around in several posts taking more time and space to say that others have "been answered in detail by others" without ever saying what it is you believe about 9-11. Is it that hard? Or is it simply that you prefer the "the-Lord-works-in-mysterious-ways" aspect of your little religion to remain that way?

What is it I believe about 9/11?? You must have worked that out by now, though I don't believe anything as such...

I find the explosive controlled demolition theory highly persuasive and also attractive for someone of my disposition, out on the limb of society, and in fact no longer in what was supposed, if it was even supposed, to be my society...

You understand that if or when 9/11 is uncovered as a false flag operation on the official level it will be the end of the US in its present form, not to mention discrediting the rest of the Western block- the implications are colossal and I can understand how you feel...

Quote from: Sean on July 25, 2013, 12:46:23 PM* The thermite article was peer reviewed with particular care, published four years ago in the Open Chemical Physics Journal

Hehehe!   That journal is published by Bentham Scientific.  They are quite famous now.  A couple of Cornell University computer scientists did an experiment.  They used a computer program to generate a manuscript of random sentences and sent it to a Bentham Scientific publication.  They received a response saying their manuscript had been accepted after peer review, along with a bill for $800 in publication fees. 

There's the "particular care" that goes into review of Bentham Scientific papers. Heheheh!

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27458/title/OA-publisher-accepts-fake-paper/

I think you need to do a little more research.

Quote from: Sean on July 25, 2013, 01:51:52 PM
I think you need to do a little more research.

Maybe you should be publishing in these Bentham Scientific Journals.  They accepted a string of randomly generated words for publication.  Maybe your thoughts would also pass their peer review.  It would finally put to rest the question, "is there something that makes even less sense than a string or randomly generated words?"


Do you have the $800?  That seems to be the key point.

Quote from: Sean on July 25, 2013, 01:38:13 PMYou understand that if or when 9/11 is uncovered as a false flag operation on the official level it will be the end of the US in its present form, not to mention discrediting the rest of the Western block- the implications are colossal and I can understand how you feel...

I also understand that if they ever find out that Norad shot down Santa Clause in 1962 in a conspiracy to enable Walmart to take over the jelly-bean trade it will be the end of the US in its present form.  I've got my fingers crossed.   ::)

Quote from: Sean on July 25, 2013, 01:38:13 PM
What is it I believe about 9/11?? You must have worked that out by now, though I don't believe anything as such...

No, I haven't. It's completely unclear to me what you believe. You've posted inconsistent things here.

Quote from: Sean on July 25, 2013, 01:38:13 PM
I find the explosive controlled demolition theory highly persuasive and also attractive for someone of my disposition, out on the limb of society, and in fact no longer in what was supposed, if it was even supposed, to be my society...

The point is: the "controlled demolition theory" is only one very small aspect of the big picture. For the controlled demolition to be even half plausible, you have to explain who (within a government full of demonstrated incompetents, screw-ups and leakers and with inadequate budgets) hired hordes of demolition experts, where they sourced the explosives and how they rigged the place (which must have taken months at leaset) without any of the tens of thousands of people who work at the WTC noticing, without anyone having second thoughts and leaking any aspect of this monstrosity. And then you have to explain why they even bothered with airplanes, how the planes got there, how they managed to get the planes to hit ***precisely*** in the place where the facades broke and ***precisely*** where the buldings then later begin their collapse. And once you explain that, I will have lots more questions that will follow from your answers. You see, your ideas aren't even half-baked. They are at best 1/12-baked, because you never bothered to think through the ramifications of what you're saying, because your "disposition" and your self-image of one "out on the limb of society" would prefer not to be confronted with the implausibility of your theories, so you stop thinking when the theory reaches the greatest comfort level for you.

Quote from: Sean on July 25, 2013, 01:38:13 PM
You understand that if or when 9/11 is uncovered as a false flag operation on the official level it will be the end of the US in its present form, not to mention discrediting the rest of the Western block- the implications are colossal and I can understand how you feel...

You understand that the scale of the potential social upheaval caused by the uncovering of the supposed veracity of this conspiracy theory says absolutely nothing about the actual veracity of said theory?

Quote from: Scarpia on July 25, 2013, 01:40:31 PM
Hehehe!   That journal is published by Bentham Scientific.  They are quite famous now.  A couple of Cornell University computer scientists did an experiment.  They used a computer program to generate a manuscript of random sentences and sent it to a Bentham Scientific publication.  They received a response saying their manuscript had been accepted after peer review, along with a bill for $800 in publication fees. 

There's the "particular care" that goes into review of Bentham Scientific papers. Heheheh!

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27458/title/OA-publisher-accepts-fake-paper/

Nice!

You pair are more nuts than me.

Well at least you're thinking things through MishaK, and when you find that those points have some rather plausible answers out there the day of your Pauline conversion may be upon you soon.

However your points are duly noted...

so you stop thinking when the theory reaches the greatest comfort level for you

You won't mind if I stop thinking- need to get some sleep, and just don't care that much anyway. How about a Face on Mars thread?

Someone's really afraid of Occam's razor...

Sweet dreams, Sean.

That awkward moment when you like an anti-drone warfare page on Facebook and find out that the admin is a 9/11 truther and he goes on a long rant through ten separate comments after you politely suggest that posting about such things hurts his cause....

...Not-so-politely comparing 9/11 Truthers to "aliens in Roswell" and "Gov't is hiding Bigfoot" conspiracy theorists may have been a bit harsh, though. Or maybe not.  Either way that was in my second post on that thread.

I also may have said something about how a page advocating against abuse of drones is not supposed to be a Loose Change support group in my second reply after I got a bit annoyed with him.

Quote from: Geo Dude on August 07, 2013, 08:57:03 AM
...Not-so-politely comparing 9/11 Truthers to "aliens in Roswell" and "Gov't is hiding Bigfoot" conspiracy theorists may have been a bit harsh, though. Or maybe not.

On the whole, I am thinking, not.

Quote from: Geo Dude on August 07, 2013, 08:57:03 AM

...Not-so-politely comparing 9/11 Truthers to "aliens in Roswell" and "Gov't is hiding Bigfoot" conspiracy theorists may have been a bit harsh, though. Or maybe not.  Either way that was in my second post on that thread.

You were being a bit harsh with the Bigfoot advocates.  There are, after all, small slivers of evidence that creatures of such a type are scattered throughout the world,  even if conventional zoology can offer fairly plausible and prosaic explanations of that evidence.  There is no such kernel of evidence in the case of 9/11.     And there is a high probability that there are individuals in Roswell who hold passports from Latin American countries and whose mother tongue is Spanish;  so there are aliens there, just not the outer space type conspiricists love to lecture on.

How does a thread like this have almost as many pages as the 21st composer topic?

Rather more pages.

Quote from: modUltralaser on August 08, 2013, 06:16:01 PM
How does a thread like this have almost as many pages as the 21st composer topic?

Rather more pages.

Sean is a genius that way. ::)

8)

(http://4umf.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/bigfoot-hoax.jpeg)

QuoteHow does a thread like this have almost as many pages as the 21st composer topic?

That's because there's more of substance to talk about here...

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on August 08, 2013, 06:05:15 PM
You were being a bit harsh with the Bigfoot advocates.  There are, after all, small slivers of evidence that creatures of such a type are scattered throughout the world,  even if conventional zoology can offer fairly plausible and prosaic explanations of that evidence.  There is no such kernel of evidence in the case of 9/11.     And there is a high probability that there are individuals in Roswell who hold passports from Latin American countries and whose mother tongue is Spanish;  so there are aliens there, just not the outer space type conspiricists love to lecture on.

I can always count on you to inject a bit of humor.:)

Quote from: Geo Dude on August 10, 2013, 03:51:51 PM
I can always count on you to inject a bit of humor.:)

I think Voltaire said something along the lines of

"there are some follies so great that reason is powerless against them,  but there are no follies so great that ridicule will not overthrow them."

When the folly is on a population-wide level of psychosis and its ridicule would unravel worldviews then it's a lot less easy to overthrow.

Hence

(http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/rumsfeld-bush-cheney3-320x239.jpg)