See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Flight 77 Cockpit Door Never Opened During 9/11 “Hijack”
Source:
Rock Creek Free Press
URL Source: http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/285492999/flt77fdr
Published: Dec 15, 2009
Author: Sheila Casey
Post Date: 2010-07-14 02:07:35 by FormerLurker
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: Flight 77, 9/11, Black Box
Views: 30422
Comments: 913
Flight 77 Cockpit Door Never Opened During 9/11 “Hijack"
By Sheila Casey / Rock Creek Free Press
Pilots for 9/11 Truth has reported that the data stream from the flight data recorder (FDR) for American Airlines flight 77, which allegedly struck the Pentagon on 9/11, shows that the cockpit door never opened during the entire 90 minute flight. The data was provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which has refused to comment.
The FDR is one of two “black boxes” in every commercial airliner, which are used after accidents to help determine the cause of a crash. One black box records flight data, the other records voice data (everything said in the cockpit during the flight). With those two sets of data, NTSB investigators can usually piece together the events that led to a crash. The status of the door to the cockpit is checked every four seconds throughout a flight and relayed as a simple 0 or 1, where 0=closed and 1=open, with approximately 1,300 door status checks performed during AA77’s 90 minute flight. Every one of those door status checks shows as a 0, indicating that the door to the cockpit never opened during the entire flight.
Accident investigators monitor the cockpit door with the FDR because it may yield clues to pilot error in a crash. The FDR begins recording once the pilots are in their seats and readying for takeoff, and the plane cannot take off unless the FDR is working.
The official story about flight 77 is that five Muslim terrorists brandishing box cutters forced their way into the cockpit and herded two pilots, four flight attendants and all the passengers to the back of the plane. This story came into being via Ted Olson, US Solicitor General, who told CNN — that he received two phone calls from his wife Barbara Olson, a passenger on the doomed flight. Ted Olson’s story changed several times. Sometimes he claimed that the calls from his wife were made from seat back phones, other times that she used her cell phone.
According to American Airlines customer service, the American Airlines maintenance manual for that aircraft, and American Airlines Captain Ralph Kolstad, seatback phones on 757s had been deactivated prior to 9/11/01. (They were later removed entirely, as they never worked well.)
Barbara Olson couldn’t have used a cell phone either: numerous 9/11 researchers, most notably David Ray Griffin, have pointed out that cell phones did not work on airplanes on 9/11. The speed and altitude of a commercial airliner both present overwhelming obstacles to a cell phone’s need to lock onto a cell tower and then hand off to another tower in a new location.
It was the FBI that revealed the evidence that decisively disproves Ted Olson’s story. In the Zacarias Moussaoui trial in 2006, the FBI presented a report on the cell phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. Their report on AA77 shows that there was only one phone call from Barbara Olson, but that it was an unconnected call lasting zero seconds. So Ted Olson either lied about receiving calls from his wife or was deceived into believing he received calls from her.
According to the UK Telegraph, Barbara Olson delayed her flight on 9/11 so that she could have breakfast with her husband on his birthday. That delay put her on the doomed flight. Ted Olson remarried in 2006 to tax attorney Lady Booth, whom he reportedly met the year after Barbara died.
There are numerous oddities and contradictions about AA77’s black boxes.
The government claims that the voice data recorder was damaged during the crash and that no usable data was retrieved from it. If true, this would be the first time in aviation history that a solid-state data recorder was destroyed during a crash.
While it was widely reported in the media that the FDR for AA77 was found at 4 am on September 14, 2001, the file containing the FDR data was dated over four hours earlier. In other words, we are asked to believe that the data from the FDR was downloaded prior to the FDR being found.
Researcher Aidan Monagahan has established that the NTSB does not have either serial or part numbers for the FDRs from AA77. The NTSB’s own handbook indicates that the part number and serial number of the FDR are required for data readout of the FDR. The NTSB did not have this information, giving us another reason to question how the FDR data was created.
Structural engineer Allyn Kilsheimer claimed that he personally found AA77’s black box on 9/11. But in the Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths, Kilsheimer is quoted as saying, “I stood on a pile of debris that we later found contained the black box 70;”
Kilsheimer’s story changes again in August 2007 in a piece done by the History Channel, “The 9/11 Conspiracies,” where he claims “I tripped over something; it was the black box.”
In earlier work, Pilots for 9/11 Truth (P4T) has determined that the same data set provided by the NTSB shows the plane too high to hit the Pentagon, based on an altimeter that uses air pressure to calibrate altitude.
As reported in the April 2009 Rock Creek Free Press, Citizen Investigation Team, citizen journalists from southern California, has collected evidence from 14 eyewitnesses that shows that the plane seen that morning near the Pentagon did not hit the building, but flew over it at the moment explosives detonated in the Pentagon, leading observers to conclude that the plane had crashed into the Pentagon.
Questions about what happened at the Pentagon have intrigued 9/11 researchers for years, beginning with photos from the alleged crash scene which do not show the wreckage of a plane.
This new evidence, showing that the cockpit door never opened during flight, is another nail in the coffin of the official story about flight 77. Clearly, if the cockpit door never opened, then hijackers did not storm the cockpit and herd the pilots to the back of the plane. The data, which originated from the government, does not support the government’s story.
Why would the government release data which contradicts its own version of events? It is possible they were just sloppy, or that they never anticipated that anyone would parse the data as carefully as Pilots for 9/11 Truth have. They may have also felt secure, that regardless of what damning revelations were contained in the FDR data, no mainstream media outlet would give them ink or air time, keeping the official story intact for the vast majority of Americans who receive their news from mainstream sources.
Rob Balsamo, founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, stated: “We have not located any independently verified data which confirms the government’s story. The FBI and NTSB refuse to comment.” Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals from around the globe who are investigating the government’s claims about the attacks of 9/11.
Sheila Casey is a DC based journalist. Her work has appeared in The Denver Post, Reuters, Chicago Sun-Times, Dissident Voice and Common Dreams.
Poster Comment:
Here's a link to the Pilots for 9/11 Truth articles on the matter. 9/11: PENTAGON AIRCRAFT HIJACK IMPOSSIBLE
(1 image)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 902.
#18. To: All (#0)
Flight 77 Cockpit Door Never Opened During 9/11 “Hijack” Once again a CT site fails to report all the information, holding back full disclosure of facts that will fail to support wild non-hijacking theories. Thereby serving as an instigator for conflict between Six Percenters hardliners and the much larger "certain elements within USG allowed 911 to happen" group. The flight data recorder was at least partially melted, and not only did not indicate any movement of Flight 75's cabin door on September 11, it also did not show any movement for 40 hours and 11 flights prior to Flight 75 on September 11. Why aren't the CT sites saying this? This information was submitted as evidence at the Massoui trial in Virginia. Why aren't the weasely "Scholars" and "Truthers" disclosing it? The NTSB reported that "The majority of the recording tape was fused into a solid block of charred plastic." No usable segments of tape were found inside the recorder.[85] The Flight Data Recorder failed to record certain parameters with certainty. Among the uncertain parameters was the status of the cockpit door, which showed no sign of having been opened during the hijacking or previous 40 hours, including 11 flights prior to the hijacking."
Isn't it just so awful that all these intelligent and well educated people refuse to believe the gubbermint and insist on forming conclusions based on the evidence. Of course you are paid to try and explain all the evidence away as something else. What's your back up career? Guard in a Snuff Camp?
Of course you are paid to try and explain all the evidence away as something else. What's your back up career? Guard in a Snuff Camp? On these exchanges you've been slowly but inexorably exposing yourself as a pompous windbag, devoid of real research skills or ability to analyze complex information, devoid of ability to consider additional information that upends existing rigidly held beliefs, a self-righteous ideologue unwilling to focus on common factors, and a codependent with the whatever "evil government" is the cornerstone of all your k00ky, $hitbrain, long-debunked beliefs that 94% of the country rejects out of hand. What evidence, fuckwit? The false claim was made that the doors to the cabin did not open, based on amateur cherry-picking of government reports and pointedly excluding statements that don't support k00k blather. The doors were not reported opened on damaged recording equipment does not equal the doors not opening at all. Especially when there is zero evidence doors opening on 11 flights and 40 hours previous to 911. The doors did open and close. The information on their opening and closing, along with certain other information, could not be recovered from seriously damaged equipment. So what does that make you? A classic divisive "False Front Operator" focused on turmoil and strife instead of workable solutions. Just like 1917 commie double agents who accused everyone they couldn't control of being counter- revolutionary conspirators. Not that you'll ever become that important. Once again, fool. As brainless as certain elements in the USG are, even they won't pay good money to attempt to divert dissenters from hare-brained k00kologies that less than 94% of the population accepts anyway. I'm here because I have a little extra time on my hands, and I hate liars, k00k groupthink, and people who think they can shout me down with recycled lame accusations, and windy off-topic dissertations. You've been rebutted above with complete info about how the false info about Flight 77 cabin doors not being opened, comes from k00kigarchs' dishonest selective quoting of reports, and incompetent failure to completely do research. So now all you have left is your dickless insults and your crackpot "I'm important enough that 'they' need to pay someone to post to me.'" No, idiot. You're just a target for my debunking skills. On every exchange you've been rebutted with specific facts, and you then reply with stale recycled insults. You're pwned and terminal case loser. So what's left? Not willing to shut your pompous utterances, you go to hyperbole, mocking, gaybanter, scatology, and accusations of being paid by "them." No loser. You're not worth spending money on and your arm-waving "great conspiracy" replies to specific factual rebuttals speak for themselves. Anybody with an ounce of brains can see the entire WOT is a disaster that's headed toward spectacular failure. "They" got their war but can't manage it. But "they're" supposed to be so good at running operations they pulled off the mother of all conspiracies without a single defector, or single piece of forensic evidence, coming forth to spill the beans for 8 1/2 years running. Enjoy your fantasy world "Useful Idiot."
The REAL k00k blather is coming from you, in that you're trying to pass off the damaged cockpit voice recorder from Flight 77 as the flight data recorder.
Your original statement, Post #859 on other thread, was the cabin doors were not opened and closed during Flight 77. This is a false k00ksite claim. The facts are, no evidence is reported on crash-damaged equipment, of doors opening and closing for Flight 77, or of 40 hours and 11 flights previous to it. Which does not equal doors did not open or close at all. Instead of acknowledging that error you shift the discussion to quibbling over voice reporters vs. flight data recorders, even though both were damaged and found at the same time, and neither shows any information about cabin doors to make your case.
Your original statement, Post #859 on other thread, was the cabin doors were not opened and closed during Flight 77. You are a deceptive and dishonest individual. The article here states that researchers who are members of "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" have determined that the FDR data provided by the NTSB indicates that the cockpit door was NOT opened during the entire flight. That is NOT unusual, as the door normally remains closed during flight, except that it WOULD indicate that Flight 77 was NOT hijacked. Secondly, and you need to get this through your thick skull, the fact is that the flight data recorder ONLY records data while the engines are running. Once the plane lands and the engines are shutdown between flights, the flight data recorder STOPS recording, so the fact that ALL of the flights recorded on the FDR indicate the door was closed is NOT unusual AT ALL, in fact it is to be expected. This is a false k00ksite claim. You engage in posting images with deceptive text in an effort to "debunk" what is reported here. YOU are the k00kaburger here bud, not any of the pilots at the Pilots for 9/11 Truth website. The facts are, no evidence is reported on crash-damaged equipment, of doors opening and closing for Flight 77, or of 40 hours and 11 flights previous to it. Which does not equal doors did not open or close at all. The FDR uses a MEMORY CHIP, and it was NOT "crash-damaged", in fact the NTSB itself reports that the FDR was working properly. Instead of acknowledging that error you shift the discussion to quibbling over voice reporters vs. flight data recorders, even though both were damaged and found at the same time, and neither showed any information about cabin doors to make your case. Again, you attempt to muddy the water and claim the damaged cockpit voice recorder TAPE is actually the UNDAMAGED solid state FLIGHT DATA RECORDER MEMORY MODULE, where the voice recorder simply records conversations in the cockpit onto tape, the FDR records AIRCRAFT PARAMETERS onto a memory module, and is contained in a crash proof box. The BOX which CONTAINED the memory module had impact, smoke, and fire damage, but the MEMORY MODULE itself was intact and functional.
You originally made the claim, quoting a half-baked Six Percenter k00ksite, that data shows Flight 77 cabin doors weren't opened or closed at all during its flight. I rebutted that by showing flight reports citing unavailability of any information whatsoever about the cabin doors, which isn't the same as data that does exist and accurately shows the workings or non workings of cabin doors. All your subsequent statements are attempts to evade acknowleging that in fact you have no basis to make your claims of supporting evidence for doors not opening. You are of course free to cite your usual bogeyman of eebil gubmint conspiracies and personal asides as part of your SOP smokescreen.
You originally made the claim, quoting a half-baked Six Percenter k00ksite, that data shows Flight 77 cabin doors weren't opened or closed at all during its flight. I have no idea what you mean by 6-percenter kooksite, other than the sources YOU use to base your claims. The individuals who operate the Pilots for 9/11 Truth website are aviation experts and airline pilots with decades of experience flying commerical aircraft. YOU are the KOOK, not them. The NTSB data indicates that the COCKPIT DOOR was NOT OPENED during Flight 77's entire flight leading to the Pentagon on 9/11, that is true. I rebutted that by showing flight reports citing unavailability of any information whatsoever about the cabin doors, which isn't the same as data that does exist and accurately shows the workings or non workings of cabin doors. Cockpit door status IS collected on 757's, and IS a valid parameter in regards to the Boing technical documentation. The door is SUPPOSED to be CLOSED during flight, which the FDR indicates IS in fact the case. All your subsequent statements are attempts to evade acknowleging that in fact you have no basis to make your claims of supporting evidence for doors not opening. You are of course free to cite your usual bogeyman of eebil gubmint conspiracies and personal asides as part of your SOP smokescreen You are a shillster, that much is obvious. C'mon, posting pictures of a damaged COCKPIT VOICE RECORDER and trying pass it off as the FLIGHT DATA RECORDER? Are you some low level worker they found on a H1-B visa or something?
False enough to be an outright lie after you've been pointed to the supporting reports 3 different times. The NTSB report says there is "NO DATA AVAILABLE" for the cockpit doors or for 40 hours and 11 flights before the 911 flight 75. Again. Both black boxes were recovered the same place, same time, seriously damaged. Neither shows any evidence of cockpit activities. As in zero evidence. You can't use the data from either device to claim the NTSB says the doors didn't open. The NTSB says they don't have that data from either device, not that they have it, but it shows no activity. CVR, FDR, or a combination are equally unable to support your k00kclaims.
The cockpit voice recorder WAS damaged and unusable. The BOX THAT CONTAINED the FLIGHT DATA RECORDER was damaged, but the MEMORY MODULE stored WITHIN the BOX was NOT damaged. The data within the MEMORY MODULE was PRESENTED by the NTSB as EVIDENCE of the aircraft's flight data and parameters.
The NTSB listed specific exclusions from the data and parameters. Two exclusions listed - there are others in addition - are any data whatsoever about either cabin door movement, or about cabin conversations. On reports that you youself cut, pasted, and posted. Without comprehending. Furthermore a Flight 11 stewardess did make a call after the hijackers entered the cabin and took over, giving names, seat numers, and descriptions of the attackers. The calls were recorded and transcripts are available. Yet another disbunking of the "cabin doors were never opened" lie. You're illiterate.
The NTSB listed specific exclusions from the data and parameters. Did you truly think they would state that the parameter is confirmed, being that it would indicate the hijacking never took place? The plane wouldn't have taken off if the sensor wasn't working, that is a safety measure programmed into the aircraft flight computers, where if there's a fault with the flight data recorder or any of its sensors, the aircraft will not be able to takeoff. Two exclusions listed - there are others in addition - are any data whatsoever about either cabin door movement, or about cabin conversations. As far as your habit of mixing apples with oranges, the cockpit voice recorder tape being damaged has nothing to do with the digital information stored on the flight recorder's memory module. It's obvious you're tap dancing here, sorry, but I'm not that easily amused or distracted. Furthermore a Flight 11 stewardess did make a call after the hijackers entered the cabin and took over, giving names, seat numers, and descriptions of the attackers. The calls were recorded and transcripts are available. Yet another disbunking of the "cabin doors were never opened" lie. The flight data indicates the door was NOT opened, and not only is the cockpit door opened by a switch INSIDE the cockpit, and the pilot a burly Navy vet who flew fighter jets in the Navy who would NOT have been overcome by a scrawny arab with a box cutter, and the fact that cell phone calls were next to impossible from an aircraft at cruising altitude in 2001, the fact remains that the supposed "hijacker", Hani Hanjour, couldn't even fly a Cessna, never mind a large heavy multi-engine jet. Even the FBI has indicated that Ted Olzon's wife never spoke to her husband on her cellphone during the flight. It's obvious that YOU are perpetrating a lie, and are part of the 9/11 coverup. You are in fact a traitor to this nation.
A lie. The NTSB flight data report says there is no information available for cabin doors on Flight 175 or 11 other flights going back 40 hours. Furthermore a stewardess made a phone call during the hijacking after the hijackers entered the cabin and took over, giving names, seat numbers, physical descriptions, and summaries of conditions and injuries to passengers and crew. Another lie. There are over 30 phone calls from Flight 75 logged and listed. There are also phone calls from Flights 11, 175, and 77 logged and listed. Some of the receivers of these calls presumed they were from cell phones when they actually were actually from on board satellite phones. Wow, what evidence of a conspiracy, calling a satellite phone a cell phone when you get incoming. Ted Olson's wife calling her husband is one such logged call. Her husband says she called collect, presumably from a satellite phone he first identified as a cell phone - which could still make calls although with less than 100% service. According to Debunk911myths.org, all but two calls from Flight 93 were made on air phones, not cell phones, and both calls lasted about a minute before being dropped.[119] Brenda Raney, Verizon Wireless spokesperson, said that Flight 93 was supported by several cell sites.[117] There were reportedly three phone calls from Flight 11, five from Flight 175, and three calls from Flight 77. Two calls from these flights were recorded, placed by flight attendants Madeleine Sweeney and Betty Ong on Flight 11.
You: Another lie. At the Moussaoui trial, the fact that there was only 1 call to Ted Olson from his wife that lasted 0 seconds was presented.
During the FBI investigation and press release phase, the terms "aircraft onboard phone" and "cell phone" were frequently interchanged. Like someone who gets an incoming cell call is going to instantly know what precise phone type it's coming from. So there are the phone calls whether "onboard" or cell," and their recipients logged and documented. What conversations went on with those calls? How to continue executing the Mother of All Conspiracies without anybody finding out? Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners ...by Prof David Ray Griffin Having concluded that I had probably made an error, I wrote a retraction, entitled “Barbara Olson’s Alleged Call from AA 77: A Correction About Onboard Phones,” which was posted May 7, 2007. Having said that my earlier claim that AA 757s did not have onboard phones was “wrong, at least probably,” I concluded this essay by saying: “In this brief essay, I have tried to exemplify what I have always said people should do when they find that they have made errors, especially about issues of great importance: Correct them quickly, forthrightly, and publicly,"
From Could Barbara Olson Have Made Those Calls? Futhermore... In the course of doing research for this article, we learned, to our amazement, that even if, contrary to our evidence, Flight 77 did have functioning onboard phones, the US government has now said, implicitly, that Ted Olson’s claim about receiving two calls from his wife that morning is untrue. As we mentioned earlier, the FBI report on phone calls from AA planes on 9/11 does not cite records from the DOJ showing that any calls from AA 77 were received that morning. Instead, the FBI report refers merely to four “connected calls to unknown numbers.” The 9/11 Commission, putting the best possible spin on this report, commented: “The records available for the phone calls from American 77 do not allow for a determination of which of [these four calls] represent the two between Barbara and Ted Olson, although the FBI and DOJ believe that all four represent communications between Barbara Olson and her husband’s office.”27 That is, it must be said, a very strange conclusion: If Ted Olson reported receiving only two calls, why would the Commission conclude that the DOJ had received four connected calls from his wife? That conclusion is, in any case, starkly contradicted by evidence about phone calls from Flight 77 presented by the US government at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in 2006.28 Far from attributing all four of the “connected calls to unknown numbers” to Barbara Olson, as the 9/11 Commission suggested, the government’s evidence here attributes none of them to her, saying instead that each of them was from an “unknown caller.” The only call attributed to Barbara Olson, moreover, is an “unconnected call” to the Department of Justice, which was said to have been attempted at “9:18:58” and to have lasted “0 seconds.” According to the US government in 2006, in other words, Barbara Olson attempted a call to the DOJ, but it did not go through.29 The government itself has presented evidence in a court of law, therefore, that implies that unless its former solicitor general was the victim of two faked phone calls, he was lying. It may seem beyond belief that the US government would have failed to support Ted Olson’s claim. We ourselves, as we indicated, were amazed at this development. However, it would not be the first time that the FBI---surely the agency that prepared this report about phone calls from the flights30---had failed to support the official story about 9/11. We refer to the fact that when Rex Tomb, the FBI’s chief of investigative publicity, was asked why the bureau’s website on “Usama bin Laden” does not list 9/11 as one of the terrorist acts for which he is wanted, he replied: “[T]he FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”31
All this arm-waving about cell phones, is to try to obfuscate the voluminous evidence that Flight 11 was hijacked, both because the cabin security was breached and calls were logged and recorded, regardless of what amateurs selectively pick from research reports, and also because those calls describe the people doing the hijackings. So you're left fighting a rear guard action while getting pushed back, your resistance consisting of deny, deny, deny without bringing anything new of your own to the discussion. In other words, per k00kology, we now have 5 separate conspiracies for just 1 flight out of 4 on Sept 11 2001. And the other 3 flights have at least 5 more of their own conspiracies, making a total of 4 x 5 = 20 conspiracies that must be maintained at all costs. And yet the same people who produce and manage 20+ stageshow presentations perfectly for 8 years, can't even get enough regular session funds to pay for the war they wanted and which they've made the longest and costliest in American history. Riiight.
PROVE that cabin security was breached. It's not impossible to fake phone calls, hell, I can set my caller ID to display any number I want. An intelligence agency with tons of money could utilize voice synthesis technology to make anyone's voice sound like somebody else's. As far as Olson, it's clear as day that either somebody other than his wife called him, or he's lying.
Just how many conspiracies are you Six Percenters going to claim are being managed with zero defections, even though the war the conspiracies are supposed to be done for, is lurching towards stagnation, failure, and possibly even world wide defeat.
huh? anyone here capable of translating this to English?
(1) Just how many conspiracies are you Six Percenters going to claim are being managed with zero defections? Just a wee bit more complicated than mindlessly repeating "911 was an inside job, 911 was an inside job, 911 is an inside job" over and over.
Seriously, still trying to debunk the controlled demolition of the towers? That is akin to debunking the laws of physics, good luck with that.
Oh, he'd do that too if his boss told him to. Suddenly Sir Isaac Newton would become a lazy crank who sat under a tree, was hit in the head with an apple of all things, and then thought it mean't something. Another typical "Conspiracy Theorist". A k00k. And what's with this rate of change stuff? A bunch of gobblydegook that he even had to invent his own mystic symbols to describe. And the Earth is flat "everybody can see that", and rocks don't fall from the sky either.
Seriously, still trying to debunk the controlled demolition of the towers? That is akin to debunking the laws of physics, good luck with that. Oh, he'd do that too if his boss told him to. Suddenly Sir Isaac Newton would become a lazy crank. You flockwits are about as far as being from "Sir Isaac Newton" as you can get except for 1 factor - something did bounce off your noggins. I cannot think of a greater exercise in Western civ denying reality and wasting time this side of the Middle Age superstitions. On 911 we have
You flockwits are about as far as being from "Sir Isaac Newton" as you can get except for 1 factor - something did bounce off your noggins. I cannot think of a greater exercise in Western civ denying reality and wasting time this side of the Middle Age superstitions. On 911 we have (1) A man who played an instrumental role in the guerilla fighting that eventually forced the communists to leave Afghanistan, saying he will do the same thing to the US as to the Russians, following through on his threats by destroying 2 US embassies and several US military facilities over the next decade. But somehow not playing any role in the 911 attacks, because he stayed in some bomb-resistance mountain bases after escaping several volleys of cruise missiles sent to his regular living place and because briefly he denied being behind them (2) Four aircraft reporting hijackings, with 3 of them observed crashing into buildings by hundreds to thousands of observers, (3) Major damage to other buildings from the crashes that happened in New York City, (4) The release of these 3 crashes of gigajoules of energy which somehow had no effect on the buildings, which are alleged to have been brought down by alternative totally unconnected and difficult to fully explain in detail methods, (5) Firemen saying they will be "pulling" away from one crash damaged building because "the structural stability is not there," (6) Saying that dozens of phone calls recorded and recollected by people during the jijackings didn't ever happen, and (7) Saying the people who got the remains from forensic DNA analysis didn't actually receive the bodies or body parts of people dying according to the detailed autopsy reports. What a pantload to expect people other than dingbat Six Percenters to believe! Speaking of Pantloads how's the weather in Virginia today? 1. The fact that someone is hostile does not bequeath upon them magic powers to cause cover exercises to occur, the FBI to secure and sequester all of the 32 or so videotapes from sites around the Pentagon the afternoon of the attack (which 9 years later are still under lock and key), nor does it explain how that same CIA Contract Agent was able to shut down NORAD. Blowing Osama Ben Forgotten up into some mythical bogeyman does not vitiate obvious facts such as that the Air Traffic Controllers who watched this all unfold on their scopes are still under a gag order 9 years later. 2. None of the Aircraft reported a hijacking and to assert otherwise is simply a lie. None of the pilots or co-pilots (8 people on 4 aircraft) reported being hijacked or, very telling, sent the four digit hijack code which takes about 2 seconds to tap out. Once it is possible, twice is stretching it, but 4 out 4? I don't think so. These were highly trained ex-military pilots who were used to operating under deadly stress. That not 1 of them sent the code is preposterous UNLESS the avionics had been tampered with. That a madman in a cave in the vastness of far Tora Bora could do that on 4 aircraft would require a very sophisticated technical team and the logistics of which would make "Mission Impossible" look like a Cake Walk. 3. No one has maintained that the aircraft did not do damage to the buildings in New York. That is a Strawman Argument. However, there is no evidence which supports the stupid theory that 2 airplanes can make 3 buildings collapse in a manner identical to a controlled demolition. I know several implausible scenarios have been tried to force the evidence into that box, but for some strange reason it keeps squeezing out. Imagine that. 4. First a "Joule" is an extremely small amount of energy so even a gigajoule or two, while large, is only a fraction of the energy released in a nuclear explosion. For comparison a standard stick of dynamite releases 2.1 Megajoules of energy (7.5 MJ/Kg). It sounds bigger than it is because most people are not familiar with the tiny amount of energy represented by 1 Joule. And the size of the energy is not as important as how the energy is directed and into what. Here is where scale becomes important. A gigajoule of energy released into an ant hill is going to obliterate it out of existence, that same amount of energy released into the side of an open pit mine is going to create a lot of work for the men hauling the ore out, but a gigajoule released into an open structure with plenty of avenues for the compression wave to escape is not as significant. Its still not good, but not enough to knock down a structure as beefy as the the twin towers. In the case of the towers they were designed to withstand that level of impact and remain standing. However, that is almost beside the point as the series of unlikely events, and the strained reasoning of the "Official Conspiracy Theory™" do not account for the observed phenomena. If one takes the time to study a few catastrophic collapses of built structures then the one thing that stands out is that there is always one point where the failure of the structure begins i.e., a weak point that gives way first. So, in a normal failure the structure collapses in the direction of the point of failure. That is not what is observed at WTC 1,2, and 7. No, instead they collapse simultaneously in 360 degrees, SYMMETRICALLY, and subside into their own footprint at a rate of collapse approaching free fall - also not a typical phenomena associated with a normal catastrophic engineering failure. What is the closest simile to the observed phenomena is a controlled demolition wherein the underlying structure is removed by demolition charges thus allowing gravity to uniformly collapse the structure in a controlled linear collapse into its own footprint. 5. Structural instability does not equal a symmetrical, initiated at the same instant at all 4 corners, 360 degree collapse of a structure into its own footprint. Your comment is intentionally misleading so as to imply that reports of localized instability equals a collapse of the structure in the manner observed. 6. The only evidence of the alleged phone calls is insubstantial. The known operating charateristics of analog cellphones makes it very tenuous to assert that even one call was made. As you well know the famous "Barbara Olson" "calls" did not occur. You are simply blustering and trying to divert in a maze of confusion. 7. I have never argued that. I have not commented on it at all as a matter of fact. It is quite a "Pantload" to presume that people will stop observing, thinking, and drawing logical conclusions from the observed evidence just because you write a spittle flecked post and hold your breath until you turn blue. Childish temper tantrums are not evidence. Public Meltdowns and the use of shaky evidence and outright lies is not a valid argument. I would say you are so full of shit that your eyes are brown but that would be rude. Instead I'll just shake my head and laugh at your infantile antics.
You're the windbag who's alleging no connections between a guerilla leader who made violent threats against the US and carried them out over a decade, the hijackings of 3 aircraft by people identified as his followers, the plane crashes into buildings that subsequently experienced major or complete collapses within a few hours of their crashes, and unspecified details of alleged massive conspiracy plots, from an unspecified cabal of people who convincingly have shown themselves unable to to manage the very war they wanted. Those all are symptoms of a major reality block. Get your own head on straight before you infer anything wrong with people trying to help you get your bearings in the real world.
You mean the ones that are alive and well and have stated publically that they weren't involved, with the obvious proof being that they're still alive? There were 4 aircraft BTW.
'Boy seems a bit wound too tight. I think he needs to relax a bit, but the Sgt. in charge of his PsyOps Unit probably won't let him. Slave driver. Well, you know what they say about Sergeants - "they reproduce by fission - like all bacteria".
They probaly have some AI program analyze his comments and responses for "win/fail" scores, and he's not allowed to go to lunch until his score hits a certain level, or drops so low he's given a mandatory timeout.
The people who believe the government's insane conspiracy theory MAY be subjects of an Artificial Stupidity program that succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of its creator.
ROTFL .... even the president's wife was in the WH on the morning of 9/11; GWBush couldn't find her there was so much pandemonium. Former first lady details problems with communication system TODAY books In her memoir, "Spoken from the Heart," former first lady Laura Bush shares a detailed account of being in the White House during the terrorist attacks. An excerpt. Goodness in the land of the living Tuesday morning, September 11, was sunny and warm, the sky a brilliant cerulean blue. The day before, I had hosted a lunch for Janette Howard, wife of the Australian prime minister, while George met with her husband, John. My friends who had come for the National Book Festival had all flown home, and even George was gone, in Florida for a school visit. George H. W. Bush and Bar had spent the night, but they had already left at 7:00 a.m. to catch an early flight. And I had what I considered a big day planned. I was set to arrive at the Capitol at 9:15 to brief the Senate Education Committee, chaired by Edward M. Kennedy, on the findings of the early childhood development conference that I’d held in July. In the afternoon, we were hosting the entire Congress and their families for the annual Congressional Picnic. The South Lawn of the White House was already covered with picnic tables awaiting their fluttering cloths, and Tom Perini from Buffalo Gap, Texas, was setting up his chuckwagons. Our entertainment would be old-fashioned square dancing and Texas swing music by Ray Benson and his classic band, Asleep at the Wheel. I finished dressing in silence, going over my statement again in my mind. I was very nervous about appearing before a Senate committee and having news cameras trained on me. Had the TV been turned on, I might have heard the first fleeting report of a plane hitting the North Tower of the World Trade Center at the tip of Manhattan as I walked out the door to the elevator. Instead, it was the head of my Secret Service detail, Ron Sprinkle, who leaned over and whispered the news in my ear as I entered the car a few minutes after 9:00 a.m. for the ride to the Russell Senate Office Building, adjacent to the Capitol. Andi Ball, now my chief of staff at the White House; Domestic Policy Advisor Margaret Spellings; and I speculated about what could have happened: a small plane, a Cessna perhaps, running into one of those massive towers on this perfect September morning. We wondered too if Hillary Clinton might decide not to attend the committee briefing, since the World Trade Center was in New York. We were driving up Pennsylvania Avenue when word came that the South Tower had been hit. The car fell silent; we sat in mute disbelief. One plane might be a strange accident; two planes were clearly an attack. I thought about George and wondered if the Secret Service had already hustled him to the motorcade and begun the race to Air Force One to return home. Two minutes later, at 9:16 a.m., we pulled up at the entrance to the Russell Building. In the time it had taken to drive the less than two miles between the White House and the Capitol, the world as I knew it had irrevocably changed. Senator Kennedy was waiting to greet me, according to plan. We both knew when we met that the towers had been hit and, without a word being spoken, knew that there would be no briefing that morning. Together, we walked the short distance to his office. He began by presenting me with a limited-edition print; it was a vase of bright daffodils, a copy of a painting he had created for his wife, Victoria, and given to her on their wedding day. The print was inscribed to me and dated September 11, 2001. An old television was turned on in a corner of the room, and I glanced over to see the plumes of smoke billowing from the Twin Towers. Senator Kennedy kept his eyes averted from the screen. Instead he led me on a tour of his office, pointing out various pictures, furniture, pieces of memorabilia, even a framed note that his brother Jack had sent to their mother when he was a child, in which he wrote, “Teddy is getting fat.” The senator, who would outlive all his brothers by more than forty years, laughed at the note as he showed it to me, still finding it amusing. All the while, I kept glancing over at the glowing television screen. My skin was starting to crawl, I wanted to leave, to find out what was going on, to process what I was seeing, but I felt trapped in an endless cycle of pleasantries. It did not occur to me to say, “Senator Kennedy, what about the towers?” I simply followed his lead, and he may have feared that if we actually began to contemplate what had happened in New York, I might dissolve into tears. Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the ranking Republican on the committee and one of our very good friends in the Senate—Judd had played Al Gore for George during mock debates at the ranch the previous fall—was also designated to escort me to the committee room, and he arrived just as I was completing the tour. Senator Kennedy invited us to sit on the couches, and he continued chatting about anything other than the horrific images unfolding on the tiny screen across the room. I looked around his shoulder but could see very little, and I was still trying to pay attention to him and the thread of his conversation. It seemed completely unreal, sitting in this elegant, sunlit office as an immense tragedy unfolded. We sat as human beings driven by smoke, flame, and searing heat jumped from the tops of the Twin Towers to end their lives and as firemen in full gear began the climb up the towers’ stairs. I have often wondered if the small talk that morning was Ted Kennedy’s defense mechanism, if after so much tragedy—the combat death of his oldest brother in World War II, the assassinations of his brothers Jack and Robert, and the deaths of nephews, including John Jr., whose body he identified when it was pulled from the cold, dark waters off Martha’s Vineyard—if after all of those things, he simply could not look upon another grievous tragedy. At about 9:45, after George had made a brief statement to the nation, which we watched, clustered around a small television that was perched on the receptionist’s desk, Ted Kennedy, Judd Gregg, and I walked out to tell reporters that my briefing had been postponed. I said, “You heard from the president this morning, and Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg and I both join his statement in saying that our hearts and our prayers go out to the victims of this act of terrorism, and that our support goes to the rescue workers. And all of our prayers are with everyone there right now.” As I turned to exit, Laurence McQuillan of USA Today asked a question. “Mrs. Bush, you know, children are kind of struck by all this. Is there a message you could tell to the nation’s—” I didn’t even wait for him to finish but began, “Well, parents need to reassure their children everywhere in our country that they’re safe.” As we walked out of the briefing room, the cell phone of my advance man, John Meyers, rang. A friend told him that CNN was reporting that an airplane had crashed into the Pentagon. Within minutes, the order would be given to evacuate the White House and the Capitol. I walked back to Senator Kennedy’s office and then began moving quickly toward the stairs, to reach my car to return to the White House. Suddenly, the lead Secret Service agent turned to me and my staff and said that we needed to head to the basement immediately. We took off at a run; Judd Gregg suggested his private office, which was in the lower level and was an interior room. The Secret Service then told John that they were waiting for an Emergency Response Team to reach the Capitol. The team would take me, but my staff would be left behind. Overhearing the conversation, I turned back and said, “No, everyone is coming.” We entered Judd’s office, where I tried to call Barbara and Jenna, and Judd tried to call his daughter, who was in New York. Then we sat and talked quietly about our families and our worries for them, and the overwhelming shock we both felt. Sometime after 10:00 a.m., when the entire Capitol was being emptied, when White House staffers had fled barefoot and sobbing through the heavy iron gates with Secret Service agents shouting at them to “Run, run!” my agents collected me. They now included an additional Secret Service detail and an Emergency Response Team, dressed in black tactical clothing like a SWAT force and moving with guns drawn. As we raced through the dim hallways of the Russell Building, past panicked staffers emptying from their offices, the ERT team shouted “GET BACK” and covered my every move with their guns. We reached the underground entrance; the doors on the motorcade slammed shut, and we sped off. The Secret Service had decided to take me temporarily to their headquarters, located in a nondescript federal office building a few blocks from the White House. Following the Oklahoma City bombing, their offices had been reinforced to survive a large-scale blast. Outside our convoy windows, the city streets were clogged with people evacuating their workplaces and trying to reach their own homes. By the time I had reached my motorcade, Flight 93 had crashed in a Pennsylvania field and the west side of the Pentagon had begun to collapse. Judd Gregg walked alone to the underground Senate parking garage and retrieved his car, the last one left there. He pulled out of the garage and headed home, across the Fourteenth Street Bridge and past the Pentagon, thick with smoke and flame. In the intervening years, Judd and I, and many others, were left to contemplate what if Flight 93 had not been forced down by its passengers into an empty field; what if, shortly after 10:00 a.m., it had reached the Capitol Dome? We arrived at the Secret Service building via an underground entrance and were escorted first to the director’s office and then belowground to a windowless conference room with blank walls and a mustard yellow table. A large display screen with a constant TV feed took up most of one wall. Walking through the hallways, I saw a sign emblazoned with the emergency number 9-1-1. Had the terrorists thought about our iconic number when they picked this date and planned an emergency so overwhelming? For a while, I sat in a small area off the conference room, silently watching the images on television. I watched the replay as the South Tower of the World Trade Center roared with sound and then collapsed into a silent gray plume, offering my personal prayer to God to receive the victims with open arms. The North Tower had given way, live in front of my eyes, sending some 1,500 souls and 110 stories of gypsum and concrete buckling to the ground. So much happened during those terrible hours at the tip of Manhattan. That morning, as the people who worked in the towers descended, water from the sprinkler system was racing down the darkened stairwells. With their feet soaked, for some the greatest fear was that when they reached the bottom, the rushing water would be too high and they would be drowned. A few walked to safety under a canopy of skylights covered with the bodies of those who had jumped. Over two hundred people jumped to escape the heat, smoke, and flames. I was told that Father Mychal Judge, the chaplain for the New York City Fire Department, who had come to offer aid, comfort, and last rites, was killed that morning by the body of someone who had, in desperation, hurled himself from the upper floors of one of those towers. Video: Bush memoir to revisit 9/11, 2000 election The early expectation was for horrific numbers of deaths. Manhattan emergency rooms and hospitals as far away as Dallas were placed on Code Red, expecting to receive airlifted survivors. Some fifty thousand people worked inside the towers; on a beautiful day, as many as eighty thousand tourists would visit an observation deck on the South Tower’s 107th floor, where the vistas stretched for fifty miles. Had those hijacked planes struck the towers thirty or forty or fifty minutes later, the final toll might well have been in the tens of thousands. Inside Secret Service headquarters, I asked my staff to call their families, and I called the girls, who had been whisked away by Secret Service agents to secure locations. In Austin, Jenna had been awakened by an agent pounding on her dorm door. In her room at Yale, Barbara had heard another student sobbing uncontrollably a few doors down. Then I called my mother, because I wanted her to know that I was safe and I wanted so much to hear the sound of her voice. And I tried to reach George, but my calls could not get through; John Meyers, my advance man, promised to keep trying. I did know from the Secret Service that George had taken off from Florida, safe on board Air Force One. I knew my daughters and my mother were safe. But beyond that, everything was chaos. I was told that Barbara Olson, wife of Solicitor General Ted Olson, had been aboard the plane that hit the Pentagon. At one point, we also received word that Camp David had been attacked and hit. I began thinking of all the people who would have been there, like Bob Williams, the chaplain. Another report had a plane crashing into our ranch in Crawford. It got so that we were living in five-minute increments, wondering if a new plane would emerge from the sky and hit a target. All of us in that basement conference room and many more in the Secret Service building were relying on rumors and on whatever news came from the announcers on television. When there were reports of more errant planes or other targets, it was almost impossible not to believe them. George had tried to call me from Air Force One. It is stunning now to think that our “state-of-the-art” communications would not allow him to complete a phone call to Secret Service headquarters, or me to reach him on Air Force One. On my second call from the secure line, our third attempt, I was finally able to contact the plane, a little before twelve noon. I was grateful just to hear his voice, to know that he was all right, and to tell him the girls were fine. From the way he spoke, I could hear how starkly his presidency had been transformed. We remained in that drab conference room for hours, eventually turning off the repetitive horror of the images on the television. Inside, I felt a grief, a loss, a mourning like I had never known. A few blocks away, in the Chrysler offices near Pennsylvania Avenue, a group of White House senior staff began to gather. After the evacuation, some of those who were new to Washington had been wandering, dazed and shaken, in nearby Lafayette Park. By midafternoon, seventy staff members had congregated inside this office building, attempting to resume work, while Secret Service agents stood in the lobby and forbade anyone without a White House pass from entering. Key presidential and national security staff and Vice President Cheney were still sealed away in the small underground emergency center deep below the White House. As the skies and streets grew silent, there was a debate over what to do with George and what to do with me. The Secret Service detail told me to be prepared to leave Washington for several days at least. My assistant, Sarah Moss, was sent into the White House to gather some of my clothes. John Meyers accompanied her to retrieve Spot, Barney, and Kitty. Then we got word that the president was returning to Washington. I would be staying as well. Late in the afternoon, I spoke to George again. At 6:30 we got in a Secret Service caravan to drive to the White House. I gazed out the window; the city had taken on the cast of an abandoned movie set: the sun was shining, but the streets were deserted. We could not see a person on the sidewalk or any vehicles driving on the street. There was no sound at all except for the roll of our wheels over the ground. We drove at full throttle through the gate, and the agents hopped out. Heavily armed men in black swarmed over the grounds. Before I got out, one of my agents, Dave Saunders, who had been driving, turned around and said, “Mrs. Bush, I’m so sorry. I’m so sorry.” He said it with the greatest of concern and a hint of emotion in his voice. He knew what this day meant for us. I was hustled inside and downstairs through a pair of big steel doors that closed behind me with a loud hiss, forming an airtight seal. I was now in one of the unfinished subterranean hallways underneath the White House, heading for the PEOC, the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, built for President Franklin Roosevelt during World War II. We walked along old tile floors with pipes hanging from the ceiling and all kinds of mechanical equipment. The PEOC is designed to be a command center during emergencies, with televisions, phones, and communications facilities. I was ushered into the conference room adjacent to the PEOC’s nerve center. It’s a small room with a large table. National Security Advisor Condi Rice, Counselor to the President Karen Hughes, Deputy Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, and Dick and Lynne Cheney were already there, where they had been since the morning. Lynne, whose agents had brought her to the White House just after the first attack, came over and hugged me. Then she said quietly into my ear, “The plane that hit the Pentagon circled the White House first.” I felt a shiver vibrate down my spine. Unlike the major monuments and even the leading government buildings in Washington, the White House sits low to the ground. It is a three-story building, tucked away in a downward slope toward the Potomac. When the White House was first built, visitors complained about the putrid scent rising from the river and the swampy grounds nearby. From the air, the White House is hard to see and hard to reach. A plane could circle it and find no plausible approach. And that is what Lynne Cheney told me had happened that morning, a little past 9:30, before Flight 77 crossed the river and thundered into the Pentagon. At 7:10 that night, George strode into the PEOC. Early that afternoon, he had conducted a secure videoconference from Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska with the CIA and FBI directors, as well as the military Joint Chiefs of Staff and the vice president and his national security staff, giving instructions and getting briefings on the latest information. Over the objections of the Secret Service, he had insisted upon returning home. We hugged and talked with the Cheneys a bit. Then the Secret Service detail suggested that we spend the night there, belowground. They showed us the bed, a foldout that looked like it had been installed when FDR was president. George and I stared at it, and we both said no, George adding, “We’re not going to sleep down here. We’re going to go upstairs and you can get us if something happens.” He said, “I’ve got to get sleep, in our own bed.” George was preparing to speak to the nation from the Oval Office, to reassure everyone and to show that the president was safely back in Washington, ready to respond. By 7:30 we were on our way up to the residence. I have no memory of having eaten dinner—George may have eaten on the plane. He tried to call the girls as soon as we were upstairs but couldn’t reach them. Barbara called back close to 8:00 p.m., and then George left to make remarks to the nation. We did finally climb into our own bed that night, exhausted and emotionally drained. Outside the doors of the residence, the Secret Service detail stood in their usual posts. I fell asleep, but it was a light, fitful rest, and I could feel George staring into the darkness beside me. Then I heard a man screaming as he ran, “Mr. President, Mr. President, you’ve got to get up. The White House is under attack.” We jumped up, and I grabbed a robe and stuck my feet into my slippers, but I didn’t stop to put in my contacts. George grabbed Barney; I grabbed Kitty. With Spot trailing behind, we started walking down to the PEOC. George had wanted to take the elevator, but the agents didn’t think it was safe, so we had to descend flight after flight of stairs, to the state floor, then the ground floor, and below, while I held George’s hand because I couldn’t see anything. My heart was pounding, and all I could do was count stairwell landings, trying to count off in my mind how many more floors we had to go. When we reached the PEOC, I saw the outline of a military sergeant unfolding the ancient hideaway bed and putting on some sheets. At that moment, another agent ran up to us and said, “Mr. President, it’s one of our own.” The plane was ours. For months afterward at night, in bed, we’d hear the military jets thundering overhead, traveling so fast that the ground below quivered and shook. They would make one pass and then, three or five minutes later, make another low-flying loop. I would fall asleep to the roar of the fighters in the skies, hearing in my mind those words, “one of our own.” There was a quiet security in that, in knowing that we slept beneath the watchful cover of our own. Waking the next morning, I had the sensation of knowing before my eyes opened that something terrible had happened, something beyond comprehension, and I wondered for a brief instant if it had all been a dream. Then I saw George, and I knew, knew that yesterday would be with us, each day, for all of our days to come. Excerpted from "Spoken from the Heart" by Laura Bush. Copyright © 2010 by Laura Bush. Excerpted with permission by Scribner, a Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc. © 2010 MSNBC Interactive URL: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/36943246/ns/today-today_books/ MSN Privacy . Legal © 2010 MSNBC.com
George couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery or find his ass with a map and both hands. Whatever the shortcomings of Bush, and lo, they are legion, has nothing to do with the claptrap that you and aggravator and a few other folks try to foist off on us. Magicakal Jet Fuel™, Magickal Cell Phones™, bs "pilots" who can't fly a Cessna well enough to get a license yet fly big commercial aircraft like stunt planes. Buildings falling at near freefall speed into their own footprint. One of which was not impacted by any plane--and no steel-framed skyscraper has ever fallen due to fire, none before 9/11 and none since. uh huh. Get real, buck.
Yeah ... but he planned the successful 9/11 disaster to make way for Afghanistan and Iraq failures didn't he?
Nobody is saying he planned it, but he DID more than likely go along with it.
This is ripe, man. I haven't had so many laffs in my life in so little time ........ Was his poppa in on it too? About his brother, Jed?
Was his poppa in on it too? About his brother, Jed? Ya think Shrub swore fealty to Satan, while a member of that Yale frat that had Geronomo's skull?
There is no question about it.... the ye ol' Skull&Bones club stikes again... meanwhile, tens of thousands of Washington DC bureaucrats attempted to escape to their appointed bunkers ..... What happened? The lazy bureaucrats were fearful for their own lives (WE ARE GOING TO DIE!) ALL at the same time and flooded the freeway systems into Virgina and West Virginia because of their panick and otherwise hysteric antics. They were grid-locked. And the minuscule numbers that made it to the bunkers.... half of them were refused access...... because they weren't authorized even though their bosses told them to do so. ROTFL ... this fucking government can't plan anything more than a water cooler in an air-conditioned office so the bureaucrats can chit-chat about their benfits all day.
...But like the mass of Washingtonians, officials from other agencies found themselves virtually on their own, unsure of where to go or what to do, or whom to contact for the answers. What happened? The lazy bureaucrats were fearful for their own lives (WE ARE GOING TO DIE!) ALL at the same time and flooded the freeway systems into Virgina and West Virginia because of their panick and otherwise hysteric antics. They were grid-locked. And the minuscule numbers that made it to the bunkers.... half of them were refused access...... because they weren't authorized even though their bosses told them to do so. Good find. And even here, not one of any USG people who felt hung out to dry on 911, and may have had inklings into the " Mother of All Conspiracies and Cover Ups" has come forward even on deep background to any one of the Twoofersites. And where's Professor Theologian David Ray Griffin to supply sorely needed org charts and project schedules, showing the principalities, powers, human agents, and pending actions of carrying out the Devil's Work on the unsuspecting American publick?
You two act as if the ENTIRE body of government would have to have known about the operation, whereas only a handful of top people around the country would have to have known. Those with the power to order war games at the same time as the attacks, and those with the power to disrupt and sabatoge any real investigation into the attacks themselves, are the ONLY ones that HAD to know what's going on.
And how many people and time did it take to wire and manage the wiring of the 3 WTC structures, among the largest buildings in the world, with anywhere from 10 to 100 tons of nanothermate per Niels Harritt, k00k emeritus? Along the setting up a complex undetactable advanced detonation system of which not a single shred has ever been found or photographed at any of the NYC crash sites? Sounds like a workforce taking tens of thousands of man hours with an even greater level of management and logistics than normally needed. After all, they weren't exactly driving this junk through the loading docks in broad daylight were they? You Six Percenters make zero sense most of the time. You deny what's obvious: A skilled combat engineer and guerilla leader threatens the US for ten years, gradually escalates his attacks, sets up insurgent training camps, and issues public declarations about how attacks will continue escalating, but is dismissed as not instigating hijackers and suicide bombers because for a few months he parsed words to deny direct involvement. Yet you flog all manner of controverted appeals to belief while claiming to be scholars and scientists. But without offering any argments more substantive than nit picking others' claims and endlessly repeating bromides about "Magick Jet Fuel" and "They hate us for their freedoms" originating in your own confused minds.
Are you for real? 10 to 100 TONS? Try more like a couple of hundred pounds or so of strategically placed remote controlled explosives, with maybe another hundred pounds or so of the nanothermate mixed in with paint. The elevator shafts were being serviced weeks before 9/11, and at least one of the towers had a power shutdown the weekend before 9/11 to allow workers to run cable and wires throughout the building.
And how many people and time did it take to wire and manage the wiring of the 3 WTC structures, among the largest buildings in the world, with anywhere from 10 to 100 tons of nanothermate per Niels Harritt, k00k emeritus? Are you for real? 10 to 100 TONS? Try more like a couple of hundred pounds or so of strategically placed remote controlled explosives, with maybe another hundred pounds or so of the nanothermate mixed K00k in chief Harritt says 10 to 100 tons. Try to keep up on yor k00klatather talking points, especially when they come straight from the sources. Who knows, a burst of sanity may visit itself you however briefly when you realize just how deranged their messages are.
Perhaps he's just another disinfo k00k, just like you.
K00k in chief Harritt says 10 to 100 tons. Perhaps he's just another disinfo k00k, just like you. How fucking lame, even for a Six Percenter loser like you. Harritt is the lead author of the only so called "peer reviewed" publication of "911 studies" ever published - the hole in the wall Dhubai "Open Chemical Physics Journal " which someone paid $800 to get into print. Now you're calling him "Perhaps...another disinfo k00k" as he gets caught in one of his many whoppers. And you, shamelessly changing your supporters at the drop of a hat.
Who cares? Does he or his comments change the fact that skyscrappers simply CAN NOT fall into their own footprint at close to free fall speed? The answer is no, it does not change a thing.
Your 2 statements have been extensively and conclusively debunked. The buildings fell into their own footprints because absent a sideways pushing/pulling force exceeding their entire mass of the falling sections, and cabable of acting within a few seconds, they only major, mega scale force capable of acting on the entire structures at the same time was gravity, which would attempt to pull them straight down, as gravity is known to do. The buildings took about 8-9 seconds past computed free fall speed, so that claim is DOA to any serious observer.
I bet you never even took high school physics did you. An object ALWAYS takes the path of least resistance. If a corner of the floors below the upper section had started to buckle and give way, the top of the tower would have tumbled and slid off the lower structure in that direction. As far as the top of the structure falling STRAIGHT DOWN (the path of GREATEST RESISTANCE), it would have taken more than 1 second to demolish all of the floors below the damaged section, which is the time it took since it only took about 1 extra second for the top of the building to hit the ground than if it had fallen through thin air. Yeah right, keep believing that faery tale if it makes you happy, just don't go killing innocent people over it. Oh that's right, we have to go "kill them there" so that we won't have to "fight them here". What utter insanity.
Due to the unique central column and "tube in a tube" design of the WTC towers, its building floors were 95% air, which makes down the path of least resistance except for getting rid of some air pockets equally in all directions. This means gravity acting on building components will pull the the building floors and walls straight down. Or as Thomas Eager put it, Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down. pnwed. Your high school grade in Physics is "F," clown.
Your high school grade in Physics is "F," clown. You "pnwed" yourself, displaying to everyone here how stupid and gullible you are. The floors did NOT pancake, and there is NO evidence that they did. They were PULVERIZED into dust, such that the majority of the kinetic energy was spent doing so, where there would NOT have been sufficient energy to collapse the undamaged section of the towers, at LEAST not at free fall velocity. People such as you depend on the fact Americans are some of the dumbest people on Earth in terms of math and science these days in comparison to other industrialized nations.
I just finished quoting Thomas Eager, Full Professor, full professor PhD of Materials Science and Engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who explicitly says, Post your CV. Let's see which of the two of you is one of the "dumbest people on Earth in terms of math and science these days," you silly little dickwad. pwned again.
If there is nothing in its way. But on 9/11 most of that 500,000 ton structure was in the way. The proven laws of physics aren't lying, those buildings were brought down with planted explosives.
Tell it to Eager. He said because of 500,000 tons of inertia, there was no way for the WTC towers to go except down and into the building footprint.
I don't know who he is. Is he your boss? I have studied this for a long time. I didn't reach my conclusion lightly cause I didn't want to believe it. But I can't ignore facts, I never have been able to. I don't need a so-called "expert" to tell me how physics work, I know it very well.
Then refute the three physics points cited by Eager with specific references and calculations. QED.
There were heavy vertical steel columns, and a heavy vertical steel core, idiot. The structure needs to hold up AT LEAST it's own weight, where you and your pal are trying to say any sort of added vertical force is going to crush the building as if it were made of egg shells. It's sad that there are people stupid enough to believe that.
Which vertical steel core had a major structural failure from an aircaft fuselage coming in over 400 mph and making a big hole in it, flockwit.
Do you have pictures of the steel core damage prior to the collapse? Obviously not. The steel core columns were made of thick hardened steel, and would have sliced the airplane's thin aluminum body like a cheese cutter slices cheese. Idiot.
So that's why a soft lead bullet traveling hundreds of miles per hour won't even slightly penetrate any piece of solid metal in its path, I take it, brainless?
So that's why a soft lead bullet traveling hundreds of miles per hour won't even slightly penetrate any piece of solid metal in its path, I take it, brainless? Dude. Are you serious?
Are you serious? ***Dude** The speed at which one object is moving, compensates for the relative hardness or softness of the moving object vs. the target. I don't have to confuse you using bullets as one of millions of examples. There are millions of other cases whereby fast-traveling softer items cause substantial damage to harder ones they hit, because they're moving at great speeds. Which brings us to how a 400+ mph speeding aircraft fuselage can seriously damage a stationary core steel column. Same goes for bird strikes, or pieces of straw driven by hurricane winds to penetrate trees. Kinetic energy increases with the squared power of the object's speed.
This is true, but you forgot one thing. The Towers were built to withstand the impact of a jet airplane. And guess what? They did. They only came down when they were brought down with controlled demolitions.
And guess what? They did. They only came down when they were brought down with controlled demolitions The calculations that can be found are for a collision with an aircraft lost in fog and traveling at expected speeds within an air control zone - under 250 knots. Not an aircraft traveling at over 400 knots. While there is some hearsay about calculations to withstand faster traveling aircraft, no documentation can be found. Furthermore even if the calculations were done for a much faster impact there is no guarantee they were accurate. Extensive calculations for the Titanic were done showing it was unsinkable. Subsequent events contradict this theory. The fact a theory doesn't hold up doesn't mean there is a conspiracy.
Explain how it took virtually 0 seconds to break every floor truss and smash every external and internal column of both WTC towers.
Who's saying that except you?
How long did it take for the top of the towers to impact the ground, versus how long it would have taken an object to fall through the air from the same height?
" color="blue">In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground. Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns. Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.. Below is a more accurate graphic using a paper written by Dr. Frank Greening which can be found at: WTC Report The paper takes the transfer of momentum into account. Like a billiard ball being hit by another on a pool table, each floor transferred its momentum to the next as represented below. The more weight, the less resistance each floor gave.
How long did it take the top of the towers to impact the ground, versus how long it would take for an object to drop through thin air from the same height? I don't want to read BS and tap dancing, I want you to provide some figures and hard numbers.
Hey nitwit, you're the Six Percenter who can't support your theories after 8 years. I owe you nothing, and have supplied more evidence and links than you ever have or can. The times, as well as exposes of the selective quoting and false editing by the k00kologists to try to make their false case, are already on links I've posted. If you can't even be bothered to sit through one minute and 30 seconds watching a video I've already posted, you've reached a new dumb low.
So in other words, you don't KNOW how long it took for the towers to collapse, nor how long it would take for an object to free fall from the 110th floor of the WTC, right?
I thought YOUR twoofer tale about cockpit doors not being opened was the topic of this thread. Has it spun off to make-believe towers that fell freefall because of demolition charges, too?
I do believe it was either you or your sidekick AGAviator who brought up the WTC collapse. So do you believe the government provided the real flight data from Flight 77, or not?
To be honest with you, I really don't fucking care anymore. That data has little relevance to the THOUSANDS of eyewitness accounts and the other photographic details showing the crash. The probable outcome of whether missing details as you are attempting to exploit will change anything past, present or future is about zero.
So you don't care if the story is true or not, you just want to kiss the ass of those who perpetrated the attacks and allow them to do it again, right?
It is of little relevance today; the outcome from (PilotsFor911Truth.org) you discovered which has been sprinkled around the Internet for a half a year or so means nothing to the facts already in the public. What are the actual credentials of this "independent researcher and computer programmer" is the main question. How do we know he/she is qualified to perform the job when many other experts haven't disclosed this data for nine years? What is a "computer programmer" is the question. And was he/she paid by (PilotsFor911Truth.org)? How was the data handled? Could the data have been tampered with in such a way that later verification processes is impossible? I care a lot. But I don't run around waving my arms to the world that I found the Holy Grail of exhibitions to disprove and dispell thousands of expert witnesses sworn testimony to a number of federal agencies. Is there a possibility that a significant piece of information has been uncovered? Yes, of course. And if so, why hasn't (PilotsFor911Truth.org) pursued this issue further with other experts other than a post on their web site that was eventually sprinkled around the Internet. The contents of FDR files (there are two) are in .csv format and can be viewed AND modified by your MSExcel software. It is located here in a compressed zip format (both .csv files). You should be able to right click on the link and save the file for your own perusal. Good luck!
Go to his website and find out...
Why should I find out? As I told you, the burden is on the folks at (PilotsFor911Truth.org); they made the claim; they paid for the data; they maintain the data on their website. You should have that data now. Evaluate it yourself.
Why should I find out? As I told you, the burden is on the folks at (PilotsFor911Truth.org); they made the claim; they paid for the data; they maintain the data on their website. You should have that data now. Evaluate it yourself. You're being evasive buckie. I'll bet you looked and found that the Argumentum Ad Hominem you were trying to set up is a loser. Of course it is always a loser to anyone who understands logic. The data is true, not true, or uncertain in three state logic. Which is it? You're the one demanding people be your research librarian and waste their time looking up stuff you will then promptly ignore. FL gave you the link. Do your own effing research for your ad hominem attacks.
I provided the raw .csv file for FormerLurker and anyone else. Since you are so goddamned smart, you save the file and view it. It is a modifiable file which means ANYONE could make the claim as some so-called researcher claims. If the file had been properly released by the officiating government agency, it should have been in a pdf or similar R/O (NON-MODIFIABLE) format ..... so, I don't EVEN BELIEVE THE BS FROM THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE ON THIS THREAD. The story is phoney.
It is a modifiable file which means ANYONE could make the claim as some so-called researcher claims. If the file had been properly released by the officiating government agency, it should have been in a pdf or similar R/O (NON-MODIFIABLE) format ..... so, I don't EVEN BELIEVE THE BS FROM THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE ON THIS THREAD. Oh yes buck, you are smarter and more of an expert than ALL of the pilots over at Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Why don't YOU grab the actual DATA that the NTSB provided, which is the RAW compressed data from the FDR, download the software from Warren Stutt's website to decompress and decode the data, and generate your OWN CSV file, put it into Excel, and look at the values. Here's the link; THAT, or you could download the raw data, PURCHASE the correct software from the company which MANUFACTURES the FDR, and use THEIR software to decode the data. In fact, you could file your OWN FOIA request to the NTSB for the FDR data. Now you have ALL sorts of options there buck. If I or ANYONE else were to try to tell you the results ourselves, you wouldn't believe it.
The only options that you present are silly non-verifiable opinions from questionable "researchers" that viewed modifiable data that came from ANYWHERE manipulated by ANYONE. What a silly presentation you have. You blew it on this thread.
No, buck, you're the one who blew it on this thread. "Of course I am simplifying the issue but the fundamental point is the impact of the passenger jet aircraft into each of the towers was the trigger mechanism for structural failure..." Even if that were true, which it is not as the information I provided showed, why did 7 fall? No plane hit it. Was it the Magickal Jet Fuel™ or some previously unknown and unknowable phenomena at work? Maybe Santa Claus got out early and fell off his sleigh and hit it? Maybe the Easter Bunny got mad and threw an egg at it?
The impact of the the twin towers had structurely weakened the building. In a sense you are correct.
Yeah just like a screen is structurally weaker when you poke a pencil through it.
If your scenario is so complete.... why didn't the aircraft appear out the other side of the building after impact?
I am surprised you didn't ask for PROOF..... In late 1997 the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) adopted a change requiring an increase in the number of recorded signals for flight data recorders (FDR). This rule change will affect many airplanes that operate under FAA rules, including all airplanes registered in the United States and those in other countries where regulatory authorities use the FAA rules as their own. Boeing is prepared to help operators meet the requirements of the rule change by its effective date, which varies according to each airplane's date of manufacture. In the interest of further increasing safety in the commercial airplane industry, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration has effected a rule change that increases the amount of flight information collected in flight data recorders (FDR). The ability to gather additional information after a commercial airplane accident or incident can result in a more thorough investigation, as well as help the industry identify trends and make necessary modifications to prevent future accidents and incidents. Boeing is offering operators the support they need to meet the requirements of the new FAA rule by the date of compliance. ("Performance Data for European Operators" in the January-March 1997 issue of Airliner magazine addresses the rule for operators of JAA-registered airplanes.) The following article discusses: 1. Purpose of flight data recorders. 2. History of flight data recorders. 3. Summary and effects of the flight data recorder rule change. 4. Boeing support for operator compliance. 1 Purpose of Flight Data Recorders The purpose of an airplane flight data recorder system is to collect and record data from a variety of airplane sensors onto a medium designed to survive an accident. Depending on the age of an airplane, the FDR system may consist of (1) an analog or digital flight data acquisition unit (FDAU) and a digital FDR (DFDR) that may have a tape or solid-state memory, or (2) simply an FDR. The protected medium that collects data from an airplane resides in the FDR or DFDR. This recording system has been installed in thousands of airplanes, and continues to play a key role in making airplane travel as safe as possible. The data collected in the FDR system can help investigators determine whether an accident was caused by pilot error, by an external event (such as windshear), or by an airplane system problem. Over the years, these data have contributed to airplane system design improvements and the ability to predict potential difficulties as airplanes age. An example of the latter is using FDR data to monitor the condition of a high-hours engine. Evaluating the data could be useful in making a decision to replace the engine before a failure occurs. 2 History of Flight Data Recorders Flight data recorders were first introduced in the 1950s. Many first-generation FDRs used metal foil as the recording medium, with each single strip of foil capable of recording 200 to 400 hr of data. This metal foil was housed in a crash- survivable box installed in the aft end of an airplane. Beginning in 1965, FDRs (commonly known as "black boxes") were required to be painted bright orange or bright yellow, making them easier to locate at a crash site. Second-generation FDRs were introduced in the 1970s as the requirement to record more data increased, but they were unable to process the larger amounts of incoming sensor data. The solution was development of the flight data acquisition unit (FDAU). As shown in figure 2, the FDAU processes sensor data, then digitizes and formats it for transmission to the FDR. The second-generation digital FDR (DFDR) uses tape similar to audio recording tape. The tape is 300 to 500 ft long and can record up to 25 hr of data. It is stored in a cassette device mounted in a crash-protected enclosure. FAA rule changes in the late 1980s required the first-generation FDRs to be replaced with digital recorders. Many of the older FDRs were replaced with second-generation magnetic tape recorders that can process incoming data without an FDAU. Most of these DFDRs can process up to 18 input parameters (signals). This requirement was based upon an airplane with four engines and a requirement to record 11 operational parameters for up to 25 hours (see "Parameters Explained" below). Another FAA rule change that took effect October 11, 1991, led to the installation of digital FDAUs (DFDAUs) and DFDRs with solid-state memory on all Boeing airplanes before delivery. This FDR system was required to record a minimum of 34 parameter groups. The DFDAU processes approximately 100 different sensor signals per second for transmission to the DFDR, which uses electronics to accommodate data for a 25-hr period. Today all Boeing current-production models use DFDR systems, which will store 64 12-bit words per second (wps) over a 25-hr period in electronic memory. At the end of the 25 hours, the DFDR will begin recording the most recent data over the oldest data. No tape removal is required with these systems. Each of these systems on every Boeing model (except the 777) have at least two data frames that are transmitted from the DFDAU to the DFDR (see "What Is a Data Frame?" below). These separate data frames accommodate the different regulatory agency requirements. A 128-wps DFDR was available for the Boeing 777 and MD-90, allowing the development of one data frame that incorporated all regulatory agency requirements and that required operators to develop only one data frame decode algorithm. "How a FAA Rule Is Changed", below, explains the basis on which the FAA may propose rule changes. 3 Summary and Impact of FAA FDR System Rule Change The rule change addresses all Boeing commercial airplane models and groups them as follows: * Airplanes manufactured before October 11, 1991, without an FDAU or DFDAU as of July 16, 1996. * Airplanes manufactured before October 11, 1991, with an FDAU or DFDAU as of July 16, 1996. * Airplanes manufactured after October 11, 1991, after August 18, 2000, and after August 18, 2002. AIRPLANES MANUFACTURED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 11, 1991, WITHOUT AN FDAU OR DFDAU INSTALLED AS OF JULY 16, 1996. The new rule requires that by August 18, 2001 the FDR record at least 18 parameter groups. For most airplanes, this is an increase from 11 parameter groups, as described in "Effects of 1989 FAA Flight Data Recorder Rule Change" on page 32. On about half of all the Boeing 727, 737, DC-8, and DC-9 models the FDR system uses a single FDR, a result of the late 1980s replacement activity. Most of these FDRs should have enough spare inputs to accommodate the increased requirements with little or no modification required. Other parameter groups required to be recorded include the addition of both flight control surface positions and flight control inputs for all three axes (lateral, directional, longitudinal), lateral acceleration, and autopilot engagement status. Airplanes manufactured prior to October 11, 1991, with a FDAU or DFDAU installed as of July 16, 1996. The new rule requires that by four years from date of rule at least 22 parameter groups be recorded by the FDR. In this group are Boeing models 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, DC-10, and MD-80. Most of these airplanes record almost all the 22 parameter groups, some of which operators may ask Boeing to remove to save weight or to avoid maintenance costs if a parameter group is not required by a particular country's regulatory agency. The additional parameter groups required to be recorded include the addition of flight control surface positions and flight control inputs for all three axes, lateral acceleration, and autopilot engagement status. AIRPLANES MANUFACTURED AFTER OCTOBER 11, 1991. The 34 required parameter groups for this category are all recorded, with a few exceptions (some of the required recording rates are not met for flight control surface positions, flight control inputs, or both). The rule gives operators until August 18, 2001, to comply. Since the rule became effective August 18, 1997, the FDR system changes required for airplanes manufactured after August 18, 2000, will affect only new production. The new-production part of the rule changes require 57 parameter groups to be recorded by August 18, 2001, and 88 parameter groups by August 18, 2002. 4 Boeing Support for Operator Compliance Boeing models 707, 727, 737-100/-200/-300/-400/-500, 757, 767, 747-100/-200/-300/-400, 777-200/-300, DC-8, DC-9, DC-10, MD-11, MD-80, and MD-90 will require retrofit activity. This may involve the addition of new sensors and wiring plus installation of a DFDAU, software, or both because of a new FDR frame. The details of the Boeing plan to support the airplanes listed below are discussed in "Rule Change Support Plan". The following airplanes are covered by the rule change support plan: * 717-200. * 727 and 737-100/-200 (all manufactured before October 11, 1991), 737-100/-200, and 737-300/-400/-500 manufactured before October 11, 1991. * 737-300/-400/-500 manufactured after October 11, 1991, but before August 18, 2000 (production cut-in of 57/88 parameter groups). * 737-600/-700/-800. * 747-100/-200/-300. * 747-400s manufactured before August 18, 2000 (production cut-in of 57/88 parameter groups). * 757s and 767s manufactured before October 11, 1991. * 757s and 767s manufactured before August 18, 2000 (production cut-in of 57/88 parameter groups). * 777s manufactured before August 18, 2000 (production cut-in of 57/88 parameter groups). * All current-production Boeing models. * Airplanes that require 18 to 22 parameter groups and whose data frames will be affected. * 747-400 and 777. * DC-8, DC-9, and 707 (all manufactured before October 11, 1991). * DC-10 (all manufactured before October 11, 1991) and MD-80 (with FDAU) manufactured before August 18, 2000 (production cut-in of 57/88 parameter groups). * MD-11, MD-80, and MD-90 manufactured before August 18, 2000 (production cut-in of 57/88 parameter groups). Summary The FDR rule change effected by the FAA in late 1997 will require operators of airplanes flying under FAA rules to make sure the FDRs on their airplanes can record several additional parameter groups. The compliance date for these airplanes depends on their date of manufacture. Boeing is ready to support all customers with their activities to meet the new FDR rule. Operators should contact Boeing to initiate a customer requested change if their airplanes need additional sensor and bracket installations but are not covered in the service bulletins that Boeing offers. Though Boeing has no plans to provide unique FDR data frame updates for airplanes manufactured before October 11, 1991, the company will respond to requests for assistance if an operator generates a customer change request. -------------------------------------------------- Parameters Explained The text in the new rule from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) lists 88 operational parameters required to be recorded by digital flight data recorders (DFDR). To meet each of these requirements, based upon the design of an airplane, more than one parameter may need to be recorded by the flight data recorder (FDR) at the same time. An example of this is the operational parameter thrust/ power of each engine-primary flight crew reference. On most Boeing- and Douglas-designed airplanes, two parameters (signals) per engine are provided to the FDR system to capture the thrust/power of each engine. As a result, 88 defined operational parameters in the FAA rule will result in many more than 88 parameters actually recorded. To avoid confusion, Boeing identifies each of the 88 operational parameters in the new FAA FDR rule as 88 parameter groups, as each can require recording more than one parameter. -------------------------------------------------- How an FAA Rule Is Changed New rules or rule changes can be prompted by many things, including the advent of new technology, accident data, or Congressional mandates. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which performs all airplane accident investigations in the United States, issues a written safety recommendation to the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to consider as a subject for rulemaking. In the case of the flight data recorder (FDR) system rule change, the NTSB stated that more airplane information must be recorded by the FDR system. This recommendation was based upon the NTSB's findings and the difficulty they encountered in their investigations because of a lack of adequate flight information. The FAA must evaluate NTSB safety recommendations based on many factors. Two of these are the economic impact of the change and the ability to produce and govern the regulation. Public and private hearings regarding the proposed changes often are held to aid the FAA in this evaluation process. In the 1980s, the FAA established the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) to improve the regulatory process and improve communication between the FAA, airline operators, and manufacturers on new regulations. The main task of ARAC is to work with the FAA to evaluate the many factors resulting in rules that can be technically and economically justified, then feasibly implemented and regulated. The new FDR system rule resulted from three NTSB safety recommendations to the FAA. The FAA held a public hearing on April 20, 1995, to discuss the NTSB recommendations that spawned a rulemaking process within ARAC. A flight data recorder working group was established by the FAA and directed to draft the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the FDR system. This NPRM would become the final FDR rule from the FAA. The working group, representing the FAA, NTSB, airplane manufacturers, and airplane operators, was to report its results (a draft NPRM) to the ARAC Executive Committee. The FAA would then use the draft to create the final NPRM. The Administrative Procedures Act requires that every Federal rule (except those of an emergency nature and certain others) first be issued as a "proposed rule" (NPRM) and provide time for the public to review and comment on it. When an NPRM is published in the Federal Register, the public is allowed time to comment on the FAA's discussions and conclusions presented in the preamble of the NPRM, as well as the text of the proposed rule itself. The preamble discusses the historical background that prompted the proposed rule, as well as how and why it should be implemented. The preamble includes a review of the cost-versus-benefit information in order to justify the proposal. When the public comment period ends, the FAA addresses each comment submitted and determines the content of the final rule. (The content of the final rule may be changed in light of comments received.) ARAC may be invited to participate, but often is not. The final rule, including its effective date, is also published in the Federal Register. -------------------------------------------------- What Is a Data Frame? A flight data recorder (FDR) data frame is the order of the words that are transmitted from the digital flight data acquisition unit (DFDAU) to the digital FDR (DFDR) each second over many seconds (see ARINC 717 for additional information). Most FDR system data frames are made up of four subframes within one superframe. For a 64-words-per-second (wps) FDR system, a DFDAU will output 64 12-bit words to the FDR each second, where each word typically contains the value of an analog parameter. The order of the words (for example, word number 12 of the 64 words) within a subframe, as well as the order of the subframes, define an FDR data frame. This order is important to understand in order to decode the data recorded in the DFDR. Some Boeing airplanes have two data frames, because one data frame in an FDR system with a capability of 64 wps cannot accommodate all of the world's regulatory requirements. By comparison, the 777 FDR system can handle 128 wps. In order to meet the new rule from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that requires recording of 88 parameter groups by August 18, 2002, FDR systems on Boeing airplanes will handle 256 wps. -------------------------------------------------- Effects of 1989 FAA Flight Data Recorder Rule Change The FAA rule change in 1989 required a flight data recorder (FDR) that provided a digital method of recording, storing, and readily retrieving data. It also increased the number of parameter groups to a total of 11 from 6: * Time. * Altitude. * Airspeed. * Vertical acceleration. * Heading. * Time of each radio transmission either to or from air traffic control. * Pitch attitude. * Roll attitude. * Longitudinal acceleration. * Control column or pitch control surface position. * Thrust of each engine. Because most airplanes recorded only six parameter groups, nearly all operators were required to retrofit the FDRs in their airplanes. In response to this requirement, many FDR manufacturers developed crash-survivable FDRs that did not require flight data acquisition units to replace the first-generation foil FDRs, and that accommodated the 11 required parameter groups for airplanes with up to four engines. Airplanes such as the 737 that have these FDRs can accommodate up to 18 parameter groups, as they have only two engines for which data must be recorded. -------------------------------------------------- Where To Find the FAA FDR Rule The full content of the FAA FDR rule is listed in the Federal Register Part IV, Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, section 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), affected parts: * 121 (Certification and Operations: Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Air Carriers and Commercial Operators of Large Aircraft). * 125 (Certification and Operations: Airplanes Having a Seating Capacity of 20 or More Passengers or a Maximum Payload Capacity of 6,000 Pounds or More). * 129 (Operations: Foreign Air Carriers and Foreign Operators of U.S.-Registered Aircraft Engaged In Common Carriage). * 135 (Air-Taxi Operators and Commercial Operators). The rule may be found on the World Wide Web at the following address: http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm -------------------------------------------------- Rule Change Support Plan Boeing plans the following activities to help operators comply with the FAA rule change for flight data recorders. 717-200. This model will be equipped to meet the new rule. 727 AND 737-100/-200. (ALL MANUFACTURED BEFORE OCTOBER 11, 1991), AND 737-300/-400/-500 MANUFACTURED BEFORE OCTOBER 11, 1991. Service Bulletin (SB) 727-31-0059, SB 737-31-1100, and SB 737-31-1099, respectively, provide for purchase of a parts kit (sensor brackets), supplier information for ordering sensors, and wiring examples from the sensors to the flight data recorder (FDR) (airplane tail) or flight data acquisition unit (FDAU)/digital FDAU (DFDAU). These parts would address flight control surface positions and flight control inputs for all three axes and lateral acceleration. Boeing technical support for the autopilot/flight director computer (AFDC) engaged is available upon request in each of these three categories of airplanes. 737-300/-400/-500 MANUFACTURED AFTER OCTOBER 11, 1991, BUT BEFORE AUGUST 18, 2000 (PRODUCTION CUT-IN OF 57/88 PARAMETER GROUPS). These models will need a new FDR frame (see "What Is a Data Frame?"). Boeing is working with its FDAU suppliers to develop a common data frame across all Boeing models. 737-600/-700/-800. These models will be equipped to meet the new rule. 747-100/-200/-300. Most of these airplanes record the required 22 parameter groups. However, a service bulletin, if requested by an operator, could provide for a parts kit (sensor brackets), sensors supplier information for ordering, and wiring examples from the sensors to the FDAU/DFDAU and for the AFDC engaged discrete. The parts kit would address both flight control surface positions and flight control inputs for all three axes and lateral acceleration. 747-400S MANUFACTURED BEFORE AUGUST 18, 2000 (PRODUCTION CUT-IN OF 57/88 PARAMETER GROUPS). These models will need a new FDR frame. Boeing is working with its FDAU suppliers to develop a common data frame across all Boeing models. A service bulletin will be released for a digital flight data acquisition card update. 757S AND 767S MANUFACTURED BEFORE OCTOBER 11, 1991. A service bulletin is currently in work and will be released to provide for purchase of a parts kit (sensor brackets), sensors supplier information for ordering, and wiring examples from the sensors to the DFDAU. These parts would address both flight control surface positions and flight control inputs for all three axes and lateral acceleration. Boeing technical support for the AFDC engaged discrete is available upon request. Also, incorporation of SB 757-31-0059 and SB 767-31-0091 for correction of engine indicating and crew alerting system (EICAS) filtering of flight control data is required. 757S AND 767S MANUFACTURED BEFORE AUGUST 18, 2000 (PRODUCTION CUT-IN OF 57/88 PARAMETER GROUPS). These models will need a new FDR frame and incorporation of the service bulletins for correction of EICAS filtering of flight control data resulting from PRR 54727 (757) and PRR B12710 (767). Boeing is working with its FDAU suppliers to develop a common data frame across all Boeing models. 777S MANUFACTURED BEFORE AUGUST 18, 2000 (PRODUCTION CUT-IN OF 57/88 PARAMETER GROUPS). These models will need a new FDR frame. Boeing is working with its FDAU suppliers to develop a common data frame across all Boeing models. A service bulletin will be released for an airplane information management system (AIMS) digital flight data acquisition function update. ALL CURRENT-PRODUCTION BOEING MODELS. These models will require retrofit of new flight recorder data frames that will address the 34 parameter groups. The plan is to design the data frames as required to meet the new FDR rule and provide these designs in all the appropriate Boeing documentation. This activity is required because the MD series, 737, 757, and 767 DFDAUs that will incorporate this update are buyer- furnished equipment (selected by the operator). AIRPLANES THAT REQUIRE 18 TO 22 PARAMETER GROUPS AND WHOSE DATA FRAMES WILL BE AFFECTED. These airplanes will be a subset of the new data frames. For these airplanes, as well as for the MD series, 737, 757, and 767, Boeing plans to accomplish the data frame development and lab testing short of installation and certification on the airplane, and update all the appropriate documentation. Boeing can certify these data frames for an operator if an operator generates a customer change request to install the new data frame. Installation would occur on a production airplane for delivery prior to the production cut-in of the 57/88 parameter groups. 747-400 AND 777. For these two models Boeing provides the FDR acquisition function (supplier-furnished equipment). The 747-400 uses a digital flight data acquisition card (DFDAC). The 777 uses a digital flight data acquisition function (DFDAF) that resides in a module in both cabinets of the AIMS. The data frame updates for these models will be provided to operators through a purchased service bulletin. The 777 service bulletin will be a software change only. DC-8, DC-9, AND 707 (ALL MANUFACTURED BEFORE OCTOBER 11, 1991). Boeing believes that these models comply with the 1989 FAA requirement for 11 parameter groups. A service bulletin, if requested by an operator, could provide for a parts kit (sensor brackets), sensors supplier information for ordering, and wiring examples from the sensors to the FDAU/DFDAU. The parts kit would address both flight control surface positions and flight control inputs for all three axes, the auto-pilot engaged discrete, and lateral acceleration. DC-10 (ALL MANUFACTURED BEFORE OCTOBER 11, 1991) AND MD-80 (WITH FDAU) MANUFACTURED BEFORE AUGUST 18, 2000 (PRODUCTION CUT-IN OF 57/88 PARAMETER GROUPS). A kit configuration notice (KCN) is available upon customer request to provide instructions for rewiring the programming plug of the currently installed FDAU to create a new FDR frame, which will meet the increased parameter recording rates. This same KCN can include flight control input position sensors and wiring, plus provide instructions for removing the wiring for parameters (signals) currently being recorded that are not required by the new FAA rule. Removal of parameters not required by the new rule is required to use the currently installed 64-words-per-second (wps) FDR system. MD-80, MD-90, AND MD-11 MANUFACTURED BEFORE AUGUST 18, 2000 (PRODUCTION CUT-IN OF 57/88 PARAMETER GROUPS). The DFDAUs installed on these models will need a new FDR frame to meet the increased parameter recording rates. A KCN is available upon customer request to provide instructions for adding flight control input position sensors and wiring, plus provide instructions for removing the wiring for parameters currently being recorded that are not required by the new FAA rule. Removal of parameters not required by the new rule is required to use the currently installed 64-wps FDR system. return to top | AERO text-only contents | Boeing Home | Commercial Copyright © The Boeing Company. All rights reserved.
So where in that long list does it say that the 757 doesn't collect FLIGHT DECK DOOR status?
It is based on the vintage of 757 aircraft as a -1, -2 or -3. Only the -3 (after 1997) were equipped with the sensor as operational. There are no records to show that AMAFLT77 was ever upgraded [edit: hotlink to FAA: (Flight 77 = N644AA 2460 Certificate Issue Date 05/08/1991) Sorry... your thread is closed other than mopup.
Still waiting for you to post information concerning the data fields recorded on Flight 77's data recorder. Show us the FAA specifications for which data fields are collected, and tie that to the rulings on required upgrades.
There are NO records of any upgrades on AAFLT77 and as a result, the craft must be assumed to NOT have had the later -3 FDR capabilities to include your coveted thread title. You lose. This thread is debunked. Officially: Deregistered Aircraft 1 of 1 Aircraft Description Serial Number 24602 Type Registration Corporation Manufacturer Name BOEING Certificate Issue Date 05/08/1991 Model 757-223 Mode S Code 52072030 Year Manufacturer 1991 Cancel Date 01/14/2002 Reason for Cancellation Destroyed Export To None
No, it isn't. There are other collateral issues which have been presented in this thread and which you cannot address. And you have made yourself look like a shill or fool or both.
Like what? The core issues otherwise known as root cause analysis about the thread subject and title are debunked. What other issues are there? Did Hanjour shit or piss his pants before or after screaming ALLAH ALLAH! intentionally murdering hundreds of people? I post with both accuracy and precision, pal. Tell me what "detail" is missed ... about AAFLT77 on 9/11/2001.
You post crap. Lots of it. But the evidence is on the thread for anyone who wants to look at it. Fact: The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a commercial jetliner and at even greater speeds. Fact: No other steel-framed skyscraper(s) before or since 9/11 have fell into their own footprints due to fire. In fact, many that have burned longer and hotter are still around today and still being used.
I debunked this thread. The other whitewashed discussions on the WTC need to be attended to but not on this thread as it is too long. Why don't you create one? And invite me. :)
You did no such thing. You keep posting bs and I am done with you.
You did no such thing. You keep posting bs and I am done with you. buck has declared the argument won by the liar movement. Comical.
You did no such thing. You keep posting bs and I am done with you. buck has declared the argument won by the liar movement. Comical. Buck suffers from delusions of adequacy and Sterno poisoning. On another note. I'm currently running through that video you recommended last night. I'll post my notes when I'm done looking it over and trying to pull out as much detail as I can. On another note. I finally found Mad Max's refutation of Thomas Eager's disinfo piece. Here it is in its entirely. The links to the images are dead but the text is still there. WHY DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS FALL? A REVIEW OF THOMAS EAGAR'S (MIT) ARTICLE. by MM Sunday, Jul. 20, 2003 at 6:35 PM This article reviews the well known interview of professor Thomas Eagar (of MIT) by Peter Tyson (chief editor of NOVA) concerning the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. It points out many of the errors contained in this interview. In fact, the errors in the interview are so many that one has to conclude that the article is deliberate deception. The Collapse: An Engineer's Perspective This piece by "professor" Eagar and student Musso has to be some sort of record for the greatest number of lies, and points of misdirection, ever strung together in an "engineering" article. Comment is highlighted in red. It wasn't until Dr. Thomas Eagar saw Building 7 of the World Trade Center implode late on the afternoon of September 11th that he understood what had transpired structurally earlier that day as the Twin Towers disintegrated. A professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Eagar went on to write an influential paper in the journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society entitled "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation" (JOM, December 2001). In this interview, Eagar explains the structural failure, what can be done within existing skyscrapers to improve safety, and what he believes the most likely terrorist targets of the future may be. On the left above, is an animated graphic of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. This is clearly a controlled demolition. I guess that Eagar realized this too, and concluded that the twin towers were also deliberately demolished. This is probably what he meant when he said that seeing Building 7 implode lead him to understood what had transpired structurally earlier that day as the Twin Towers disintegrated. However, he is not allowed to tell you this. So he produces this piece of misinformation to mislead you. On the right is a graphic of the initial north tower collapse. As you can see, Eagar is correct, both collapses are remarkably similar. Click on the pictures for further information. Animation of truss falling Animation of a floor truss in the World Trade Center giving way. Eagar claims that the collapse of the twin towers was primarily due to failure of certain structural components (pictured in the animated graphic on the left) used to support sections of the concrete floor slabs. He refers to them as trusses. However, the word truss generally refers to the diagonal reinforcement of a rectangular frame, and so can be applied to a wide variety of structures. The items in question, are more correctly called "open web joists" or "bar joists". Eagar supposes, contrary to all evidence, that the fires at the World Trade Center on September 11 were so incredibly hot that the trusses softened and failed as indicated in the animated graphic. It is of utmost importance to his theory, that the fires were considerably hotter than your average office fire, as your average office fire was (by law) considered and planned for by the building designers and, of course, they designed a structure that would not collapse in such a fire. On February 23 1975, their design was put to the test. For on that day an intense fire broke out on the 11th floor of the north tower of the World Trade Center. The fire subsequently spread down to the 9th and up to the 19th floor, but this fire did not cause failure of the trusses (or any other major structural feature). Here is a quote from a news report: "The fire department on arrival (at the World Trade Center) found a very intense fire. There were 125 firemen involved in fighting this fire and 28 sustained injuries from the intense heat and smoke. The cause of the fire is unknown." A fatal flaw in Eagar's theory, is that the tops of the trusses were embedded in the concrete slab, so even if a truss was heated to the point of failure, even if it was dripping molten steel, the concrete slab would still hold the truss up and it could not possibly fall as indicated in the animation. If one truss failed, its load was redistributed to the concrete slab and all the remaining trusses associated with that slab. So the failure of one, or even many trusses, does not lead to overall failure. There is absolutely no way that the trusses could collapse one after the other, as claimed by Eagar. Here is a quote from (a section on the WTC in) Multi-Storey Buildings in Steel [1], by Godfrey "Composite action between the concrete and the steelwork is ensured by extending the diagonal web members of the joists (trusses) through the steel decking and embedding them in the (concrete) slab." Above is a photo of a number of 45 feet (13.5m) long trusses and a buckled steel column after the Broadgate Phase 8 fire (the WTC towers had 35 and 60 foot trusses). The fire occurred while the 14-story high-rise was under construction. Little of the steel was fire protected and the sprinkler system and other active measures were not yet operational. Even though a number of trusses and columns buckled, due to thermal expansion, no collapse was observed at Broadgate. The system of design of the World Trade Center Towers is called tubular framing, since the perimeter frames of the building are designed to act as a cantilevered tube in resisting lateral forces. This design concept (the so-called tube within a tube architecture) has been employed in the construction of many of the world's tallest buildings. These include the John Hancock Center (1105 ft), the Standard Oil of Indiana Building (1125 ft) and the Sears Tower (1450 ft). In fact, it is the standard design for tall buildings. Vital to the structural integrity of these buildings are the composite floor slabs. In fact, if the floors were not composite, the buildings would eventually collapse. Eagar totally ignores the fact that the floor slabs were composite (that is, studs or projections from the steel beams were embedded in the concrete slab) preferring to believe the fiction that the floors just rested upon the beams supporting them. NOVA: After the planes struck and you saw those raging fires, did you think the towers would collapse? Eagar: No. In fact, I was surprised. So were most structural engineers. The only people I know who weren't surprised were a few people who've designed high-rise buildings. This second statement will only be true because designers of high-rise buildings would know for certain that the buildings were deliberately demolished and would consequently, "not be surprised." NOVA: But you weren't surprised that they withstood the initial impacts, is that correct? Eagar: That's right. All buildings and most bridges have what we call redundant design. If one component breaks, the whole thing will not come crashing down. I once worked on a high-rise in New York, for example, that had a nine-foot-high beam that had a crack all the way through one of the main beams in the basement. This was along the approach to the George Washington Bridge. They shored it up and kept traffic from using that area. Some people were concerned the building would fall down. The structural engineers knew it wouldn't, because the whole thing had an egg-crate-like construction. Or you can think of it as a net. If you lose one string on a net, yes, the net is weakened but the rest of the net still works. Traditional design WTC design Earlier skyscrapers (top) had columns spaced evenly across every floor. The World Trade Center (bottom) broke with tradition by having columns only in the central core and along the exterior walls. That's essentially how the World Trade Center absorbed an airplane coming into it. It was somewhat like the way a net absorbs a baseball being thrown against it. This is deliberate misdirection. It would be more accurate to say that the towers absorbed the impact of the planes as a sheet of glass absorbs the impact of a bullet. Note that a baseball does more damage to a window than a bullet (even if we arrange that both have the exactly the same momentum). As we all know, the bullet will make a neat little bullet hole while a baseball will smash most of the glass out. It is the speed (and shape) of the projectile that determines whether the impact damage is localized or spread across a large area. The faster the projectile, the more localized the damage. Other common examples illustrating this effect are, the driving of a nail through a piece of wood, and the firing a bullet through a fencepost. Both are done at speed and thus do only local damage. In both of these examples, the wood just a centimeter or two from the impact point, is essentially undamaged. Similarly, the aircraft impacts were at great speed and severe damage localized to a few floors. If you lose a couple of the columns, that's not the end of the world. It will still stand up. NOVA: The World Trade Center was also designed to take a major wind load hitting from the side. Eagar: Yes. A skyscraper is a long, thin, vertical structure, but if you turned it sideways, it would be like a diving board, and you could bend it on the end. The wind load is trying to bend it like a diving board. It sways back and forth. If you've been on the top of the Sears Tower in Chicago or the Empire State Building on a windy day, you can actually feel it. When I was a student, I visited the observation deck of the Sears Tower, and I went into the restroom there, and I could see the water sloshing in the toilet bowl, because the wind load was causing the whole building to wave in the breeze. NOVA: Are skyscrapers designed that way, to be a little flexible? Eagar: Absolutely. Now, there are different ways to design things. For example, Boeing designs their aircraft wings to flap in the breeze, while McDonnell Douglas used to design a very rigid wing that would not flex as much. You can design it both ways. There are trade-offs, and there are advantages to both ways. "Most buildings are designed to sway in the breeze." Most buildings are designed to sway in the breeze. In fact, one of the big concerns in the early design of the World Trade Center, since it was going to be the tallest building in the world at the time, was that it not sway too much and make people sick. You can get seasick in one of these tall buildings from the wind loads. So they had to do some things to make them stiff enough that people wouldn't get sick, but not so rigid that it could snap if it got too big a load. If something's flexible, it can give; think of a willow tree. If you have a strong wind, you want the building, like the tree, to bend rather than break. NOVA: Brian Clark, one of only four people (at least 18 survived from the impacted floors or above) to get out from above where United 175 hit the South Tower, says that when the plane struck, the building swayed for a full seven to 10 seconds in one direction before settling back, and he thought it was going over. Eagar: That estimate of seven to ten seconds is probably correct, because often big buildings are designed to be stiff enough that the period to go one way and back the other way is 15 or 20 seconds, or even 30 seconds. That keeps people from getting sick. Pancaking Upper floors pancaked down onto lower floors, causing a domino effect that left each building in ruins within ten seconds. NOVA: The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over? Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. This statement by Eagar is utterly amazing. It is a wonder MIT has not fired him. Given that the south tower did in fact tip over (and quite visibly so). This shows Eagar's desperation. One thing is certain, all buildings, even the World Trade Center towers, will tip over if enough lateral (sideways) force is applied to them. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. The laws of physics do not change. The same laws of physics that tell you a glass of water will tip over, also tell you that (if enough lateral force is applied) large buildings like the World Trade Center towers, will in fact, tip over. You must ask yourself why Eagar chooses to lie about this (he certainly knows the physics, but chooses to tell the world a transparent lie). What Eagar says about the center of gravity is true, however, it does not imply that the building would come straight down, so his statement is just another piece of misdirection. His implication is clearly wrong, as shown by the fact that the south tower did in fact tip over (videos of the south tower collapse clearly show that the top 30, or so, floors tipped over, but this section was being demolished as it fell, so after a few seconds it was reduced to rubble and no longer fell as a unit). Picture of the World Trade Center south tower tipping over. NOVA: Was there any chance they could have tipped over? Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over. Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, "How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?" They said, "Oh, it's really how you time and place the explosives." I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big. With anything that massive -- each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons -- there's nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways. Eagar makes a real ass of himself in this article. To see how much of a fool Eagar is making of himself and his profession, think through the following thought experiment. Take the WTC and remove ten floors, but only say, the eastern half of each floor (so you have a situation analogous to a lumberjack cutting a slot half way through a tree), and imagine how the WTC (tree) would fall. One things for sure, it would not fall straight down. By Eagar's "logic" a tree that is extremely massive must fall down through itself, rather than tip over (because a tree is made of atoms and atoms are mostly empty space). What a dope. Impact Even traveling at hundreds of miles an hour, the planes that struck the World Trade Center did not have enough force to knock the towers over. NOVA: I think some people were surprised when they saw this massive 110-story building collapse into a rubble pile only a few stories tall. Eagar: Well, like most buildings, the World Trade Center was mostly air. It looked like a huge building if you walked inside, but it was just like this room we're in. The walls are a very small fraction of the total room. The World Trade Center collapse proved that with a 110-story building, if 95 percent of it's air, as was the case here, you're only going to have about five stories of rubble at the bottom after it falls. NOVA: You've said that the fire is the most misunderstood part of the World Trade Center collapse. Why? Eagar: The problem is that most people, even some engineers, talk about temperature and heat as if they're identical. In fact, scientifically, they're only related to each other. Temperature tells me the intensity of the heat -- is it 100 degrees, 200 degrees, 300 degrees? The heat tells me how big the thing is that gets hot. I mean, I could boil a cup of water to make a cup of tea, or I could boil ten gallons of water to cook a bunch of lobsters. So it takes a lot more energy to cook the lobsters -- heat is related to energy. That's the difference: We call the intensity of heat the temperature, and the amount of heat the energy. Impact Watch an animation of the Boeing 767 aircraft hitting the North Tower and the rapid spread of the resulting fireball through the building. NOVA: So with the World Trade Center fire, the heat was much greater than might have been expected in a typical fire? Eagar: Right. We had all this extra fuel from the aircraft. Now, there have been fires in skyscrapers before. The Hotel Meridien in Philadelphia had a fire, but it didn't do this kind of damage. Eagar is referring to the One Meridian Plaza fire of February 23-24, 1991, which burnt for 19 hours. Strange how Eagar manages to "forget" the 1975 World Trade Center north tower fire. When he says "it (the One Meridian Plaza fire) didn't do this kind of damage" he means that One Meridian Plaza did not collapse. So here is another example (the first being the World Trade Center North Tower in 1975) of a skyscraper that endured much more serious fires than those of September 11, without collapsing. In fact, before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire. However, on September 11, it is claimed that three steel framed skyscrapers (both towers and World Trade Center Seven) collapsed mainly, or totally, due to fire. The above graphic provides us with yet another example of misinformation. The World Trade Center towers were 208 feet wide. Hence, from the graphic we can calculate that the wingspan of the pictured plane is 224 feet, however the actual wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet. Every trick in the book must be tried to convince the gullible that the aircraft strikes plus fire bought down the towers, otherwise the true culprits behind 9-11 may be discovered. The real damage in the World Trade Center resulted from the size of the fire. Each floor was about an acre, and the fire covered the whole floor within a few seconds. Ordinarily, it would take a lot longer. If, say, I have an acre of property, and I start a brushfire in one corner, it might take an hour, even with a good wind, to go from one corner and start burning the other corner. That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing for -- a fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it started have already started to cool down and regain their strength before you start to weaken the ones on the other side. On September 11th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse. There was so much fuel spread so quickly that the entire floor got weakened all at once, whereas in a normal fire, people should not think that if there's a fire in a high-rise building that the building will come crashing down. This was a very unusual situation, in which someone dumped 10,000 gallons of jet fuel in an instant. There are a number of major problems with Eagar's claims. (1) One complaint is that much of the jet fuel burnt outside the buildings. This was particularly true in the case of the south tower. After the impact nearly all of the jet fuel would have been spread throughout the area as a flammable mist. When this mist ignited it would have emptied the building of almost the entire fuel load, which then "exploded" outside the building. This is exactly what was seen on the videos of the impacts. (2) If any quantity of liquid jet fuel did manage to accumulate in the building, then its volatility would lead to large amounts of it being evaporated and not burnt (pyrolysed) in the interior of the building. This evaporated fuel would burn on exiting the building, when it finally found sufficient oxygen. (3) The jet fuel fires were brief. Most of the jet fuel would have burnt off or evaporated within 30 seconds, and all of it within 2-3 minutes (if all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor as a pool, it would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes). The energy, from the jet fuel, not absorbed by the concrete and steel within this brief period, would have been vented to the outside world. This means that the jet fuel fire did not heat the concrete slabs or fire protected steel appreciably. Large columns such as the core columns would also not heat appreciably, even if they had lost all their fire-protection. Unprotected trusses may have experienced a more sizeable temperature increase. The jet fuel fire was so brief that the concrete and steel simply could not absorb the heat fast enough, and consequently, most of the heat was lost to the atmosphere through the smoke plume. (4) Even if the fire-rated suspended ceilings and spray on fire-protection from the trusses was removed by the impacts and the trusses were heated till they had lost most of their room temperature strength, we know from the Cardington tests and real fires like Broadgate, that the relatively cold concrete slab will supply strength to the structural system, and collapse will not occur. Remember, that at Broadgate and Cardington, the beams/trusses were not fire-protected. (5) Since the jet fuel fire was brief, and the building still stood, we know that the composite floor slab survived and continued to function as designed (until the buildings were demolished one or two hours later). After the jet fuel fire was over, burning desks, books, plastic, carpets, etc, contributed to the fire. So now we have a typical office fire. The fact that the trusses received some advanced heating will be of little consequence. After some minutes the fires would have been indistinguishable from a typical office fire, and we know that the truss-slab combination will survive such fires, because they did so in the 1975. (6) Of course, most of the weight of the building was supported by the central core columns. Eagar doesn't bother to tell us how these 47 massive columns might have failed (at least in the case of the north tower, some of these columns, perhaps two or three, would have been displaced by the impacts). We know that the jet fuel fire was too brief to heat them appreciably. Since the central core area contained only lift shafts and stairwells, it contained very little flammable material. This meant that the core columns could only have been heated by the office fire burning in the adjacent region. Consequently, the core columns would have never got hot enough to fail. But we already know this because they did not fail in the 1975 WTC office fire. (7) You should consider that it has been calculated that if the entire 10,000 gallons of jet fuel from the aircraft was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction, then the jet fuel could have only raised the temperature of this floor to, at the very most, 536°F (280°C). You can find the calculation here. (8) Another reason that we know the fires were not serious enough to cause structural failure, is that witnesses tell us this. The impact floors of the south tower were 78-84. Here are a few words from some of the witnesses: Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the south tower: The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway. Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby: We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped. Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned. Eagar claims temperatures were hot enough to cause the trusses of the south tower to fail, but here we have eye-witnesses stating that temperatures were cool enough for them to walk away. Interestingly, a tape of radio conversations between firefighters exists (but only relatives of the dead men have been allowed to hear it). Kevin Flynn, of the New York Times, reported: Chief Orio Palmer says from an upper floor of the badly damaged south tower at the World Trade Center. Just two hose lines to attack two isolated pockets of fire. "We should be able to knock it down with two lines," he tells the firefighters of Ladder Co. 15 who were following him up the stairs of the doomed tower. Lt. Joseph G. Leavey is heard responding: "Orio, we're on 78 but we're in the B stairway. Trapped in here. We got to put some fire out to get to you." The time was 9:56 a.m. So now we know that, just a few minutes before the collapse of the south tower, firefighters did not consider the fires to be that serious, and were in fact able to get right into the impact region without being killed by the heat that was (according to Eagar) so intense that the trusses glowed red-hot and failed. NOVA: How high did the temperatures get, and what did that do to the steel columns? Eagar: The maximum temperature would have been 1,600°F or 1,700°F. It's impossible to generate temperatures much above that in most cases with just normal fuel, in pure air ("pure" air is only 21% oxygen). In fact, I think the World Trade Center fire was probably only 1,200°F or 1,300°F. Eagar randomly settles on a temperature between 1,200°F to 1,300°F. He does this so that his "estimate" would be higher than the first "critical" temperature for open web steel joists of 1,100°F. He does not differentiate between atmospheric temperatures and steel temperatures. The critical temperature is defined as approximately the temperature where the steel has lost approximately 50 percent of its yield strength from that at room temperature. It turns out, that for composite steel structures, the first "critical" temperature, is not really that critical. Here are the critical temperatures adopted by the North American Test Standard (the ASTM E119 standard) Steel Critical Temperature Columns 1,000°F (538°C) Beams 1,100°F (593°C) Open Web Steel Joists 1,100°F (593°C) Reinforcing Steel 1,100°F (593°C) Prestressed Steel 800°F (426°C) These critical temperatures are only part of the picture. If individual components are exposed to temperatures in excess of those quoted, then they may fail. However, these same components when incorporated in larger structures can be heated to much greater temperatures before failure occurs. The June 1990 Broadgate fire occurred in a high-rise while under construction. Consequently, little of the steel was fire protected. Even though the fire blazed for 4.5 hours, the building did not collapse and runaway type failures did not occur. To investigate the implications of the Broadgate fire on fire standards, the British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington on a simulated, eight-story building. Here is a quote from one of the research reports from these experiments. Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments. [2] And here is a quote from the FEMA report into the WTC collapse (Appendix A). In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not (fire) protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 1,500-1,700°F (800-900°C) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 1,100°F (600°C), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments. To get a feeling for how amazingly fire-resistant composite steel structures really are, consider this: Test 6: The office demonstration test fire at Cardington: A compartment 18m wide and up to 10m deep with a floor area of 135m2, was constructed on the second floor, using concrete blockwork. The compartment represented an open plan office and contained a series of work-stations consisting of modern day furnishings, computers and filing systems. The test conditions were set to create a very severe fire by incorporating additional wood/plastic cribs to create a total fire load of 9.4 pounds per square foot (46kg per square meter). Less than 5% of offices would exceed this level (mainly office libraries). The fire load was made up of 69% wood, 20% plastic and 11% paper. The steel columns were fire protected but the primary and secondary beams (and their connections) were not. The maximum atmosphere temperature was 2215°F (1213°C) and the maximum average temperature was approximately 1650°F (900°C). The maximum temperature of the unprotected steel was 2100°F (1150°C) with a maximum average temperature of about 1750°F (950°C). The steel beams would have only have had 3% of their strength at 2000°F (1100°C), with such little remaining strength left in the steel, the beams could only contribute as catenary tension members. It is also clear that the concrete floors were supplying strength to the structural system by membrane action. The structure showed no signs of collapse. One of the conclusions derived from the Cardington tests, was that fire protection for the beams (trusses) was not necessary (in a composite steel structure). Investigations of fires in other buildings with steel have shown that fires don't usually even melt the aluminum, which melts around 1,200°F. Most fires don't get above 900°F to 1,100°F. The World Trade Center fire did melt some of the aluminum in the aircraft and hence it probably got to 1,300°F or 1,400°F. This is almost certainly a lie. It is no surprise Eagar does not give a source for this information. But that's all it would have taken to trigger the collapse, according to my "back of the envelope" analysis. NOVA: You've pointed out that structural steel loses about half its strength at 1,200°F, yet even a 50 percent loss of strength is insufficient, by itself, to explain the collapse. Eagar: Well, normally the biggest load on this building was the wind load (actually the biggest load was the gravity load), trying to push it sideways and make it vibrate like a flag in the breeze. The World Trade Center building was designed to withstand a hurricane of about 140 miles an hour, but September 11th wasn't a windy day, so the major loads it was designed for were not on it at the time. "You can't explain the collapse just in terms of temperature." As a result, the World Trade Center, at the time each airplane hit it, was only loaded to about 20 percent of its capacity. That means it had to lose five times its capacity either due to temperature or buckling -- the temperature weakening the steel, the buckling changing the strength of a member because it's bent rather than straight. You can't explain the collapse just in terms of temperature, and you can't explain it just in terms of buckling. It was a combination. Eagar claims that the exterior columns buckled. The exterior columns were visible from outside the building. There was no visible evidence that these columns buckled before the collapse. There is also no visible evidence that these columns were very hot. Photographs of these columns in the debris heap, showed no indications of thermal buckling (I guess the conspirators will claim that the reason no photographs showed thermal buckling of the exterior columns, was that they made sure that such columns were the first to hauled away and melted down). Eagar jumps from buckled columns to buckled beams in a few more lines, mixing up the two as if they are essentially the same. NOVA: So can you give a sequence of events that likely took place in the structural failure? Eagar: Well, first you had the impact of the plane, of course, and then this spreading of the fireball all the way across within seconds. Then you had a hot fire, but it wasn't an absolutely uniform fire everywhere. You had a wind blowing, so the smoke was going one way more than another way, (by the way, cross ventilation is known to cool a fire) which means the heat was going one way more than another way. That caused some of the beams to distort, even at fairly low temperatures. You can permanently distort the beams with a temperature difference of only about 300°F. NOVA: You mean one part of a beam is 300°F hotter than another part of the same beam? Eagar: Exactly. If there was one part of the building in which a beam had a temperature difference of 300°F, then that beam would have become permanently distorted at relatively low temperatures. So instead of being nice and straight, it had a gentle curve. If you press down on a soda straw, you know that if it's perfectly straight, it will support a lot more load than if you start to put a little sideways bend in it. That's what happened in terms of the beams. They were weakened because they were bent by the fire. Eagar is, as usual, incorrect here. Buckling of beams does not necessarily lead to failure, in fact, in fires it is beneficial. For example, a laterally restrained beam (that will buckle at relatively low temperatures due to the lateral restraint) will not suffer runaway till around 900°C, whereas, a simply supported beam carrying the same loads (that will not buckle) will suffer runaway at around 450°C. So the beam that undergoes buckling is much preferred in a fire situation. Here are two more quotes from a research papers examining the Cardington experiments. In structures such as the composite steel frame at Cardington, the slab strongly restrains the thermal expansion strains and consequently develops large membrane compression and tension forces in the composite steel-concrete floor system. The membrane compressions can be limited by the large downward deflections which occur through thermo-mechanical post-buckling effects and thermal bowing (these are nonlinearly additive). The resulting behaviour is then a combination of displacement and force responses. The heated steel part of this composite system, if unprotected, rapidly reaches its axial capacity (through local buckling and strength degradation), and produces a beneficial effect by limiting and then reducing the total membrane compression, so allowing increased expansion of the steel through softening and ductility. This is clearly a desirable behaviour here, as it reduces the force imposed on the structure by the expansion forces and allows the damage to be localized. [3] In composite floor slabs, buckling of the steel beams as a result of large compressions induced by restrained thermal expansions, is a positive event. The buckle allows the increase in length, as a result of thermal expansion, to be accommodated in downward deflections relieving axial compressions. [4] So, in buildings comparable to the World Trade Center, buckling, paradoxically, has a beneficial effect. But the steel still had plenty of strength, until it reached temperatures of 1,100°F to 1,300°F. In this range, the steel started losing a lot of strength, and the bending became greater. Eventually the steel lost 80 percent of its strength, because of this fire that consumed the whole floor. If it had only occurred in one little corner, such as a trashcan caught on fire, you might have had to repair that corner, but the whole building wouldn't have come crashing down. The problem was, it was such a widely distributed fire, and then you got this domino effect. Once you started to get angle clips to fail in one area, it put extra load on other angle clips, and then it unzipped around the building on that floor in a matter of seconds. NOVA: Many other engineers also feel the weak link was these angle clips, which held the floor trusses between the inner core of columns and the exterior columns. Is that simply because they were much smaller pieces of steel? Eagar: Exactly. That's the easiest way to look at it. If you look at the whole structure, they are the smallest piece of steel. As everything begins to distort, the smallest piece is going to become the weak link in the chain. They were plenty strong for holding up one truss, but when you lost several trusses, the trusses adjacent to those had to hold two or three times what they were expected to hold. More crap from Eagar. Does he really believe that the towers were only held together with a couple of rivets and duct tape. Here is a quote from the FEMA report into the WTC collapse (Chapter 2). Pairs of flat bars extended diagonally from the exterior wall to the top chord of adjacent trusses. These diagonal flat bars, which were typically provided with shear studs, provided horizontal shear transfer between the floor slab and exterior wall, as well as out-of-plane bracing for perimeter columns not directly supporting floor trusses. Eagar claims that the trusses were connected to the perimeter wall only by what he calls, "angle clips". The truth is that every 160 inches, the perimeter wall was solidly attached to a 24 x 18 inch metal plate that was covered with shear studs and set in the concrete slab. In addition a pair of 6 foot long, flat, steel bars lined with shear studs were welded to the plate and to the top chord of the adjacent trusses. These bars were also set in the concrete slab. Between these plates similar pairs of 6 foot long, flat, steel bars connected directly to tabs on the perimeter columns. So these features, as well as the angle clips, connected the perimeter wall to the concrete slab and hence to the rest of the building. Below, is a picture of these plates and steel bars before the concrete slab was poured. The plates are the dark rectangular objects along the perimeter wall. The steel bars are the V-like features Those angle clips probably had two or three or four times the strength that they originally needed. They didn't have the same factor-of-five safety as the columns did, but they still had plenty of safety factor to have people and equipment on those floors. It was not that the angle clips were inadequately designed; it was just that there were so many of them that the engineers were able to design them with less safety factor. In a very unusual loading situation like this, they became the weak link. NOVA: I've read that the collapse was a near free-fall. Eagar: Yes. That's because the forces, it's been estimated, were anywhere from 10 to 100 times greater than an individual floor could support. First of all, you had 10 or 20 floors above that came crashing down. That's about 10 or 20 times the weight you'd ever expect on one angle clip. There's also the impact force, that is, if something hits very hard, there's a bigger force than if you lower it down very gently. Here is an article that has been posted at various sites on the internet. All that one needs to know, to be able to conclusively prove that the Twin Towers were demolished, is that the towers fell in roughly 10 seconds, that is, that they fell at about the same rate that an object falls through air. Anyone with a little common sense will realize that the top of a building does not pass through the concrete and steel that comprises the lower portion of the building at the same rate that it falls through air. This just doesn't happen, unless, of course, the lower part of the building has lost its structural integrity (and this is usually due to the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as seen in controlled demolitions). The fact that the towers collapsed in about 10 seconds is a statement that the upper portion of each of the towers passed through the lower portion at about the same rate that it would have fallen through air. The fact that the towers fell this quickly (essentially at the rate of free-fall) is conclusive evidence that they were deliberately demolished. Believing that there is nothing wrong with the towers collapsing so quickly, is roughly analogous to believing that people pass through closed doors as quickly as they pass through open doors. The fact that they fell at such a rate means that they encountered essentially no resistance from the supposedly undamaged parts of the structure. That is, no resistance was encountered from any of the immensely strong parts of the structure that had held the building up for the last 30 years. From this one can conclude that the lower undamaged parts were actually very damaged (probably by the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as is usual in a controlled demolition). NOVA: Miraculously, a number of firefighters survived inside Tower One. They were on the third or fourth floor in a stairwell, and immediately after the collapse they looked up and saw blue sky above their heads -- their part of the stairwell survived. How is that possible, with all the force of that 500,000-ton building coming down? "They were very, very fortunate that they happened to be in an area that was somewhat shielded." Eagar: Well, you have to understand the stairwells were reinforced areas of the building. The stairwells were in the central core, which had more steel than the outer areas, which were big open floors. So that extra steel formed a little cage to protect them. It's still amazing, though. Now, there could have been someone two floors below who could have been completely crushed. It just depends on how the steel buckled. If you take that soda straw again, and you push it sideways, it will develop a buckle at some location, probably somewhere in the middle third. Well, if you happen to be where the buckling occurs, that area is going to get smashed, but if you're, say, below where the buckling occurred, basically the whole thing can push sideways. They were very, very fortunate that they happened to be in an area that was somewhat shielded and protected by all the extra steel in the central core. I read one of those people's statements in the paper the other day, and he said that if they'd been in the lobby, they'd be gone. I was in the lobby of the World Trade Center years ago, and it was some three or four stories tall. What was going to buckle? Well, the lobby had the longest columns, so they were going to buckle. Those firefighters were just above that, so they were protected by the buckling underneath, within this sort of steel cage. In fact, that's how they design automobiles for crashworthiness. They try to design the passenger compartment to be a cage, and the hood and trunk are supposed to deform and absorb the energy so that you're protected by this little cage of steel that hopefully won't deform. Plane approaching Engineers have found evidence that the aluminum of the planes' fuselages and wings may have melted, but there is no evidence that it burned. NOVA: There's a theory that the aluminum of the planes caught fire. Eagar: Yes, a number of people have tried to reinforce that theory. Now, the aluminum of the planes would have burned just like a flare. Flares are made out of aluminum and magnesium, so are fireworks, and they burn hot enough to melt steel in certain cases. However, they have had people sorting through the steel from the World Trade Center, and no one has reported finding melted steel, which means that we didn't have that aluminum flare. In any case, burning aluminum would have been white-hot, about 4,000°F, and someone would have seen it even through that dense black smoke. Of course, aluminum can burn. That's what demolished the [British destroyer] Sheffield in the Falklands War [when it was struck by an Argentinian missile]. It wasn't the Exocet missile that destroyed the superstructure of the Sheffield. The missile wasn't big enough, just like the plane wasn't big enough to bring down the World Trade Center. That Exocet missile did damage the Sheffield, but what doomed the Sheffield was the aluminum superstructure caught fire and burned. So you suddenly had something like 1,000 or 10,000 times as much fuel as you had in that Exocet missile. Now, this is not a type of fire we have to worry about in buildings. We don't have anywhere close to those types of conditions. And we didn't have those in the World Trade Center, in my opinion. NOVA: How soon will a definitive report of the causes of the collapse be released? Eagar: Well, there's some very sophisticated analysis that various people in the government, at universities, and at structural engineering firms are doing to understand it. Most of those people have not yet published any conclusions. To do a good job of research on something like this can typically take one to two years. I don't expect to see any conclusive reports probably until about the first anniversary of the attack. "There will still be people worrying about this ten years from now." There are different levels of analysis. You can do the back-of-the-envelope, which was what I and other people did early on. But to do the full analysis will take much longer. I suspect there will still be people worrying about this ten years from now. NOVA: In your back-of-the-envelope analysis, you concluded the World Trade Center was not defectively designed, but not everyone apparently accepts that conclusion. Eagar: A lot of people said, Well, the building failed. That's true, but nothing is indestructible. The question is, why did it fail? In this case, as I've explained, it was the fire covering the whole floor in a few seconds that made this different from any other fire that anyone had ever designed for. If people say, Well, couldn't we have designed it for this, I say, Yes, we could have. We could build buildings that could survive a jet running into them with a full fuel load. In fact, the military does. But they're bunkers. We build these things for the President and the rest of the 150 leaders of the country to go to as a secure area. You can do that, but your building costs go up by a factor of about 100. Well, do we want to have 100 times fewer homes for people to live in? Do we want to have 100 times fewer roads? If we were to harden everything against a terrorist attack, we'd push ourselves back into the first half of the 19th century in terms of living style. Now, some people might consider that an improvement, but not everybody, so society has some important tradeoffs here. There's got to be some middle ground where we can make things more secure but not destroy our standard of living. NOVA: Anything we should do now to retrofit existing skyscrapers like the Sears Tower? Eagar: Well, one of the things that's really important and is relatively inexpensive is a public communication system. I've been in high-rises when the fire alarm goes off, and everyone looks around the room and decides, Should we just continue meeting and ignore the fire alarm, or should we evacuate? Fortunately, in most cases -- and I've had to be the person in a few of those cases -- people say, Look, it's a fire alarm. We don't know if it's real. Evacuate. So you need better public-address systems to inform people that this is not a test, this is not a false alarm, you'd better get out of the building. Stairwell Better communications systems may have allowed more people to escape the towers before they collapsed, Eagar believes. For instance, if more people had known that Stairway A in the South Tower, shown here in green, had survived the impact, more people may have gotten out before the building collapsed. Survivors from the World Trade Center have said that some people took four or five minutes to figure out there was something more than just some false alarm. Other people started moving immediately. Obviously, the quicker people started to move, the better chance they had of reaching safety. NOVA: How about improving the fire safety of the building or putting in extra stairwells? Eagar: These are very difficult things to redesign into current buildings. They can and will be added to future buildings. The simplest thing is the communication system. And better training of firefighters. Those things will definitely be done. If you look at the World Trade Center disaster, it would have been greatly minimized if the safety personnel had been aware of the danger they were in. They didn't realize it was going to collapse. As I said earlier, there are only a few engineers in the country who had ever designed skyscrapers like this who would have realized, but they couldn't communicate within that first hour with the people at ground zero. Nobody could call to New York City at that time. So better communication. The military's known that for years. They've invested tremendous amounts of money in better communications. That's been one of the differences in having fewer lives lost on the American side in recent wars. We've got much better C3I -- Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence. They've spent billions of dollars, and it's saved thousands and thousands of lives in the military. We can do that on the civilian side as well for these big structures, though, in my opinion, skyscrapers are not the problem anymore. "A terrorist is not going to attack the things you expect him to attack." NOVA: What is? Eagar: I think the terrorist danger will be other things. A terrorist is not going to attack the things you expect him to attack. The real problem is pipelines, electrical transmission, dams, nuclear plants, railroads. A terrorist's job is to scare people. He or she doesn't have to harm very many people. Anthrax is a perfect example. If someone could wipe out one electrical transmission line and cause a brownout in all of New York City or Los Angeles, there would be hysteria, if people realized it was a terrorist that did it. Fortunately, we have enough redundancy -- the same type of redundancy we talk about structurally in the World Trade Center -- in our electrical distribution. We have that redundancy built in. I shouldn't say this, but this was how Enron was able to build up a business, because they could transfer their energy from wherever they were producing it into California, which was having problems, and make a fortune -- for a short period of time. NOVA: Gas pipelines don't have redundancy built in, though. Eagar: No, but one advantage of a gas pipeline is the damage you can do to it is relatively limited. You might be able to destroy several hundred yards of it, but that's not wiping out a whole city. The bigger problem with taking out a gas pipeline is if you do it in the middle of winter, and that gas pipeline is heating 20 percent of the homes in the Northeast. Then all of a sudden you have 20 percent less fuel, and everybody's going to have to turn the thermostat down, and you're going to terrorize 30 million people. The lesson we have to learn about this kind of terrorism is we have to design flexible and redundant systems, so that we're not completely dependent on any one thing, whether it's a single gas pipeline bringing heat to a particular area or whatever. Remember the energy crisis in 1973? That terrorized people. People were sitting in long lines at gas pumps. It takes five or 10 years for society to readjust to a problem like that. What happened in the energy crisis in 1973 was we had essentially all our eggs in one basket -- the oil basket. But by 1983, electric generating plants could flip a switch and change from oil to coal or gas, so no one could hold a gun to our head like they did before. Eagar Thomas Eagar is Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT. He was recently nominated to serve on a National Research Council committee on homeland security. To see Eagar's article, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation," which was coauthored by MIT graduate student Christopher Musso, go to www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html Thomas Eagar is employed by MIT. He blackens the good name of MIT as well as his own. Interview conducted by Peter Tyson, editor in chief of NOVA Online [1] Multi-Storey Building in Steel, GB Godfrey (Editor), Collins, London, England, 1985. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.htmlere drilling holes and placing dynamite and cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine into the towers' steel support structure? I look forward to your response.
Here it is in its entirely. The links to the images are dead but the text is still there. So, what "peer reviewed" rag hole in the wall will publish your windbag word dump indictment and "refutation" of Thomas Eagar? The more the simpler statements of the Six Percenters get debunked, the more words they try to shovel into their breached dike, and the louder they scream "paid agent," "liar," "sterno drinker," and attack the accomplishments of people with dozens of working patents and hundreds of "peer reviewed" articles in contrast to their one pay to publish piece from a proven k00k. And the more they demonstrate logorrhea trying to drown out the discourse with their own rambling unfocused narratives. Amusing. So now in addition to not being listened to because their Tw00fferk00k message is stupid: "Big plane hits building. Building crashes within 100 minutes. Big plane hit not make building crash," they won't be listened to because of the noise they make, as in "Hey! Turn down the volume on that mix you've been replaying all month!" LOLOL
And this would concern me how? It either stands on its merits or it does not. Peer Review is vastly overrated. It is a way to prevent anything which does not conform to any given orthodoxy from getting published whether it be Archaeology, Physics, Chemistry, or 911. I've covered the territory before but there are a variety of things which today we accept as scientific fact that were rejected by the mainstream at the time of their introduction: Gregor Mendel and the inheritability of genetic traits. He was laughed at, rejected, and his work sat on a dusty shelf for over a hundred years afterwards. Alfred Wegner introduced the Theory of Continental Drift in the 1930's and was called a kook, a nut, and how dare a mere Meteorologist comment on geology. Today it is a separate branch of Geophysics called "Plate Tectonics". Copernicus was afraid to have his work on planetary motion published in his lifetime as he was kind leery of being burned at the stake as a heretic. Harvey was called a kook, a bufoon, etc., when he introduced his theory of how the circulatory system worked. Today it is taken for granted. "Rocks fall from the sky? Impossible! Rocks don't fall from the sky. Harummph!" And so meteorites were dismissed as folk tales until the scientific community caught up with the evidence. The French Geologist, Georges Cuvier, was a proponent of the theory of Catastrophism in Geology i.e., that massive earth changes can occur in a relatively short period of time. He was laughed out of the field and Charles Lyell and James Hutton's "Uniformitarianism" i.e., that all major earth changes occur slowly over vast periods of time, won the debate and Cuvier was relegated to a chuckling footnote over his "simplistic" views. But wait Johnny THERE'S MORE! In recent years beginning with Walter and Luis Alvarez and the Asteroid Impact Theory of Dinosaur Extinction there has been a slow tidal change and it now appears that Cuvier was right as the evidence for planetary scale catastrophes has begun to mount. So, 20 years ago Catastrophists were "a bunch of kooks" and today they are a growing segment of the mainstream. So, while your ignorance could, no doubt, fill volumes you are perfectly welcome to panic yourself and chuckle ignorantly away. You see there is a difference between thee and me. I am prepared to admit when an item has been disproven and revise my views to reflect new data. Which is much unlike you who has a fixed idea and a book full of talking points. I go where the data goes and you know what buddy I trust my ability to reach a logical conclusion based on the data more than I trust your hyena like chuckling and giggling. Imagine that? Oh, and don't forget to grease the wheels on your Skateboard.
Awesome post, OI.
deleted
I think I'd rather try to reason with the next deuce I drop. It would be a more intelligent conversation. Actually AGGravator is a Warmist, and a Peak Oiler. If there is a mainstream PTB PsyOp he doesn't agree with I am unaware of it.
deleted
He should head over to FR or somewhere else then. WTF's he doing here. Why isn't he still over at PalinPost, what'd he do, criticize our next queen or something. Good question. I honestly don't know. Of course with Goldi-Pox you only need to comment on the other side of one of her prejudices or expose a truth she doesn't want heard to get the boot. Which of course is why El Pee has shrunk from a thriving community to a nest of quisling Israel First Cranks and subjects of "The Tits that Walk". However, on the positive side he is good for a laugh. Such a cheerful fellow. ;-) Ever notice that the Warmists and Peak Oilers always accuse everyone else of harboring (((((shudder))))) "Conspiracy Theories" and yet their pet Chimeras are never so labeled?
Ever notice how Tw00ferk00ks can never go focused more than a few seconds - in this case the WTC crashes and building collapses - without dragging extraneous subjects into the discussion instead of remaining on point?
It is as though .. such as this thread about FLT 77's cabin door NEVER opened during the takeoff from Dulles to the crash at the Pentagon ... incredible.
Eight Hunnneeeeerrrrrttttt an eighty eight.........
JACKPOT! Your Truck Load of Ripe Bananas is on the way. ;-)
lol.......I'll be awaiting delivery with bated breath. : )
Is that bated or baited.
It's bated cause I can't waste any worms on this delivery when the fishing is fine this time of year. : )
#901: marker to say that no one who has anything of consequence to do with the remainder of their lives gives a tin shit about 9/11. Old news. Two massive threads of people going at it hammer and tong over inconsequential nonsense. They're dead. Who cares who did it? Of what intrinsic value is that information? Z-E-R-O.
#905. To: Samuel Gray (#902)
Good, then we can just repeal the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act, bring all of our troops home, and release all of the prisoners held at Gitmo and secret prisons around the world, since it's all over with.
I disagree. The reason it remains important is that 911 has been the whole justification for the "Waronterra", the un-Patriot Act, the Military Commissions act, Der Ministry uff State Sekurity a.k.a. Vaterland Sekurity, the invasion of Pipelinestan and Iraq, and all the associated inroads on individual liberty and undermining the Constitution. As well it cuts directly to the heart of the legitimacy of the current government power structure. It is not dead, and it will remain quite alive. Of course the PTB know all of the preceeding which is why, even now, there is still a cadre of disinfo posters, and disinfo websites seeking to delegitimize questions about what really happened on that dreadful day. It is why Bush fought against an inquiry for over a year and then had to put up a rigged commission to give the appearance of an inquiry. Its importance is why NIST spent twenty million dollars to do a pretense of an investigation and analysis of why the towers fell. On 911 the government, and those that control it, staged an armed coup d'etat murdering 3,000 of its citizens to create a psychological environment conducive to cover stories justifying wars of conquest. It has been used to justify heinous and barbaric torture. No, it is not just important it is vitally important and will remain important for the indefinite future.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestDid you know that the cockpit door was NOT opened during all of Flight 77's doomed flight?
#21. To: AGAviator (#18)
#39. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo, turtle, x-15, christine (#21)
(Edited)
Isn't it just so awful that all these intelligent and well educated people refuse to believe the gubbermint and insist on forming conclusions based on the evidence.
#40. To: AGAviator, Original_Intent, buckeroo, turtle, x-15, christine (#39)
The false claim was made that the doors to the cabin did not open, based on amateur cherry-picking of government reports and pointedly excluding statements that don't support k00k blather.
#42. To: FormerLurker, turtle, buckeroo, X-15 (#40)
(Edited)
you're trying to pass off the damaged cockpit voice recorder from Flight 77 as the flight data recorder.
#44. To: AGAviator, turtle, buckeroo, X-15, Original_Intent, christine, ALL (#42)
(Edited)
#45. To: FormerLurker (#44)
#46. To: AGAviator (#45)
#48. To: FormerLurker (#46)
(Edited)
The NTSB data indicates that the COCKPIT DOOR was NOT OPENED during Flight 77's entire flight leading to the Pentagon on 9/11, that is true.
C'mon, posting pictures of a damaged COCKPIT VOICE RECORDER and trying pass it off as the FLIGHT DATA RECORDER?
#50. To: AGAviator (#48)
Neither shows any evidence of cockpit activities. As in zero evidence.
#54. To: FormerLurker (#50)
The data within the MEMORY MODULE was PRESENTED by the NTSB as EVIDENCE of the aircraft's flight data and parameters.
#55. To: AGAviator (#54)
#58. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo, turtle (#55)
(Edited)
The flight data indicates the door was NOT opened, and not only is the cockpit door opened
Even the FBI has indicated that Ted Olzon's wife never spoke to her husband on her cellphone during the flight.
According to the 9/11 Commission Report, 13 passengers from Flight 93 made a total of over 30 calls to both family and emergency personnel (twenty-two confirmed air phone calls, two confirmed cell phone and eight not specified in the report).
#69. To: AGAviator (#58)
Me: Even the FBI has indicated that Ted Olzon's wife never spoke to her husband on her cellphone during the flight.
#83. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo, turtle (#69)
At the Moussaoui trial, the fact that there was only 1 call to Ted Olson from his wife that lasted 0 seconds was presented
#84. To: AGAviator (#83)
Having said that my earlier claim that AA 757s did not have onboard phones was “wrong, at least probably
The 757 Aircraft Maintenance Manual: Besides learning about and confirming this letter from Kinder, we also obtained another piece of evidence supporting the conclusion that passengers on AA 77 could not have used onboard phones. One of RB’s colleagues sent him a page from the Boeing 757 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (757 AMM) dated January 28, 2001. This page states that the passenger phone system for the AA 757 fleet had (by that date) been deactivated.24 According to the 757 AMM, in other words, the onboard phones had been deactivated at least seven and a half months prior to 9/11.
United States v. Ted Olson
#106. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo, turtle (#84)
(Edited)
“The records available for the phone calls from American 77 do not allow for a determination of which of [these four calls] represent the two between Barbara and Ted Olson, although the FBI and DOJ believe that all four represent communications between Barbara Olson and her husband’s office."
(1) The conspiracy to send something other than Fight 77 to hit the Pentagon,
And these 5 conspiracies for Flight 11, and the 20+ for all anti war hijacking issues and building destructions, must be maintained at all costs with no dissenting witnesses even among people classified as anti government.
(2) The conspiracy to kill the people on Flight 77 some other way, then mis-identify their DNA remains,
(3) The conspiracy to scatter shredded and burnt 757 American parts over the Pentagon grounds and crash site, directly under the cameras of worldwide coverage without getting detected,
(4) The conspiracy to hide information showing the cabin and voice recorder data of Flight 77 is not available, and
(5) The conspiracy to generate ficticious onboard and cell phone logs and entries showing staff and passenger conversations during the hijackings.
#107. To: AGAviator (#106)
All this arm-waving about cell phones, is to try to obfuscate the voluminous evidence that Flight 11 was hijacked, both because the cabin security was breached and calls were logged and recorded, regardless of what amateurs selectively pick from research reports, and also because those calls describe the people doing the hijackings.
#108. To: FormerLurker (#107)
PROVE that cabin security was breached....An intelligence agency with tons of money could utilize voice synthesis technology to make anyone's voice sound like somebody else's.
#128. To: AGAviator (#108)
even though the war the conspiracies are supposed to be done for, is lurching towards stagnation, failure, and possibly even world wide defeat.
#131. To: RickyJ (#128)
(2) Even though the war the conspiracies are supposed to be done for?
(3) Is lurching towards stagnation, failure, and possibly even world wide defeat.
#133. To: AGAviator (#131)
#136. To: FormerLurker (#133)
#140. To: AGAviator (#136)
#167. To: RickyJ, AGAviator, FormerLurker (#140)
Seriously, still trying to debunk the controlled demolition of the towers? That is akin to debunking the laws of physics, good luck with that.
#172. To: Original_Intent aka Original_Indent, buckeroo, turtle (#167)
(Edited)
(1) A man who played an instrumental role in the guerilla fighting that eventually forced the communists to leave Afghanistan, saying he will do the same thing to the US as to the Russians, following through on his threats by destroying 2 US embassies and several US military facilities over the next decade. But somehow not playing any role in the 911 attacks, because he stayed in some bomb-resistant mountain bases after escaping several volleys of cruise missiles sent to his regular living places, and because briefly he denied being behind the attacks
What a pantload to think that hijacked planes had no consequenes and expect people other than Six Percenters to believe!
(2) Four aircraft reporting hijackings, with 3 of them observed crashing into buildings by hundreds to thousands of observers, not playing any roles in building collapses happening within a few hours, which collapses were instead done by alternative methods,
(3) Major damage to other buildings from the crash debis that happened in New York City,
(4) The release of these 3 crashes of gigajoules of energy which somehow had no effect on the buildings, which are alleged to have been brought down by alternative totally unconnected and difficult to fully explain in detail methods,
(5) Firemen saying they will be "pulling" away from one crash damaged building because "the structural stability is not there,"
(6) Saying that dozens of phone calls recorded and recollected by people during the hijackings didn't ever happen, and
(7) Saying the people who got the remains from forensic DNA analysis didn't actually receive the bodies or body parts of people dying according to the detailed autopsy reports.
#200. To: AGAviator, FormerLurker, wudidiz, critter, HOUNDDAWG, farmfriend, christine, all (#172)
Seriously, still trying to debunk the controlled demolition of the towers? That is akin to debunking the laws of physics, good luck with that. Oh, he'd do that too if his boss told him to. Suddenly Sir Isaac Newton would become a lazy crank.
#209. To: Original_Intent (#200)
Public Meltdowns and the use of shaky evidence and outright lies
#218. To: AGAviator (#209)
the hijackings of 3 aircraft by people identified as his followers
#222. To: FormerLurker, AGAviator, all (#218)
#228. To: Original_Intent (#222)
I think he needs to relax a bit, but the Sgt. in charge of his PsyOps Unit probably won't let him. Slave driver.
#230. To: FormerLurker (#228)
They probaly have some AI program analyze his comments and responses for "win/fail" scores, and he's not allowed to go to lunch until his score hits a certain level, or drops so low he's given a mandatory timeout.
#235. To: James Deffenbach (#230)
The people who believe the government's insane conspiracy theory MAY be subjects of an Artificial Stupidity program that succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of its creator.
Laura Bush recalls 9/11 panic at White House
updated 9:15 a.m. ET, Wed., May 5, 2010
#241. To: buckeroo (#235)
GWBush couldn't find her there was so much pandemonium.
#247. To: James Deffenbach (#241)
George couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery or find his ass with a map and both hands.
#251. To: buckeroo (#247)
Yeah ... but he planned the successful 9/11 disaster to make way for Afghanistan and Iraq failures didn't he?
#254. To: FormerLurker (#251)
Nobody is saying he planned it, but he [GWBush] DID more than likely go along with it.
#260. To: buckeroo (#254)
Nobody is saying he planned it, but he [GWBush] DID more than likely go along with it.
#265. To: AGAviator (#260)
Ya think Shrub swore fealty to Satan, while a member of that Yale frat that had Geronomo's skull?
On 9/11, the program was put to the test -- and failed. Not on the national security side: Vice President Cheney and others in the national security leadership were smoothly whisked away from the capital following procedures overseen by the Pentagon and the White House Military Office. But like the mass of Washingtonians, officials from other agencies found themselves virtually on their own, unsure of where to go or what to do, or whom to contact for the answers.
#273. To: buckeroo (#265)
The ye ol' Skull&Bones club stikes again... meanwhile, tens of thousands of Washington DC bureaucrats attempted to escape to their appointed bunkers .....
#276. To: AGAviator, buckeroo (#273)
And even here, not one of any USG people who felt hung out to dry on 911, and may have had inklings into the " Mother of All Conspiracies and Cover Ups" has come forward even on deep background to any one of the Twoofersites.
#283. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo, turtle (#276)
(Edited)
You two act as if the ENTIRE body of government would have to have known about the operation, whereas only a handful of top people around the country would have to have known
#284. To: AGAviator (#283)
And how many people and time did it take to wire and manage the wiring of the 3 WTC structures, among the largest buildings in the world, with anywhere from 10 to 100 tons of nanothermate per Niels Harritt, k00k emeritus?
#290. To: FormerLurker, buckerr, turtle (#284)
(Edited)
#293. To: AGAviator (#290)
K00k in chief Harritt says 10 to 100 tons.
#294. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo, turtle (#293)
#297. To: AGAviator (#294)
Harritt is the lead author of the only so called "peer reviewed" publication of "911 studies" ever published - the hole in the wall Dhubai "Open Chemical Physics Journal " which someone paid $800 to get into print.
#301. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo, turtle (#297)
Who cares? Does he or his comments change the fact that skyscrappers simply CAN NOT fall into their own footprint at close to free fall speed?
#305. To: AGAviator (#301)
The buildings fell into their own footprints because absent a sideways pushing/pulling force
#311. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo, turtle (#305)
(Edited)
I bet you never even took high school physics did you. An object ALWAYS takes the path of least resistance
If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1
#315. To: AGAviator (#311)
(Edited)
pnwed.
#317. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo, turtle (#315)
(Edited)
People such as you depend on the fact Americans are some of the dumbest people on Earth in terms of math and science
A 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down..
Eager happens to have 14 patents and over 200 real "peer-reviewed publications."
#325. To: AGAviator (#317)
A 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down..
#330. To: RickyJ (#325)
(Edited)
If there is nothing in its way. But on 9/11 most of that 500,000 ton structure was in the way
#350. To: AGAviator (#330)
(Edited)
Tell it to Eager.
#366. To: RickyJ, buckeroo (#350)
(Edited)
to. I don't need a so-called "expert" to tell me how physics work, I know it very well.
(1) All building floors were 95% air, so downward would be the preferred direction of any floor collapses,
(2) There is no 500,000 ton force sufficient to displace the center of gravity of a 500,000 ton structure over 100 feet off center to make the building fall outside of its footprint, and
(3) Gien the building 500,000 tons of inertia, and the absence of quickly reacting and massive forces operating in anything besides the downward direction, explain how the building could possibly to anywhere but into its uncluttered footprint.
#368. To: AGAviator (#366)
All building floors were 95% air, so downward would be the preferred direction of any floor collapses,
#410. To: FormerLurker (#368)
There were heavy vertical steel columns, and a heavy vertical steel core, idiot.
#412. To: AGAviator (#410)
Which vertical steel core had a major structural failure from an aircaft fuselage coming in over 400 mph and making a big hole in it, flockwit.
#415. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo, turtle (#412)
The steel core columns were made of thick hardened steel, and would have sliced the airplane's thin aluminum body like a cheese cutter slices cheese.
#417. To: AGAviator, Original_Intent, FormerLurker (#415)
The steel core columns were made of thick hardened steel, and would have sliced the airplane's thin aluminum body like a cheese cutter slices cheese.
#479. To: wudidiz (#417)
(Edited)
Dude.
#482. To: AGAviator (#479)
(Edited)
There are millions of other cases whereby fast-traveling softer items cause substantial damage to harder ones they hit, because they're moving at great speeds.
#509. To: RickyJ (#482)
The Towers were built to withstand the impact of a jet airplane.
#510. To: AGAviator (#509)
#514. To: FormerLurker (#510)
Explain how it took virtually 0 seconds to break every floor truss and smash every external and internal column of both WTC towers.
#517. To: AGAviator (#514)
Who's saying that except you?
#523. To: FormerLurker (#517)
How long did it take for the top of the towers to impact the ground, versus how long it would have taken an object to fall through the air from the same height?
="
#526. To: AGAviator (#523)
#530. To: FormerLurker (#526)
(Edited)
I don't want to read BS and tap dancing, I want you to provide some figures and hard numbers.
#533. To: AGAviator (#530)
If you can't even be bothered to sit through one minute and 30 seconds watching a video I've already posted, you've reached a new dumb low.
#538. To: FormerLurker (#533)
#541. To: buckeroo, AGAviator (#538)
I thought YOUR twoofer tale about cockpit doors not being opened was the topic of this thread. Has it spun off to make-believe towers that fell freefall because of demolition charges, too?
#545. To: FormerLurker (#541)
So do you believe the government provided the real flight data from Flight 77, or not?
#546. To: buckeroo (#545)
#550. To: FormerLurker, AGAviator (#546)
(Edited)
So you don't care if the story is true or not, you just want to kiss the ass of those who perpetrated the attacks and allow them to do it again, right?
Newly decoded data provided by an independent researcher and computer programmer from Australia exposes alarming evidence that the reported hijacking aboard American Airlines Flight 77 was impossible to have existed. A data parameter labeled "FLT DECK DOOR", cross checks with previously decoded data obtained by Pilots For 9/11 Truth from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) through the Freedom Of Information Act.
#552. To: buckeroo (#550)
What are the actual credentials of this "independent researcher and computer programmer" is the main question. How do we know he/she is qualified to perform the job when many other experts haven't disclosed this data for nine years?
#556. To: FormerLurker (#552)
Go to his website and find out...
#557. To: buckeroo, FormerLurker, wudidiz, IRTorqued, all (#556)
Go to his website and find out...
#566. To: Original_Intent, AGAviator (#557)
#570. To: buckeroo, Original_Intent, AGAviator (#566)
I provided the raw .csv file for FormerLurker and anyone else. Since you are so goddamned smart, you save the file and view it.
#571. To: FormerLurker (#570)
#575. To: buckeroo (#571)
#629. To: James Deffenbach (#575)
Even if that were true, which it is not as the information I provided showed, why did 7 fall? No plane hit it. Was it the Magickal Jet Fuel™ or some previously unknown and unknowable phenomena at work?
Maybe Santa Claus got out early and fell off his sleigh and hit it? Maybe the Easter Bunny got mad and threw an egg at it?
#632. To: buckeroo (#629)
The impact of the the twin towers had structurely weakened the building.
#637. To: A K A Stone (#632)
Yeah just like a screen is structurally weaker when you poke a pencil through it.
#639. To: buckeroo (#637)
#640. To: wudidiz, FormerLurker, AGAviator (#639)
Flight Data Recorder Rule Change
#641. To: buckeroo, wudidiz (#640)
#644. To: FormerLurker (#641)
(Edited)
#674. To: buckeroo (#644)
#820. To: FormerLurker (#674)
Still waiting for you to post information concerning the data fields recorded on Flight 77's data recorder. Show us the FAA specifications for which data fields are collected, and tie that to the rulings on required upgrades.
Status: - (No safety board investigation) Date: 11 SEP 2001 Time: 09:40 EDT Type: Boeing 757-223 Operator: American Airlines Registration: N644AA C/n / msn: 24602/365 First flight: 1991 Total airframe hrs: 33432 Cycles: 11789 Engines: 2 Rolls Royce RB211-535E4-B Crew: Fatalities: 6 / Occupants: 6 Passengers: Fatalities: 58 / Occupants: 58 Total: Fatalities: 64 / Occupants: 64 Ground casualties: Fatalities: 125 Airplane damage: Written off Airplane fate: Written off (damaged beyond repair) Location: Washington, DC (United States of America) show on map Phase: En route (ENR) Nature: Domestic Scheduled Passenger Departure airport: Washington-Dulles International Airport, DC (IAD/KIAD), United States of America Destination airport: Los Angeles International Airport, CA (LAX/KLAX), United States of America Flightnumber: 77 Narrative: Flight 77 departed Washington-Dulles at 08:10 for Los Angeles. The aircraft was hijacked by five terrorists. The hijackers took over control, reportedly switched off the transponder and changed course to Washington. Last reported data (08:56) show the aircraft flying at FL350 at 458 knots. Course was changed back to Washington and the aircraft descended for the city, approaching from the North. The Boeing reportedly passed overhead the White House and entered a tight 270deg turn, heading for the US Department of Defence building (the Pentagon). It clipped trees and lightposts before slamming into the Southwest face of the Pentagon. An explosion occurred and the building caught fire.
#824. To: buckeroo (#820)
You lose. This thread is debunked.
#825. To: James Deffenbach (#824)
There are other collateral issues which have been presented in this thread and which you cannot address.
#828. To: buckeroo (#825)
(Edited)
I post with both accuracy and precision, pal.
#832. To: James Deffenbach, AGAviator (#828)
You post crap. Lots of it.
#834. To: buckeroo (#832)
I debunked this thread.
#836. To: James Deffenbach, buckeroo, Original_Intent, FormerLurker, christine, all (#834)
I debunked this thread.
#840. To: wudidiz, James Deffenbach, buckeroo, FormerLurker, christine, all (#836)
I debunked this thread.
[2] Behaviour of Steel Framed Structures under Fire Conditions; School of Civil & Environmental Engineering; The University of Edinburgh.
[3] Structural Performance of Redundant Structures under Local Fires; J.M.Rotter, A.M.Sanad, A.S.Usmani and M.Gillie; Proceedings of Interflam99 - Edinburgh.
[4] The Behaviour of Multi-storey Composite Steel Framed Structures in Response to Compartment Fires; Susan Lamont. PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh, 2001.
#847. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo, turtle (#840)
(Edited)
I finally found Mad Max's refutation of Thomas Eager's disinfo piece.
#853. To: AGAviator, wudidiz, FormerLurker, IRTorqued, Critter, abraxas, all (#847)
(Edited)
So, what "peer reviewed" rag hole in the wall will publish your windbag word dump indictment and "refutation" of Thomas Eagar?
#854. To: Original_Intent, *Post Of The Day* (#853)
#856. To: wudidiz, Original_Intent (#854)
#862. To: Eric Stratton (#856)
People like AGAvatar sit there and bitch up a world-class shitstorm about how "Global Warming" is a major hoax and how the PTB are lying to us through their teeth, but on 9/11 all of a sudden they all found a fucking conscience.
#865. To: Original_Intent (#862)
#876. To: Eric Stratton, AGGravator, AGAviator (#865)
Seriously?
#886. To: Original_Indent, buckeroo, turtle (#876)
Ever notice that the Warmists and Peak Oilers always accuse everyone else of harboring (((((shudder))))) "Conspiracy Theories" and yet their pet Chimeras are never so labeled?
#887. To: AGAviator (#886)
Ever notice how Tw00ferk00ks can never go focused more than a few seconds - in this case the WTC crashes and building collapses - without dragging extraneous subjects into the discussion instead of remaining on point?
#888. To: all (#887)
#892. To: abraxas (#888)
Eight Hunnneeeeerrrrrttttt an eighty eight.........
#893. To: Original_Intent (#892)
#894. To: abraxas (#893)
#895. To: Original_Intent (#894)
Is that bated or baited
#900. To: abraxas (#895)
#902. To: Original_Intent (#900)
Replies to Comment # 902. They're dead. Who cares who did it? Of what intrinsic value is that information? Z-E-R-O.
#908. To: Samuel Gray (#902)
They're dead. Who cares who did it? Of what intrinsic value is that information? Z-E-R-O.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 902.