ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags ground zero , Matt Nelson

Reply
Old 4th September 2018, 05:52 PM   #121
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,059
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
Thanks Beachnut. I knew I could count on you! Seriously, thanks for your time. I'll let you know what I change.
Quote:
The steel evidence, “a significant amount” of which was quickly removed before investigators arrived, might have shown evidence of explosive damage, like metal “pedaling.” But the steel was not the only evidence that was removed. For example, the black boxes that contain the flight data recorders and cockpit data recorders on every airliner were officially never found for either American Airlines Flight 11 or [begin page 252] United Airlines Flight 175.
Quickly removed, 8 months is not quickly, why say it? Scientist can be seen studying WTC steel, most likely in your sources unless you missed good sources. No WTC steel was found damaged by explosives or thermite. Unique pieces were pulled from the pile and dump sites, no evidence for the fantasy explosive claims.

You studied "black boxes", FDR and CVR, and know their specification; does it include the energy of collapse of more than 100 tons of TNT? As it was flight 175 hit a very strong steel building at 590 mph; was this close to the limit of what a FDR can take? Did you study the specification of FDR and CVRs, or what?

It is sad you don't know why it was easy to find 77 and 93's black boxes, which were more similar to accidents, or crashed into a smaller building. Flight 93 in a field, impact at high angle but into dirt, not steel, and a 1000 foot tall steel building did not fall on 93. Same for 77, the fires were fought at the Pentagon, yet the CVR was severely damaged in the 483.5 knot impact with resulting fires. Do you know how fast 77 hit?

Ignoring the energy of the collapsing towers, which could easily destroy the black boxes. And the black boxes are not needed to solve 9/11, 19 terrorists in four planes. Black boxes are used to see why/how planes crashed, not needed to solve 19 terrorists killing their way to the cockpit, killing crew, and crashing jets.


Quote:
But the facts also align with the hypothesis that authorities were actually in a hurry to remove evidence that pointed to the use of explosives.
How did terrorists in two plane plant explosives? Are these those silent no evidence explosives? Magic explosives? Where do you 9/11 truth guys get these magic invisible, no blast effect, no explosive noise, explosives?


Quote:
gs and filmmaker Kevin Sutavee, ABC on 9/11 at 4:10 pm., etc.) The debris that remained once the dust settled had to be explained without professional controlled demolitions using explosives.
I found in your sources the energy of collapse in each tower to be over 100 tons of TNT, which explains the damage seen. Physics


Quote:
Note that only a few beams show evidence of explosives.
Where? Prove it.

200 plus pages of cherry picked tripe from 9/11 truth.


Quote:
No terrorist captive has confessed to planting explosives in the basement levels or on the 22nd floor. On the contrary, as President Bush said the week of the 5th anniversary of 9/11, Al Qaeda terrorist operatives planted explosives high in the buildings, supposedly to prevent people trapped above from escaping.
Are you sure you are an english major? Bush was talking about other attacks, future attacks, not 9/11 relative to planting explosives to trap people. This is off topic, error, mistake, failure to read and comprehend.

Planned attacks?
Quote:
Bush - For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.
Your sources debunk all of 9/11 truth; something you might not know.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2018, 06:50 PM   #122
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,059
Quote:
“I think a bomb went off in the lobby first, then a plane hit the building.” (Anonymous man on Inside Edition 9/11/2001 [aired 9/11/2002], NIST FOIA rel. 28, 42A0282 – G27D6.) “I believe the bomb hit the lobby first, and a couple of seconds then the first plane
If a bomb went off in the lobby, they would be dead. Two booms, one from the transmission of the impact shock waves through the steel, and then the boom from the plane traveling through air - thought you had this in your paper, or in supporting documents, like a video.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2018, 01:54 AM   #123
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,261
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
How did 19 terrorists, or UBL encourage idiotic claims? 19 terrorists died at impact, and UBL was hiding when he figured out he had gone too far.
You are, as ever, right on the money, apart from this one piece here.

It is my understanding that OBL expected the attack to act as a trigger for a worldwide jihadist uprising. He was apparently expecting them to flock to his banner in Afghanistan, and by all accounts was quite surprised and disappointed when this didn't happen.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2018, 02:20 PM   #124
waypastvne
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 399
On page 108 you have a link to a video I made 9 years ago.

Quote:
What may have happened when the plane hit was this: The air, forced downward when the 6/7 shaft was breached, pushed by the shock wave of the plane, met the cars at B- 1, went as deeply as possible and with added pressure snapped off the pit door and the lowest elevator doors, closest being B-1 and the lobby (north side)
After thinking about it more, I believe Bernoulli effect played the largest roll in getting a large amount of atomised jet fuel, into the elevator shafts quickly.
waypastvne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 06:43 PM   #125
MattNelson
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 50
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Quickly removed, 8 months is not quickly, why say it? Scientist can be seen studying WTC steel, most likely in your sources unless you missed good sources. No WTC steel was found damaged by explosives or thermite. Unique pieces were pulled from the pile and dump sites, no evidence for the fantasy explosive claims.

You studied "black boxes", FDR and CVR, and know their specification; does it include the energy of collapse of more than 100 tons of TNT? As it was flight 175 hit a very strong steel building at 590 mph; was this close to the limit of what a FDR can take? Did you study the specification of FDR and CVRs, or what?

It is sad you don't know why it was easy to find 77 and 93's black boxes, which were more similar to accidents, or crashed into a smaller building. Flight 93 in a field, impact at high angle but into dirt, not steel, and a 1000 foot tall steel building did not fall on 93. Same for 77, the fires were fought at the Pentagon, yet the CVR was severely damaged in the 483.5 knot impact with resulting fires. Do you know how fast 77 hit?

Ignoring the energy of the collapsing towers, which could easily destroy the black boxes. And the black boxes are not needed to solve 9/11, 19 terrorists in four planes. Black boxes are used to see why/how planes crashed, not needed to solve 19 terrorists killing their way to the cockpit, killing crew, and crashing jets.


How did terrorists in two plane plant explosives? Are these those silent no evidence explosives? Magic explosives? Where do you 9/11 truth guys get these magic invisible, no blast effect, no explosive noise, explosives?


I found in your sources the energy of collapse in each tower to be over 100 tons of TNT, which explains the damage seen. Physics


Where? Prove it.

200 plus pages of cherry picked tripe from 9/11 truth.


Are you sure you are an english major? Bush was talking about other attacks, future attacks, not 9/11 relative to planting explosives to trap people. This is off topic, error, mistake, failure to read and comprehend.

Planned attacks?


Your sources debunk all of 9/11 truth; something you might not know.
Why say the debris was removed quickly? I'm only repeating the media and others who said it was a "miracle" how fast it was done.

When I say there are steel beams that show evidence of explosives I linked to this page which includes this photo:


Thanks for suggesting I include the numbers on energy of the collapses. I'll have to search for the best source, unless you can tell me where you got your numbers. "Over 100 tons of TNT"

No, I did not study the specification of FDR and CVRs. Looking now, I see that testing is done to survive 3,400 Gs (310 MPH impact) and an hour of 2,000 degree fire. Interesting. I'm now more surprised the Army CECOM unit was able to detect the signal from one of them. By the way, I'm not one of those people who think they were secreted away, or that they were never there. I think the planes hit as reported, with passengers and all. Pentagon, too.

Now that you mention it, Bush's speech in Sept. 2006 does sound like KSM was talking about future "planned" attacks. I always assumed he was talking about 9/11, which he allegedly "planned," when people were trapped above the explosions. Thanks for the insight.
MattNelson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 06:53 PM   #126
MattNelson
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 50
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
If a bomb went off in the lobby, they would be dead. Two booms, one from the transmission of the impact shock waves through the steel, and then the boom from the plane traveling through air - thought you had this in your paper, or in supporting documents, like a video.
I don't follow. You quoted a bad quote, since (as I say) I disagree that the "bomb" explosion hit before the plane. Other witnesses and common sense say the plane hit before the lower levels were hit by the alleged jet fuel vapor explosion. You quoted p. 105:

Quote:
“I think a bomb went off in the lobby first, then a plane hit the building.” (Anonymous man on Inside Edition 9/11/2001 [aired 9/11/2002], NIST FOIA rel. 28, 42A0282 – G27D6.) “I believe the bomb hit the lobby first, and a couple of seconds then the first plane
MattNelson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 07:34 PM   #127
MattNelson
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 50
Originally Posted by waypastvne View Post
On page 108 you have a link to a video I made 9 years ago.



After thinking about it more, I believe Bernoulli effect played the largest roll in getting a large amount of atomised jet fuel, into the elevator shafts quickly.
Thanks. After some research I began to attempt a math solution to ascertain the pressure (Pa) in the impact zone explosion, but it would never be accurate. We need that and the height of the impact zone container (also impossible to ascertain with all the ruined floors, right?) to use Bernoulli's equation if we want to figure the velocity of air/fuel going down the 6/7 elevator shaft (not 50 car's shaft since the occupants survived unburned and did not report fuel smell). Of course, we can almost figure the velocity with what we know, since about 9 seconds passed between 1st and 2nd explosion. What was the velocity of the vapor at the top, the aircraft speed? Or faster because of the explosion? Does bottleneck apply? Anyway...

On the same subject, I wondered if during construction of the 22nd floor SCC the new electrical closet would have been beside the elevator shaft... if the installers would have breached the shaft wallboard? That may explain the explosion there.

Last edited by MattNelson; 6th September 2018 at 07:47 PM.
MattNelson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 07:38 PM   #128
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,716
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
When I say there are steel beams that show evidence of explosives I linked to this page which includes this photo:
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/...91NY001_z1.jpg
Can you explain what exactly about this photo actually constitutes evidence of explosives, rather than buckling of a column during the collapse? It seems that there's nothing more than a bare assertion here that this photo is evidence of anything specific.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 07:59 PM   #129
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,418
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
Thanks. After some research I began to attempt a math solution to ascertain the pressure (Pa) in the impact zone explosion, but it would never be accurate.
My recommendation - for what it may be worth - is to be dubious about trying to understand the collapses by approaching the analysis numerically. My experience over 11 years - and nine of them involved or following this forum - is that qualitative understanding is far more important than attempts at quantification.

Part of the reason is that in order to understand the mechanism and as much as is needed to rebut the claims for CD all the forces are in the range of "overwhelming" i.e. orders of magnitude in excess of what is required. (With one minor exception that I wont confuse the point with at this stage.) (and note I'm not referring to any legitimate need for quantification - only that it isn't needed to explain the mechanism OR rebut claims for CD.)

If you review the "big picture stages" of Twin Towers collapse discussion (with or without CD in the debate - it matters not) the era approx 2006>>2009/10 saw all sides trying to learn what happend and taking a gross mechanics approach - macro velocities/timings/accelerations and trying to explain the collapse with no regard for the actual mechanisms which dominated the progression stage.

And the numbers were surprisingly not critical to the key point - whether or not compressive bucking of columns was included/excluded in the mechanism.

We needn't stir up the remnants of many years controversy over the issue BUT once the true mechanisms are recognised - columns were effectively bypassed - the rest drops into place without trying to get the answer from numeric methods.

Now the foregoing refers to the "progression stage". The "initiation" stage is vastly more complex - but the same advice - approach it qualitatively - still applies. In that stage to get round different difficulties confronting numeric/quantitative methods. (And the "one exception" I mentioned earlier.)

I wont bore you with details unless you want fuller explanations.

Last edited by ozeco41; 6th September 2018 at 08:00 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 08:50 PM   #130
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,059
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
Why say the debris was removed quickly? I'm only repeating the media and others who said it was a "miracle" how fast it was done.

When I say there are steel beams that show evidence of explosives I linked to this page which includes this photo:
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/...91NY001_z1.jpg

Thanks for suggesting I include the numbers on energy of the collapses. I'll have to search for the best source, unless you can tell me where you got your numbers. "Over 100 tons of TNT"

No, I did not study the specification of FDR and CVRs. Looking now, I see that testing is done to survive 3,400 Gs (310 MPH impact) and an hour of 2,000 degree fire. Interesting. I'm now more surprised the Army CECOM unit was able to detect the signal from one of them. By the way, I'm not one of those people who think they were secreted away, or that they were never there. I think the planes hit as reported, with passengers and all. Pentagon, too.

Now that you mention it, Bush's speech in Sept. 2006 does sound like KSM was talking about future "planned" attacks. I always assumed he was talking about 9/11, which he allegedly "planned," when people were trapped above the explosions. Thanks for the insight.
Oh, opinions it was fast, not facts?

8 months is not fast - and the evidence of who did 9/11 started when 19 terrorists arrived in the USA, attended flight training, bought tickets on planes, crew reported who got up, etc, etc. Steel and debris is not evidence for 19 terrorists, the DNA is, and seems the relatives of the 19 are not going to come get the remains. Evidence? too fast? It took minutes to figure out who did 9/11 for Flight 93 heroes, and a few days for the FBI and over 17 years 9/11 truth remains clueless.

The photos of steel are not evidence of explosives. Nobody died on 9/11 from blast effects, do you understand what bombs do to people? Your photos of steel are not evidence for explosives.

Energy. Your paper has a source for the amount of energy, it may be in joules, did you read your sources, or just cherry pick, and quote mine? Greater than 100 tons of TNT in each tower, where did I get that? Physics - I took the mass of each floor and totaled up E=mgh for each floor, added all the floors and it comes to massive greater than 100 tons of TNT for each tower released during the collapse. It is called physics, which is not used by 9/11 truth, or it is used, but they make up excuses so they can back in silent explosives and the fantasy of thermite.

The FDR and CVR are important for accidents to figure out what went wrong. In a crime it would be interesting to get the CVR, and on 9/11 the FDR that survived proved the pilots did not fly very well.

Read your sources, even if they are written by nuts in 9/11 truth, the references in those sources usually debunk the claims made. It is ironic as you peel back the onion, follow their sources, you realize 9/11 truth is baseless nonsense.



Look at your energy/mass paper you included as a source - if you don't think the equal energy of over 100 2,000 pound bombs can't do what we see in the destruction of the WTC - get help from a physics teacher
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 09:48 PM   #131
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 647
My opinion, 260 pages of total nonsense.
__________________
“I don’t look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell.” Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 02:35 AM   #132
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,233
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
When I say there are steel beams that show evidence of explosives I linked to this page which includes this photo:
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/...91NY001_z1.jpg
Why? Nothing in that picture says "explosives".

Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
Thanks for suggesting I include the numbers on energy of the collapses. I'll have to search for the best source, unless you can tell me where you got your numbers. "Over 100 tons of TNT"
...
The seminal paper on this is still:
Urich GH: Analysis of the Mass and Potential Energy of World Trade Center Tower 1; Journal of 9/11 Studies, 2007

I did a sanity check on his result in my old blog: http://oystein-issues.blogspot.com/2...each-twin.html
His total mass is on the low ends of estimates, others have crudely estimated 500,000 tons.

Urich finds a total mass above ground of 288,000 metric tons, and a total Potential Energy of 480,600 MJ. That is equivalent to about 115 ton of TNT (the factor is 4.189 GJ/ton of TNT, from memory).
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 10:11 AM   #133
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,479
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
No, I did not study the specification of FDR and CVRs. Looking now, I see that testing is done to survive 3,400 Gs (310 MPH impact) and an hour of 2,000 degree fire. Interesting. I'm now more surprised the Army CECOM unit was able to detect the signal from one of them. By the way, I'm not one of those people who think they were secreted away, or that they were never there. I think the planes hit as reported, with passengers and all. Pentagon, too.

The claim that CECOM equipment was used to detect the flight recorders, which apparently originated here, (p.24, right-hand column, first full paragraph) is erroneous. The only beacons with which FDRs and CVRs are equipped are sound beacons that activate when the devices are immersed in water.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 11:02 AM   #134
MattNelson
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 50
Originally Posted by waypastvne View Post
On page 108 you have a link to a video I made 9 years ago.



After thinking about it more, I believe Bernoulli effect played the largest roll in getting a large amount of atomised jet fuel, into the elevator shafts quickly.
I removed the link and reworded the paragraph as such:

What may have happened when the plane hit (officially) was this: air was forced down the 6/7 shaft at high pressure, filled with hundreds of gallons of atomized jet fuel. It pushed as deeply as possible and broke through the B-4 pit door and the lowest elevator doors, B-1 and the lobby (north side opening). “No doors, no doors. They were all blown off. Some of them were in the shafts, some of them were in the lobby. You had to walk over them.” (Firefighter Steve Modica, Eisner, p. 76) Inside the lobby should have been only 2 sets of doors, from 6 and 7. (50's got blown in – details coming soon) Once the doors were literally blown open, fuel vapor could burst into the lobby and any open elevators, B-1/mall (see p. 118), and B-4 (rushing south and east to the building perimeter – p. 125). Then the vapor trails ignited.
MattNelson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 11:22 AM   #135
MattNelson
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 50
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
No WTC steel was found damaged by explosives or thermite. Unique pieces were pulled from the pile and dump sites, no evidence for the fantasy explosive claims.
You quoted my paper, p. 185: "Note that only a few beams show evidence of explosives."

I'll change it to: "Decide for yourself if any beams show evidence of explosives, keeping in mind no proof can be found."
MattNelson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 11:54 AM   #136
MattNelson
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 50
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
The claim that CECOM equipment was used to detect the flight recorders, which apparently originated here, (p.24, right-hand column, first full paragraph) is erroneous. The only beacons with which FDRs and CVRs are equipped are sound beacons that activate when the devices are immersed in water.
Big thanks. Right you are: "underwater locator beacon" is the term. I wonder why Gov. Pataki was notified in a Sept. 18 memo from NY state OEM that the signal from a black box was detected. Maybe it was in a big puddle? Not impossible, but highly unlikely. From the forces involved it sounds like the black boxes would have been destroyed and this was a "telephone game" style mistake accidentally passed by word of mouth... probably from Mike Bellone. (HA) Or the conspiracy take: "It was fake news to reinforce the plane myth, man." On Sept. 19, 2001 the New York Times reported that the “pinging” signal of one of the black boxes “might have been detected.” (Susan Sachs, “At the Site, Little Hope of Uncovering Survivors.”)

I will have to take some time and make changes to both my book and my blog post.

Last edited by MattNelson; 8th September 2018 at 11:57 AM.
MattNelson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 04:56 PM   #137
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,812
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
Why say the debris was removed quickly? I'm only repeating the media and others who said it was a "miracle" how fast it was done.
It would help if you provide similar scale disaster cleanups for comparison, including an analysis of the expertise of each cleanup crew, the number of people involved, and the equipment available to them.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2018, 10:52 AM   #138
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,479
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
Big thanks. Right you are: "underwater locator beacon" is the term. I wonder why Gov. Pataki was notified in a Sept. 18 memo from NY state OEM that the signal from a black box was detected. Maybe it was in a big puddle? Not impossible, but highly unlikely. From the forces involved it sounds like the black boxes would have been destroyed and this was a "telephone game" style mistake accidentally passed by word of mouth... probably from Mike Bellone. (HA) Or the conspiracy take: "It was fake news to reinforce the plane myth, man." On Sept. 19, 2001 the New York Times reported that the “pinging” signal of one of the black boxes “might have been detected.” (Susan Sachs, “At the Site, Little Hope of Uncovering Survivors.”)

I will have to take some time and make changes to both my book and my blog post.

I'm not an expert on acoustics (mechanical designer with BS in mechanical engineering technology), but even if one of the recorders somehow survived the fires and collapse and ended up immersed, I highly doubt that the sound could have been detected through the rubble and the air.

The most likely explanation is that this was simply a mistaken initial report.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya

Last edited by SpitfireIX; 9th September 2018 at 10:53 AM.
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2018, 02:54 PM   #139
MattNelson
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 50
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
It would help if you provide similar scale disaster cleanups for comparison, including an analysis of the expertise of each cleanup crew, the number of people involved, and the equipment available to them.
...to demonstrate the Ground Zero "cleanup" was too fast. Thanks for the idea, but it seems redundant.

Also, it would be hard to find anything to compare to 9/11 and the World Trade Center's 7 buildings and 6 basements including a shopping mall. Not to mention the search for human remains, which should have slowed down the process even more, were it not for the Fresh Kills Landfill management and those feeding them the debris at its highest 13,900 tons per day [Langewiesche, American Ground, p. 192 or my page 59]). “Phillips and Jordan officially took over management of the Staten Island Landfill Operation on October 2nd. At that time there were about 137,000 tons of debris already stockpiled at the site that had not been inspected. That number grew to around 170,000 tons by the third week of October. By the eighth of November, under P&J’s management, the number was down to less then 1,400 tons.” - Phillips and Jordan, “Anatomy: World Trade Center/Staten Island Landfill Recovery Operation,” disaster.pandj.com (dead link [see cache PDF], emphasis added)

Fresh Kills workers and volunteers did a fantastic job searching for remains outside by rake, but the variable speed conveyor belts in the tents were running much too fast. (see my p. 43-44) The operation at the landfill should have continued for months longer, allowing the piles to sit. This means the rush to clear Ground Zero could have slowed down. The number of FDNY allowed on site in Sept., Oct. and Nov. could have stayed high so they wouldn't have had to protest in force with their families holding banners like, "Let us bring our brothers home!" chanting, "Bring our brothers home!" (Nov. 2, 2001 -- see my p. 73) Some people called the demonstration a riot because there was some pushing when the FDNY front reached the NYPD barriers. Because those in charge (most blamed Mayor Giuliani or DDC's Mike Burton) were "scooping and dumping" too fast.



As many as 800 dump trucks were loaded daily, said "America Rebuilds." An average of 418 dump trucks came through the site daily between 9/12 and 5/30/2002. (108,342 trucks total per CNN in 259 days)

Quote:
“The initial estimates by DDC [New York City Department of Design and Construction] and the federal government were that the recovery efforts, debris removal and site stabilization would take 2 years and cost over $1 billion. The Contractors and others finished the work in 265 continuous days, 24 hours per day. The Labor force peaked at 2300 (including uniform services), and was stable at 1700 for much of the period, which included about 250 Bovis personnel. BLL was particularly proud that we had no fatalities and only 36 reportable accidents with over 3.2 million man-hours worked.”
- Michael Feigin, Executive Vice President, Chief Administrative Officer, Bovis Lend Lease Holdings, Inc., Subcommittee on Superfund and Waste Management Impact of Certain Government Contractor Liability Proposals on Environmental Laws, Nov. 8, 2005.
One need not have a conspiracy theorist's mindset to say the "cleanup" was rushed. Just ask FDNY and their families.

Last edited by MattNelson; 9th September 2018 at 02:55 PM.
MattNelson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2018, 05:40 PM   #140
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,229
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
One need not have a conspiracy theorist's mindset to say the "cleanup" was rushed. Just ask FDNY and their families.
And what - exactly - did the FDNY, Port Authority Police, and NYPD tell you when you spoke to their representatives?

For that matter, what did the FEMA, FBI, and NYC Medical Examiner's Office tell you when you interviewed them?

What about the Family Representatives, what did they tell you?

You did interview these people, right?
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 01:52 AM   #141
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,261
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
...to demonstrate the Ground Zero "cleanup" was too fast. Thanks for the idea, but it seems redundant.

Also, it would be hard to find anything to compare to 9/11 and the World Trade Center's 7 buildings and 6 basements including a shopping mall.
How can you say it was too fast if you don't have anything to compare it with?
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 04:26 AM   #142
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,812
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
...to demonstrate the Ground Zero "cleanup" was too fast. Thanks for the idea, but it seems redundant.

Also, it would be hard to find anything to compare to 9/11 and the World Trade Center's 7 buildings and 6 basements including a shopping mall. Not to mention the search for human remains, which should have slowed down the process even more, were it not for the Fresh Kills Landfill management and those feeding them the debris at its highest 13,900 tons per day [Langewiesche, American Ground, p. 192 or my page 59]). “Phillips and Jordan officially took over management of the Staten Island Landfill Operation on October 2nd. At that time there were about 137,000 tons of debris already stockpiled at the site that had not been inspected. That number grew to around 170,000 tons by the third week of October. By the eighth of November, under P&J’s management, the number was down to less then 1,400 tons.” - Phillips and Jordan, “Anatomy: World Trade Center/Staten Island Landfill Recovery Operation,” disaster.pandj.com (dead link [see cache PDF], emphasis added)

Fresh Kills workers and volunteers did a fantastic job searching for remains outside by rake, but the variable speed conveyor belts in the tents were running much too fast. (see my p. 43-44) The operation at the landfill should have continued for months longer, allowing the piles to sit. This means the rush to clear Ground Zero could have slowed down. The number of FDNY allowed on site in Sept., Oct. and Nov. could have stayed high so they wouldn't have had to protest in force with their families holding banners like, "Let us bring our brothers home!" chanting, "Bring our brothers home!" (Nov. 2, 2001 -- see my p. 73) Some people called the demonstration a riot because there was some pushing when the FDNY front reached the NYPD barriers. Because those in charge (most blamed Mayor Giuliani or DDC's Mike Burton) were "scooping and dumping" too fast.

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/images/r...an_6034377.jpg

As many as 800 dump trucks were loaded daily, said "America Rebuilds." An average of 418 dump trucks came through the site daily between 9/12 and 5/30/2002. (108,342 trucks total per CNN in 259 days)



One need not have a conspiracy theorist's mindset to say the "cleanup" was rushed. Just ask FDNY and their families.
Since you don't have anything to compare it to, how can you say it was rushed?
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 08:08 AM   #143
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 923
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
And what - exactly - did the FDNY, Port Authority Police, and NYPD tell you when you spoke to their representatives?

For that matter, what did the FEMA, FBI, and NYC Medical Examiner's Office tell you when you interviewed them?

What about the Family Representatives, what did they tell you?

You did interview these people, right?
I think you hit the nail on the head, no interviews, just regurgitating pervious misinformation.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 08:14 AM   #144
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,716
Originally Posted by MattNelson;12422638Also, it would be hard to find anything to compare to 9/11 and the World Trade Center's 7 buildings and 6 basements including a shopping mall. Not to mention the search for human remains, which should have slowed down the process even more, were it not for the Fresh Kills Landfill management and those feeding them the debris at its highest 13,900 tons per day [Langewiesche, [U
American Ground[/u], p. 192 or my page 59]). “Phillips and Jordan officially took over management of the Staten Island Landfill Operation on October 2nd. At that time there were about 137,000 tons of debris already stockpiled at the site that had not been inspected. That number grew to around 170,000 tons by the third week of October. By the eighth of November, under P&J’s management, the number was down to less then 1,400 tons.” - Phillips and Jordan, “Anatomy: World Trade Center/Staten Island Landfill Recovery Operation,” disaster.pandj.com (dead link [see cache PDF], emphasis added)

Fresh Kills workers and volunteers did a fantastic job searching for remains outside by rake, but the variable speed conveyor belts in the tents were running much too fast. (see my p. 43-44) The operation at the landfill should have continued for months longer, allowing the piles to sit. This means the rush to clear Ground Zero could have slowed down. The number of FDNY allowed on site in Sept., Oct. and Nov. could have stayed high so they wouldn't have had to protest in force with their families holding banners like, "Let us bring our brothers home!" chanting, "Bring our brothers home!" (Nov. 2, 2001 -- see my p. 73) Some people called the demonstration a riot because there was some pushing when the FDNY front reached the NYPD barriers. Because those in charge (most blamed Mayor Giuliani or DDC's Mike Burton) were "scooping and dumping" too fast.
There are three key fallacies here. Firstly, there's the bare assertion fallacy on a number of fronts; secondly, there's the "If I ran the zoo" fallacy, which is itself a variant of the first; and thirdly, there's the little thing I dubbed the Unevaluated Inequality fallacy, where someone states "I have no idea what [insert value here] should have been, but it should have been [greater / less] than it actually was." Since you freely admit that you have no basis for determining how fast Ground Zero should have been cleared, that means that there can equally be no basis for claiming that the actual time taken was therefore incorrect.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 09:18 AM   #145
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 532
MattNelson--

Cleaning up the WTC site was certainly rushed. Why wouldn't it be? Why would you leave a smoldering, toxic heap of concrete, steel and human remains in the middle of the world's most important financial district. In all your research, did you not realize WTC7 sat atop the main power supply for wall street and billions of dollars of daily economic activity? Of course they wanted to restore that power station ASAP.

Yet even though they were in a rush to clear the site, they still took their time and meticulously combed through the debris for human remains and effects and archived key pieces of debris for investigatory and historic record purposes.

Was the process perfect? No. You'll find "anomalies" in how things were done and, using hindsight, you could probably even figure out a better way to handle this or that. Who cares? As beachnut has pointed out very effectively, you are hunting for anomalies in a silly attempt to create doubt over what happen while ignoring an incredible amount of evidence for what happened and who was responsible.

You're not a complete dunce, unlike many of those who remain hopeless truther diehards, but your reasoning is extremely motivated. Before you waste more of your life anomaly hunting, you should really try take a step back and do a gut check as to whether you are sure you are even trying to understand the big picture at this point. It seems like you are intent on missing the forest for the trees. There's a reason why 17 years later truthers are no closer to cracking their case while all reasonable experts and other people in the relevant fields of inquiry have longer ago moved on.
benthamitemetric is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 02:47 PM   #146
MattNelson
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 50
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
And what - exactly - did the FDNY, Port Authority Police, and NYPD tell you when you spoke to their representatives?

For that matter, what did the FEMA, FBI, and NYC Medical Examiner's Office tell you when you interviewed them?

What about the Family Representatives, what did they tell you?

You did interview these people, right?
Touché. I asked for that, since I have not personally spoken with FDNY families.

I have, however, listened to them. In 2007 the International Association of Firefighters released a video with the website www.rudy-urbanlegend.com (2007 cached) in an effort to prevent Mayor Giuliani from becoming President. The following statement was widely held among firefighters:

"...because of money and politics and he wanted the firemen out of there so he could speed up the operation." (at 11:00)

He got the firemen out of Ground Zero incrementally, running into protest and demonstration on Nov. 2.

On Nov. 12 Giuliani arranged a meeting with the September 11th Widows' and Victims' Families Association, where 75 families showed up at the midtown Manhattan Sheraton hotel. When the DDC's project manager Michael Burton began speaking to them, he was cut off:

Quote:
“Burton started gamely into an explanation of the transition on the pile, including the new placement of spotters, the 'safe areas,' and the handling and inspection of the debris. The crowd listened sullenly for a while, until a woman stood up and yelled, 'We don't even want to hear from you! You're Mr. Scoop and Dump!'
[...]
“Others joined in, shouting, 'Scoop and Dump! Scoop and Dump! Scoop and Dump!'”
- William Langewiesche, American Ground, p. 166.
Maybe logically I cannot say the work was too fast, since there is nothing to compare it to. (We see that plenty on 9/11.) From the victims' families' point of view, the scooping and dumping was too fast. I take that pov.

From the landowner's pov, they needed a clean plot. As a bonus, the Port Authority got the money from recycling steel and other metals. We didn't hear about that in the media, but they were in charge of the steel sold for 9/11 memorials across the country and the globe. From the city government's pov, they needed things back to normal, to rebuild (which, granted, took forever). The NYC Dept. of Design and Construction (DDC) leader Kenneth Holden said he was under enormous pressure (from Mayor Giuliani -- see video) to get the job done [in the words of Dan Rather].

If we forget I'm a conspiracy theorist and say the reasons were simple greed and power, then can you say the debris was removed too fast? From an ethical standpoint?

Quote:
benthamitemetric

MattNelson--

Cleaning up the WTC site was certainly rushed. Why wouldn't it be? Why would you leave a smoldering, toxic heap of concrete, steel and human remains in the middle of the world's most important financial district. In all your research, did you not realize WTC7 sat atop the main power supply for wall street and billions of dollars of daily economic activity? Of course they wanted to restore that power station ASAP.

Yet even though they were in a rush to clear the site, they still took their time and meticulously combed through the debris for human remains and effects and archived key pieces of debris for investigatory and historic record purposes.

Was the process perfect? No. You'll find "anomalies" in how things were done and, using hindsight, you could probably even figure out a better way to handle this or that. Who cares? As beachnut has pointed out very effectively, you are hunting for anomalies in a silly attempt to create doubt over what happen while ignoring an incredible amount of evidence for what happened and who was responsible.

You're not a complete dunce, unlike many of those who remain hopeless truther diehards, but your reasoning is extremely motivated. Before you waste more of your life anomaly hunting, you should really try take a step back and do a gut check as to whether you are sure you are even trying to understand the big picture at this point.
Thanks for the reality hockey check, especially the part about a toxic (I think dust) smoldering heap (smoking until mid-Dec.) in the middle of people's workplace and back yards. With more than 400 trucks coming through the site daily, diesel fumes would have been terrible also. Moreover, I'm sure many were impatient for the noise pollution to end.

About WTC 7's Con Edison power substation restoration -- it didn't happen there, but maybe the DDC didn't know that would be the case.

I have been thinking over the past few months about turning my book into a conspiracy-free document (like caffeine-free still has caffeine), because I know it will garner many more downloads, which will enable the many important facts to proliferate across the Internet. (Again, my website makes no money.) For now, I will make a few changes at a time. This and my two novels in progress are my life's work. None is complete.
MattNelson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 02:54 PM   #147
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 6,442
Don't give up your day job.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 03:15 PM   #148
MattNelson
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 50
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Bush was talking about other attacks, future attacks, not 9/11 relative to planting explosives to trap people. This is off topic, error, mistake, failure to read and comprehend.

Planned attacks?
This has been fixed (will upload tomorrow if proofreading goes well). I found this error of mine twice in the book and once on my website. Website is fixed. The video I uploaded has been retitled, "K.S. Mohammed admits more planned attacks on buildings after 9/11"

Athough it's elsewhere on YouTube titled, "Bush talks about EXPLOSIVES in building (on 9/11?)" I must have seen this and fell for it.
MattNelson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 03:30 PM   #149
MattNelson
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 50
Originally Posted by fagin View Post
Don't give up your day job.
Right on the money. Gotta pay the bills for my beautiful family.

Do you have anything constructive to add?
MattNelson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 04:10 PM   #150
MattNelson
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 50
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Who are the perpetrators who encouraged idiots to make up lies about 9/11? Name one of the perps please, and include evidence to support this, unsupported claim.
I have a webpage for just that, although I don't know who the associated perpetrators/recruiters/encouragers were, but I put Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld at the top pulling the strings (evidence against them is gathered in Michael Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon" and Kevin Ryan's "Another Nineteen"). Find the video playlist on the bottom screen (above which a quote includes the word "COINTELPRO") and click one of the last 3 videos on the list. He was one of the first (probably the first) to combine near-pornographic and drug-related content with 9/11 airplane videos for YouTube -- the man named Nico, who pushed the "no planes hit the WTC" theory in public wearing costumes and waving a banner "No planes hit the WTC" (as featured in the first 17 seconds of a National Geographic documentary "9/11: Science and Conspiracy" -- as I explain in my video on no planer Ron Johnson, who has since been suspended or deleted on YouTube. In that same video see Alex Jones talking about the alleged "operative" Nico Xxxxx (last name omitted so he doesn't find this post and troll us) -- full video on my website linked above.)

I can't be sure if the many offending YouTube channels are his -- all with his code/search keyword names (some including 'sex,' 'sexy' and 'nipples') also placed in video descriptions from his other channels (or his friends') with similar content. Different videos with the same signature content on different channels:

ex. 1, ex. 2, ex. 3, ex. 4, and best/last is the nico xxxxx channel, featuring this video.

Please don't use his channel names or call sign/keywords in your reply posts (or even his name), or else he will come here and troll (after googling them/himself and finding us talking about him).

These videos, then, were used to purposefully tarnish related videos of honest 9/11 researchers (and even Nico's own no planer "friends") in keyword and/or YouTube searches... just like the area around Ground Zero had a real live tinfoil hat-wearing (close enough) joker whenever he was there, with Dylan Avery for example. Notice in the Nat. Geo. doc that Dylan Avery is shown seconds from the 'no planes' banner, when he had on that day been arguing with Nico about the subject!

In another instance in 2008, Nico held a sign up saying "We did the Times Square bombing" in front of a WeAreChange Ground Zero vigil. (Alex Jones's prisonplanet.com article cached)

There's more, but who cares?

We have Nico to thank for the terms LIHOP and MIHOP. He was a respected researcher/truther for a while. After seeing "September Clues," (2007) Nico became like Simon Shack's apostle. It seemed to me that a couple years after smearing the Truth Movement (maybe sooner!), he went crazy and later associated himself with flat earthers, if my memory serves me from my web search months ago. Sorry no link. He does have a ridiculous video on his channel about the world only being a few hundred years old, which only shows random pictures with flashes of light...

Or he was honestly operating on the principle of "any press is good press," trying to lure people into researching 9/11 (and no planes) like clickbait.

So, no I can't build a case against this man for working with the 9/11 perps aka Them -- and I don't know if Nico in fact made all those garbage channels and videos. He did used to have a blog contest that organized his and Simon Shack's fans' videos with other 9/11 documentaries and related clips into a top 10 (or top 50, I forget). He called them mashups, but some serious content was intermixed. Some of you probably remember the 2008/9 peak of no plane madness.

I'll be changing that 'acknowledgments' sentence in my book to: "Big thanks also to the so-called debunkers, who have helped compile evidence to deflate many unfortunate myths." It certainly leads the book better than "... to the so-called debunkers who have helped collect info to destroy seriously wacky theories that may have in fact been encouraged by the perpetrators." I see your wisdom and thank you, sir Beachnut.

Last edited by MattNelson; 10th September 2018 at 04:24 PM.
MattNelson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 04:23 PM   #151
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 6,442
Originally Posted by fagin View Post
Don't give up your day job.
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
Right on the money. Gotta pay the bills for my beautiful family.

Do you have anything constructive to add?
Trying to save you wasting more time is constructive.

IMHO.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 04:46 PM   #152
MattNelson
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 50
Originally Posted by fagin View Post
Trying to save you wasting more time is constructive.

IMHO.
Edit:

An average of 3,000 people a month have downloaded/clicked on links to this book of mine for the past few years (some more than once, most likely). There are some errors, as pointed out by the fine people ehem on this forum. I can fix these errors by spending time. Do you care about 9/11 truth?

Last edited by MattNelson; 10th September 2018 at 06:26 PM.
MattNelson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 05:22 PM   #153
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,229
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
Touché. I asked for that, since I have not personally spoken with FDNY families.

I have, however, listened to them. In 2007 the International Association of Firefighters released a...(snip)
2007 was 11 years ago.

The passage of time gives everyone a healthy perspective, and while we've lost too many FDNY to Ground Zero-related disease, there are many who would be willing to talk to a serious writer. There are enough 9/11 Victim and Survivor advocacy groups in NYC that you should be able to talk to enough people.

As an author, I suggest that you should take yourself seriously, and do the required background work this story REQUIRES. If you don't then you're just another 9/11-CT hack looking to make a quick buck.

There are still thousands of stories waiting to be told about the WTC on 9-11, I don't know why you'd waste your time writing about something that didn't happen instead to the many, many things that did happen.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 06:10 PM   #154
MattNelson
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 50
... although I'm not "looking to make a quick buck." Zero bucks since the beginning (2007/2008).

Thanks for the inspiration to get out and interview people, which would have to be by phone or email since I'm in Oregon. My time is running out if I want to talk to those who were there.

As I said earlier, I plan to revamp my book and remove the conspiracy spin as much as possible. Until I do so, most people won't touch it, assuming it's all conspiracy crap/"waste of time" when in fact it has huge amounts of info and images that are gathered nowhere else, often having no conspiracy spin, most notably with original sources documented and linked wherever possible. The conspiracy theorists' angle would be an object of curiosity that I could add at the end of chapters/sections, perhaps. The book will always be free.
MattNelson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 10:08 PM   #155
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 532
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post

About WTC 7's Con Edison power substation restoration -- it didn't happen there, but maybe the DDC didn't know that would be the case.
What do you mean? It is an absolute fact that WTC7's debris removal was expedited so that a new substation could be built (plus the human remains search at WTC7 did not need to be nearly as intensive as in the tower debris piles). And the new WTC7 contains that new substation to this day.

If you compiled 200+ pages of info in this subject and failed to stumble upon that actual main reason for WTC7's expedited removal, then I don't know what to tell you. There is more than one contemporaneous NYTimes article about the clean-up that makes note of this. Pataki himself made this clear.
And, by the way, the clean-up was of course the most important news for the whole city for months. Did you ever think to go to your local library to actually read newspaper archives?
benthamitemetric is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2018, 06:32 PM   #156
MattNelson
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 50
Fail on my part. Thanks for the tip. I am ashamed.
MattNelson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2018, 07:22 PM   #157
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,059
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
Fail on my part. Thanks for the tip. I am ashamed.
8 months, a rush. How many years should clean up take? Do you realize what happen, what was destroyed on 9/11?

The problem with your paper is you play to idiotic claims from 9/11 truth and try to support the false claims. You take hearsay, and nonsense, and include that in a history of exposing your gullibility.

You need to include reality based information. You don't care about 9/11 truth, you are propagating lies and dumbed down claims with thousands of downloads. How many Boston bomber like nuts will your work help rationalize their hate and disgust of others.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2018, 07:35 PM   #158
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,489
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
MattNelson--

Cleaning up the WTC site was certainly rushed. Why wouldn't it be? Why would you leave a smoldering, toxic heap of concrete, steel and human remains in the middle of the world's most important financial district. In all your research, did you not realize WTC7 sat atop the main power supply for wall street and billions of dollars of daily economic activity? Of course they wanted to restore that power station ASAP.
Not to mention that the debris of WTC 7 was blocking three major thoroughfares! (No, WTC 7 did NOT "fall neatly and symmetrically into its own footprint".)

https://s16-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bi...ticache=513146

Last edited by Redwood; 11th September 2018 at 07:45 PM. Reason: Add image
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2018, 07:39 PM   #159
MattNelson
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally posted by beachnut:
The problem with your paper is you play to idiotic claims from 9/11 truth and try to support the false claims. You take hearsay, and nonsense, and include that in a history of exposing your gullibility.

You need to include reality based information. You don't care about 9/11 truth, you are propagating lies and dumbed down claims with thousands of downloads.
You are wrong when you say I don't care about 9/11 truth.

You are right when you say I am gullible. I believed the no planes crap for a few months in 2008/9. Now I've created some of the best material for bringing truth to the misled no planers. Obviously I have some other crap to work out. That's why I'm here taking punches.

Last edited by MattNelson; 11th September 2018 at 07:41 PM. Reason: add quote
MattNelson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2018, 07:43 PM   #160
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,059
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
You are wrong when you say I don't care about 9/11 truth.

You are right when you say I am gullible. I believed the no planes crap for a few months in 2008/9. Now I've created some of the best material for bringing truth to the misled no planers. Obviously I have some other crap to work out. That's why I'm here taking punches.
The no planes guys were far out.

After you acquire all the stuff from "both sides", you will be a "hater and loser" debunker to 9/11 truth.

good luck, take care, beware of...
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:27 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.