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 20th October 2014, 05:54 AM   #1
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,860
Matt Nelson: 9/11 Debris - An Investigation of Ground Zero

Matt Nelson, a truther it seems, has put together and just (this september, I believe) released a massive (176 pages, PDF; 37 MB file) and well-sourced documentation of the Ground Zero debris situation in New York:

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/pdf/9-11...att_Nelson.pdf

His interpretation and tenor leans invariably towards CTs, but if you can ignore the tendatious commentary and the arguments from incredulity, this looks like a good summary of lots of evidence to start a search from, if debris, dust, human remains, memorabilia, clean-up operations etc. interest you.


Also, his homepage contains a ton of links to videos and other docu.
www.911conspiracy.tv
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 20th October 2014, 07:31 AM   #2
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,680
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Matt Nelson, a truther it seems, has put together and just (this september, I believe) released a massive (176 pages, PDF; 37 MB file) and well-sourced documentation of the Ground Zero debris situation in New York:

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/pdf/9-11...att_Nelson.pdf

His interpretation and tenor leans invariably towards CTs, but if you can ignore the tendatious commentary and the arguments from incredulity, this looks like a good summary of lots of evidence to start a search from, if debris, dust, human remains, memorabilia, clean-up operations etc. interest you.


Also, his homepage contains a ton of links to videos and other docu.
www.911conspiracy.tv
Seems like a crazy amount of work for a young English major... who appears to be doing the cherry picking thing and reading observations through his political filter which is 911 truth thing.

There is clear dividing line in these presentations... no attempts to bring in the *other side* with respect to interpretation of what you see or find or present. This pure bias on display... intended to impress with its length, its links and references as a rigorous scholarly work. I read it as the work of a fanatic with an obsession who needs to find something more productive to do with his talent and energy that support myths.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO 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 20th October 2014, 10:22 AM   #3
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,860
I can't disagree with anything you say, Sander. I have to say that I haven't read much of that work yet (it's not particularly well written, he often jumps back and forth between themes without clear delineations). I am sure he employed bias when selecting things to link to.

This work is designed to impress with sheer mass of **** thrown at the fan at once.

Still, I think it has merit as a very comprehensive and rather complete assembly of sources, images, documents.
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 20th October 2014, 03:54 PM   #4
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,364
good compilation
Senenmut 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 20th October 2014, 04:54 PM   #5
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,791
A creative writing expert makes a propaganda piece for 911 truth, based on quote mining.

Matt Nelson, does a Nizon, "I am not a paranoid conspiracy theorist".
Quote:
I would like to thank the dedicated 9/11 researchers around the world who have often been branded “conspiracy theorists.” Many are anonymous. You know who you are. Big thanks also 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.
oops, he is a paranoid conspracy theorist, who has the "perpetrators" doing the wacky theories, as he falls for the biggest wacky theories. Lucky for Matt Nelson his major was creative writing and not investigative journalism. Matt believes the BS he quote mines.


"May have in fact been encouraged by the perpetrators" - a preview of the conclusion - claim you are not a wacky CTer, then prove you lied up front - he has 911 truth skills down.

Matt Nelson, super intellectual 911 truth nut, can't do physics to comprehend what he sees; and the BS flows, faster than free-fall
Quote:
All of the contents and floors of the towers falling through themselves did that?
Yes, Matt, the collapse released potential energy stored in the towers, a lot of energy, more than 100 2,000 pounds bombs in total energy, for each tower; that is why it is called ground zero, zero.

Matt Nelson would not be compete with out the magic of ...
Quote:
Also he mentioned a witness's thoughts using the word “evaporated” to describe the pulverized debris... some of which did literally vaporize, of course
... vaporization. Matt quote mines "evaporated". Why use science when you have an A+ in creative writing.

13 years and Matt Nelson discovers and accepts BS from 911 truth's zombie movement. A gullible English majors' decent into ignorance fueled by paranoia, graduated Magna Cum Laude, and a minor in quote mining.
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 3rd October 2017, 03:36 PM   #6
MattNelson
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 24
I haven't made 15 posts yet, so I still can't add links.

New version of my PDF is now 67.8 MB, 262 pages:
911conspiracy.tv/pdf/9-11_Debris_An_Investigation_of_Ground_Zero_by_Matt_ Nelson. pdf

I'll also be responding to beachnut in this thread:
"Original version of BBC's 2008 program The Conspiracy Files: The Third Tower?"
internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread. php?t=323264&page=3

Quoting me:
"rush to remove and recycle the steel,"
Quoting beachnut:
"Rush, almost a year. How many months are in a rush? This is funny, kind of."

Within 5 days of the attack, workers had "begun using heavy equipment to haul away the wreckage of Building number 7, regardless of the fact that it's still burning. At the Canteen we hear some of the truck drivers complaining that some of these girders are so hot they cause the beds of the dumptrucks to crack and split open." (Matt Siegel, “Three Nights at Ground Zero” at 13:15, during the film's section titled “Day Five.”)

"Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall." - Bill Manning, "$elling Out the Investigation," Fire Engineering Magazine, Jan. 1, 2002.
/...

Quoting me:
"One fuselage piece from Flight 175 was photographed by FEMA, showing part of the tail/registration number... but the photo appears altered."
Quoting beachnut:
"Why make up lies about 9/11? Is it to inspire idiots like the Boston bombers feel better about killing."

See my PDF section "Airplane Debris" under the heading "FEMA's Fuselage Fib." There you will learn that the singular portion or piece of fuselage is in reality TWO pieces staged to appear as one. Looking more closely you'll see that the photo was manipulated by adding color to blend the pieces. Why? I think it was an ego trip. Nothing to do with planted airplane pieces or adding the tail number, because nowhere did any official report mention the tail number on the pieces! No museum ever housed the pieces. No FOIA has obtained the original photo, which was not shot by Gene Corley, despite the exif data and FEMA website. It was William Baker, as the Popular Mechanics article said. I made a video on YouTube with ID jsUSRrIXhXI called "How FEMA Photoshopped 9/11" to get a quick look at all the photos (and video) in 2 minutes.

I think Flight 11 took off from Boston like Flight 175. Both hit their targets, hence the 80+ passengers who were identified by human remains found at Ground Zero.

I say remote control was involved because the planes hit their targets so precisely. Beachnut, you are a pilot. So you are more qualified to make the judgment. Nothing I can say will change your mind. I would invoke "Pilots for 9/11 Truth," but I don't have enough respect for Rob Balsamo. How about retired pilot Russ Wittenberg? Of course he thinks the planes couldn't handle the stress of operating above their limits. I'm not so sure.

My other opinions about what happened on the day... not so much controlled demolition as engineered collapse in all 3 cases. How much heat would be created by friction in the towers' tubes? Enough to push temperatures above 2800°F? I wish there were a model of the WTC towers' collapses, but NIST apparently didn't have the money or brains (or steel evidence). I don't think Shyam Sunder is correct in his analysis of the exterior columns "snapping" when pulled by the sagging floor trusses ("Building on Ground Zero" 2006) -- see Achimspok's video at ID WPtgp0RMFT4&t=1m30s. I think portions of the core were falling, accounting for the inward bowing observed...and the falling antenna in the north tower's case.

Other highlights from my e-book:

Airplane Debris: Nearly all the WTC airplane debris photos and videos are linked in this chapter. If you find more, please let me know.
The Engines: Did you know 3 of the 4 engines were found? And the FBI doesn't know they have an engine from Flight 11?

Evacuees - 102 Minutes: I devote about 40 pages to examining what happened in the north tower when the 1st plane hit. Did you know that the two occupants of freight elevator 50 (who were on TV) were not included in the NIST report? Then NIST said their elevator crashed to the pit, as if to explain the lower level damage? Why bomb the lower levels and floor 22? In order to attack the water systems, disable the firefighting effort and the Security Command Center... the elevators that were 99% disabled when the plane hit. (Some were out of service, or blocked by barriers, too.) I made a video on this subject, too: "The 9/11 Magic Bullet" at ID# CFjFfdYPHtQ

Molten Steel: I give a good summary, you may say quote mining, including the microsphere argument. After reading Karl Koch's book "Men of Steel" I can say most of the microspheres were probably from the massive amounts of welding covered in concrete. I wonder about the other evidence for extreme heat created by the collapses, and the lack of photographic evidence for the alleged molten rivers and stalagmites of steel.

Thanks for your time. I'd like to improve my book. If it seems disjointed in parts, it's because I've been adding to it over the past 5 years, re-releasing every year.
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 3rd October 2017, 03:54 PM   #7
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,791
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
... I say remote control was involved because the planes hit their targets so precisely. Beachnut, you are a pilot. So you are more qualified to make the judgment. Nothing I can say will change your mind. I would invoke "Pilots for 9/11 Truth," but I don't have enough respect for Rob Balsamo. How about retired pilot Russ Wittenberg? Of course he thinks the planes couldn't handle the stress of operating above their limits. I'm not so sure. ...
Russ? That is funny, he failed to provide anything to support his trash talk and speculation. Russ is one of Balsamo's failed pilots on 9/11 issues. But you can sure, or have cherry picked comments and ideas like Russ's to come up with the lie of remote control. An idea based on zero evidence and shoddy shallow research.

False flag? I noticed Alex Jones is one of your failed sources, or is listed without warning he is an idiot selling BS.

If planes fell apart above their "limits", many of my fellow pilots would be dead, and the MACH1 airliner would have killed many passengers, but the plane was recovered.

To make up remote control is not responsible journalism, and provides solace for idiots like the Boston bombers who are/were your fellow 9/11 truth believers. Why have you become a pusher of lies and fantasy.
__________________
"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 3rd October 2017, 05:02 PM   #8
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,317
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
I haven't made 15 posts yet, so I still can't add links.

Snipped with respect

How about retired pilot Russ Wittenberg? Of course he thinks the planes couldn't handle the stress of operating above their limits. I'm not so sure.

Snipped.
If the pilot isn't concerned with their survival and the strucural integrity of the airframe there isn't much an aircraft can't do, right up to point where the aircraft disassembles itself in flight.

If the aircraft doesn't come apart, it didn't exceed it's failure point - it might be a little hairy for the next pilot up if the airframe didn't get a detailed inspection, but the 9/11 pilots had no such concerns.

About hitting the Towers. The only thing easier than hitting the towers would have been diving into the ground.
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong 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 3rd October 2017, 05:55 PM   #9
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,399
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
See my PDF section "Airplane Debris" under the heading "FEMA's Fuselage Fib." There you will learn that the singular portion or piece of fuselage is in reality TWO pieces staged to appear as one. Looking more closely you'll see that the photo was manipulated by adding color to blend the pieces. Why? I think it was an ego trip. Nothing to do with planted airplane pieces or adding the tail number, because nowhere did any official report mention the tail number on the pieces!
The wikipedia site, wikipedia, links directly to the NTSB incident reports that specifically reference the tail numbers.

In other words, not only is your claim false, not only does it make no sense whatsoever, it can be debunked by the least amount of research it is perhaps possible to do.

https://reports.aviation-safety.net/...762_N612UA.pdf

let me know when you update your book to reflect the six minutes of research I did to destroy it
__________________
rent this space
The Big Dog 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 3rd October 2017, 07:42 PM   #10
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 311
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
[snipped for brevity and not repeating nonsense] I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall." - Bill Manning, "$elling Out the Investigation," Fire Engineering Magazine, Jan. 1, 2002.
And did your investigation reveal any other building that had structural damage and fires burning in several floors for seven plus hours? Without the benefit of any fire intervention?

Quote:

Quoting me:
"One fuselage piece from Flight 175 was photographed by FEMA, showing part of the tail/registration number... but the photo appears altered."
Quoting beachnut:
"Why make up lies about 9/11? Is it to inspire idiots like the Boston bombers feel better about killing."

See my PDF section "Airplane Debris" under the heading "FEMA's Fuselage Fib." There you will learn that the singular portion or piece of fuselage is in reality TWO pieces staged to appear as one. Looking more closely you'll see that the photo was manipulated by adding color to blend the pieces. Why? I think it was an ego trip. Nothing to do with planted airplane pieces or adding the tail number, because nowhere did any official report mention the tail number on the pieces! No museum ever housed the pieces. No FOIA has obtained the original photo, which was not shot by Gene Corley, despite the exif data and FEMA website. It was William Baker, as the Popular Mechanics article said. I made a video on YouTube with ID jsUSRrIXhXI called "How FEMA Photoshopped 9/11" to get a quick look at all the photos (and video) in 2 minutes.
What professional experience have you to make claims that images have been altered? None I expect, so you are speculating on an image composition you don't understand.
Quote:
[snipped again to delete nonsense]

Thanks for your time. I'd like to improve my book. If it seems disjointed in parts, it's because I've been adding to it over the past 5 years, re-releasing every year.
Perhaps you should bone up on some basic physics and then look at the evidence, not the stories told in CT sites.
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 3rd October 2017, 08:26 PM   #11
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,647
Here is an active link for Mr. Nelson's PDF.

http://911conspiracy.tv/pdf/9-11_Deb...att_Nelson.pdf

Last edited by carlitos; 3rd October 2017 at 08:27 PM.
carlitos 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 3rd October 2017, 10:10 PM   #12
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,791
It has been three years since posts above, and Matt has failed to gain knowledge of physics.

Matt, you got the "false flag" fantasy based on remote control, and have no practical knowledge of physics. Proved by one simple statement, a kind of projection of incredulity based on your lack of knowledge of physics.

Quote:
CONCLUSION
All of the contents and floors of the towers falling through themselves did that? After all I've read and seen, I don't think so. Call it an argument from incredulity, fully realized. http://911conspiracy.tv/pdf/9-11_Deb...att_Nelson.pdf
What? Incredulity? He has no clue what physics is, or why stuff falling hundreds of feet destroys stuff.
Not knowing the collapse of the WTC released the energy stored in the WTC during construction, E=mgh. Not knowing that energy turned to kinetic energy during the collapse, more energy than 100 2,000 pounds bombs in each tower. Gee, is 100 2,000 pound bombs worth of energy enough to do "that"? Unlike a bomb wasting energy blowing up stuff, the WTC debris was a kinetic energy weapon, destroy stuff in the path, destroying and trashing over 19 acres of the WTC area.

Thus math and physics show your statement is false, some kind of opinion. You don't think the energy stored in a building can do the damage we see. But you never ran the numbers, you never did the math. Do it now and take down the BS which exposes a lack of scientific knowledge. ?Do the math, E=mgh, when the towers collapsed due to the effects of fire, this is the energy which destroyed the WTC complex, due to gravity, falling contents of the WTC became one of the largest kinetic energy weapons display. Gravity, who knew? I did, so do most people who can do physics.

http://911conspiracy.tv/pdf/9-11_Deb...att_Nelson.pdf
A testimony on the failure to comprehend science, and come to the no evidence conclusion of "remote control false flag". Misleading people with BS, and I don't think you care about misleading people, spreading lies about 9/11 based on nothing.

What we are seeing, new people fooled by the "adolescent patterns of woo" built into the fictional loose change videos. Then they do what seems to be "youtubian research", and come up with some far fetch fantasy to match their level of ignorance on various areas. From remote control, to false flag, there will be a constant flow of gullible suckers who don't understand things like physics, and fall for the BS flowing free on the youtubian research bandwagon to 9/11 truth nirvana.

The remote control is a lie. For 77 and 93, proved wrong by the FDRs. Why would the terrorists use remote control? lol, you are saying some evil murderers did 9/11, not 19 evil murderers inspired by UBL.

And the Motive?
False Flag
You have been watching/listening to Alex Jones way too much.
__________________
"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 3rd October 2017, 10:42 PM   #13
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,238
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
I haven't made 15 posts yet, so I still can't add links.

I say remote control was involved because the planes hit their targets so precisely.

I definitely disagree with the claim that the 9/11 aircraft were flown under remote control.

First of all, I am a pilot with 48 years flying experience and knew the aircraft could not have been flown under remote control. Secondly, I am a retired Air Force airframe supervisor/inspector who has been employed with several defense contractors after my military retirement and have modified, repaired, and rebuilt a number of aircraft including helicopters since 1967.

The B-757 and the B-767 aircraft are not fly-by-wire (FBW) and in order to modify such aircraft would have required extensive rework of the control system for each aircraft that would have left paper trails across the United States and it would have taken me just 30 minutes or less to identify a bogus B-767 or a B-757 because only a certain number of B-767-200 and B-757-200 series aircraft were built. In addition, you cannot plant a bogus B-757 or a B-767 at the airports in question and not set off alarm bells from American Airlines, United Airlines, and airport officials nor can such aircraft be switched in flight and not set off ATC alarm bells. Remember, airspace from (FL)180 (18,000 feet MSL) to (FL) 600 (60,000 feet MSL) is what is known as Class A Airspace, which is tightly controlled airspace.

And then, you have radar data. I have heard from 9/11 Truthers that the hijackers tampered with transponders in order to render their hijacked aircraft invisible to radar, but tampering with the transponder will not render an aircraft invisible to radar because neither the B-757 or the B-767 are stealth aircraft and even stealth aircraft are not totally invisible to radar. In fact, I pulled altitude flight data from United 175, American 77 and American 11 that proved that each of those aircraft was not flown under remote control. Case in point.

AA11 Flight Profile




UA175 Flight Profile

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/e...e_altitude.png


AA77 Flight Profile

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/e...essure_alt.png


As you can see in the data, neither AA11, AA77 or UA175 were flown under remote control and the flight profile data sums up that fact very well.

To sum that up, aircraft are easily traceable and there was no way that anyone could have switched airframes and modify those aircraft and not set off alarm bells.


Quote:
Beachnut, you are a pilot. So you are more qualified to make the judgment. Nothing I can say will change your mind. I would invoke "Pilots for 9/11 Truth," but I don't have enough respect for Rob Balsamo. How about retired pilot Russ Wittenberg? Of course he thinks the planes couldn't handle the stress of operating above their limits. I'm not so sure.

Rob Balsamo and I, have had our fallout when I caught him distorting facts, especially in regard to ACARS and aircraft structural integrity at high airspeed, which made it difficult for me to believe that he was a real pilot, but someone later confirmed to me that he was, so I came to the conclusion that he was outright lying.

As far as Russ Wittenberg is concern, if he truly believed what he has said, then I will call him out as well and enlighten him to reality about aircraft airframes integrity at high airspeed and enlighten him once again about facts surrounding the so-called "Hani maneuver." I am having a difficult time believing that Russ Wittenberg is so ignorant as to believe that the airframe of American 77 underwent high stress loads beyond its limitations. Perhaps, I should invite him to Travis AFB to have him observe C-5's, C-17's and even KC-10's conducting even more drastic 360 degree landing maneuvers from higher altitudes and in less time than the circling maneuver of American 77 which did not conduct a full 360 degree circle unlike other large aircraft of Travis AFB. In fact, even Air Force One has conducted such circling maneuvers more drastic that what American 77 underwent, so in that regard, I will give Russ Wittenberg a thumbs-down as well and would be more than happy to provide him with details of large subsonic airliners that went supersonic and landed safely, not to mention that even one of our C-141's went supersonic and landed safely.

I guess Russ Wittenberg didn't know that the first DC-8 that was built had also gone supersonic during a test and landed safely intact.

Douglas Passenger Jet Breaks Sound Barrier

After climbing to an altitude of 52,090 feet, the DC-8-42 series aircraft attained a maximum speed of Mach 1.012 or 660 mph while in a controlled dive through 41,088 feet. The purpose of the flight was to collect data on a new leading-edge design for the wing.

http://www.dc8.org/library/supersonic/


It is apparent that neither Rob or Russ are up-to-speed on reality when it comes to aircraft structural integrity and aerial performance maneuvers and it is my opinion that they have no business broadcasting their ignorance of the facts, which they should have known better from their own experience, but didn't.

.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 3rd October 2017 at 11:09 PM.
skyeagle409 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 October 2017, 01:18 AM   #14
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,249
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
Quoting me:
"rush to remove and recycle the steel,"
Quoting beachnut:
"Rush, almost a year. How many months are in a rush? This is funny, kind of."

Within 5 days of the attack, workers had "begun using heavy equipment to haul away the wreckage of Building number 7, regardless of the fact that it's still burning. At the Canteen we hear some of the truck drivers complaining that some of these girders are so hot they cause the beds of the dumptrucks to crack and split open." (Matt Siegel, “Three Nights at Ground Zero” at 13:15, during the film's section titled “Day Five.”)
That proves rush to remove, not to recycle.

Remember there was a search and rescue operation. The steel was carried to yards where it was studied by the experts.


Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
"Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall." - Bill Manning, "$elling Out the Investigation," Fire Engineering Magazine, Jan. 1, 2002.
/...
It was never a fire investigation: a fire investigation aims at determining the cause of the fire, and in this case it's crystal clear to anyone with eyes that it was initiated by the planes, with jet fuel as an accelerant.

There were engineers interested in the building performance investigation, which is completely unrelated to fire investigation, and even though the laws were against them (NCSTAWP was passed as a result of this legal hole), they managed to preserve parts of the building for them to be used in a subsequent investigation. See NCSTAR 1-3B.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno 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 October 2017, 02:04 AM   #15
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,785
I'm going to call 'tl;dr' on the PDF.
Is there anything in it beyond "this sure looks fishy to my uneducated eye"? Any theory of how he thinks it was done, if not by Al Qaeda, along with the necessary evidence?
__________________
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 4th October 2017, 02:33 AM   #16
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,860
I have a sense that Matt may be one of the very few Truthers left who can be reached with reason and who actually research the matter to find truth. Hence his rejecting at least some of the more silly Truth claims.

But I also sense that he is already quite entrenched into the belief that the Truth Movement must be onto *something*, and so he gives equal credulity to evrrything any Truther ever noted as "suspicious" or "anomalous".

The way forward for Matt would be to realise that most Truthers belief something that he has already recognized as untrue, and therefore question the validity of Truthers' epistemology in general. That should lead him to assuming that EVERyTHING Truthers claim is probably false or irrelevant.

He would then soon discover that rejecting TM claims and embracing the consensus makes his thinking about 9/11 coalesce into a coherent, comprehensive whole so much faster and easier.

Sent from mobile phone through Tapatalk
__________________
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 4th October 2017, 11:16 AM   #17
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,258
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
I say remote control was involved because the planes hit their targets so precisely.........................
What do you mean by "precisely"? Are you implying they hit an exact spot on the building or just the building itself?

You seem to be committing a Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 October 2017, 12:14 PM   #18
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: 24,846
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
What do you mean by "precisely"? Are you implying they hit an exact spot on the building or just the building itself?
In particular, the accuracy of flight 175 was very poor; it struck the building off-centre, and only appeared to hit it at all because of last-minute manoeuvring. "Precisely" seems a very inappropriate description.

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 4th October 2017, 01:29 PM   #19
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,860
Guys you don't get it: AA11 hit the North Tower very precisely in the center of the 95th floor, and UA175 hit the South Tower very precisely many many feet off-center in the 82nd floor, because that's where the bombs were that went off 1/100th of a second earlier - can't you see??

[/CTmode]
__________________
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 4th October 2017, 03:16 PM   #20
MattNelson
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 24
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
The wikipedia site, wikipedia, links directly to the NTSB incident reports that specifically reference the tail numbers.

In other words, not only is your claim false, not only does it make no sense whatsoever, it can be debunked by the least amount of research it is perhaps possible to do.

[...]reports.aviation-safety.net/2001/20010911-1_B762_N612UA .pdf

let me know when you update your book to reflect the six minutes of research I did to destroy it
Sorry you misunderstood. Of course they knew the tail number. What I meant to say was "nowhere did any official report mention the tail number on the pieces" of fuselage in the FEMA photograph. I would expect them to use the fuselage pieces to say, "Look everybody - the tail number of the plane!" But nobody did that. So much conspiracy speculation could have been avoided if FBI/NTSB ever used serial numbers to match the wreckage to the registration numbers. I reiterate that I do not think any wreckage was planted.
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 4th October 2017, 03:34 PM   #21
MattNelson
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 24
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
...
What professional experience have you to make claims that images have been altered? None I expect, so you are speculating on an image composition you don't understand.
...
I looked at imageforensic. org and fotoforensics. com. In App. 2 you'll see the Error Level Analyses from those two sites that show lighter areas where I suspect the digital modifications were made. See the ELA tutorial on fotoforensics. com. I also consulted a friend who is an expert in digital art, and a 2008 web article that also suspected digital manipulation. I have a minor in Art if that's any consolation.

This subject will be cleared up when David Cole's FEMA FOIA is finally answered. See youtu. be/HsGVXZoMMKU?t=13m3s
The originals have never been released in any of the numerous NIST FOIAs. We're seen several folders with Baker's photos, but never those from the WTC 5 rooftop.
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 4th October 2017, 04:40 PM   #22
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,860
Why is any of this important?
__________________
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 4th October 2017, 04:43 PM   #23
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,791
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
Sorry you misunderstood. Of course they knew the tail number. What I meant to say was "nowhere did any official report mention the tail number on the pieces" of fuselage in the FEMA photograph. I would expect them to use the fuselage pieces to say, "Look everybody - the tail number of the plane!" But nobody did that. So much conspiracy speculation could have been avoided if FBI/NTSB ever used serial numbers to match the wreckage to the registration numbers. I reiterate that I do not think any wreckage was planted.
Thus this is a dead end. The FBI/NTSB released the Radar data, it proves which plane impacted where, it is called part of the investigation. Whether crime or accident we "pull" NTAP (radar "tape"), and study the aircraft of interest flight path. How do you stop idiotic conspiracy speculation since the people who make up lies like remote control don't use or believe evidence anyway. It does not matter, the CT world will not accept evidence, or understand why accidents are different than crime.

There are rules for crimes, and different rules for accidents. The NTSB does accident, not crime. Therefore the NTSB has no authority or law required to release serial numbers, in fact, the NTSB does not do crime, thus the NTSB only provide services as requested by the FBI.

The WTC towers did not have to be rebuilt, they were destroyed due to crime, again there is zero need to investigate how the towers fell to solve 9/11 crime, it was done by 19 murderers, not remote control planes by people in your fantasy false flag dumbed down with BS.

How quick did they remove the steel? If they did not remove the steel, how would they find more body parts?

How does that remote control stuff work? I started flying really big jets in 1976, had four engine, 10 wheels, the biggest tricycle I ever drove and flew.

Not sure why you are surprised pilots aim for the center. What about the precision of Flight 93, did your remote control go haywire? And Flight 77, the FDR show bad bank control, real bad altitude control and the worse airspeed control I have seen except when I was messing around in "my" T-38 pulling 6 to 7 gs... did your remote control do that on purpose. Flight 77 did not hit the center of anything. Oh wait, you will say it hit the a section redone for possible bombings... IS there anything 9/11 truth, you and other CTers can't turn into fantasy opinion/anomalies which are then erroneously used as evidence for silly false flag claims. Flight 175, the darn plane was homing in on the WTC and failed to apply drift, and did not hit the center of the tower; was the remote control failing? Why would a remote control attack risk failure and fly a little over 1.2Vd in the final seconds?

Where is Russ W. when you need his BS. He never did support his claim with facts and evidence.

Where is the evidence for remote control? That is correct, you don't have anything.

Where is the evidence for false flag? Again, you don't have any evidence.

Yes, it is easy to debunk no planes, using Radar, 2 FDRs, Video, and eyewitnesses, even DNA, making no planes a sign of supreme ignorance.

Why say a photo is fake/photoshopped before you have the original. Was the original digital? What was the original format, was it a raw file proprietary to a brand of digital camera? Was it an original tiff from a raw, or was it entirely jpeg. I had people call my SR-71 refueling photo fake, and I have the original Kodachrome slide which I "scanned". It is wrong to make a conclusion using the internet photos. Plus, there is no point if it is fake, the best you can do is take away his Pulitzer. Did he get a Pulitzer?


Quote:
David Cole's FEMA FOIA
The one from 3 years ago? Or is this a new one? Is this like the thermite study by Basile guy?
__________________
"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

Last edited by beachnut; 4th October 2017 at 04:56 PM.
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 October 2017, 05:48 PM   #24
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,860
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
...
I say remote control was involved because the planes hit their targets so precisely. ...
This is indeed the lynchpin of this thread so far.

Matt: How long have you believed that "remote control was involved"?

What is the totality of evidence you have for that belief? (I am sure it can be summarized in one sentence, perhaps one word, and that one word most likely is "incredulity").

The idea that remote control was involved is ridiculous on many levels:
  • There is no evidence for it
  • There is no reason
  • There is lots of evidence against it
  • There exists no theory which remote control would fit better than hijackers
  • Remote control on commercial flights operated by different airlines is needlessly complex and requires too many actors. much easier to find radical islamists willing to sacrifice their lives for Allah - flying planes into huge buildings is as easy as kid's play.
__________________
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 4th October 2017, 05:50 PM   #25
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,399
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
Sorry you misunderstood. Of course they knew the tail number. What I meant to say was "nowhere did any official report mention the tail number on the pieces" of fuselage in the FEMA photograph. I would expect them to use the fuselage pieces to say, "Look everybody - the tail number of the plane!" But nobody did that. So much conspiracy speculation could have been avoided if FBI/NTSB ever used serial numbers to match the wreckage to the registration numbers. I reiterate that I do not think any wreckage was planted.
Wait, you had no point other than someone should have anticipated grossly unfounded speculation that not even you agree with?

Well that is a first.
__________________
rent this space
The Big Dog 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 October 2017, 06:14 PM   #26
Whip
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 599
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
So much conspiracy speculation could have been avoided if
dopes never made up conspiracy theories to begin with.
Whip 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 October 2017, 07:49 PM   #27
MattNelson
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 24
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
I definitely disagree with the claim that the 9/11 aircraft were flown under remote control....
Thank you for your input. I'm happy to have this forum as a resource. Perhaps I'm giving Kevin Ryan too much credit. The coincidence still bugs me -- of having the Pentagon renovated to withstand a terrorist attack exactly in the one "wedge" where it would be hit by a hijacked plane... and the plane not diving onto the roof to inflict more casualties.
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 4th October 2017, 08:01 PM   #28
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,115
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
Thank you for your input. I'm happy to have this forum as a resource. Perhaps I'm giving Kevin Ryan too much credit. The coincidence still bugs me -- of having the Pentagon renovated to withstand a terrorist attack exactly in the one "wedge" where it would be hit by a hijacked plane... and the plane not diving onto the roof to inflict more casualties.
You believe the US Government murdered almost 3000 people, yet at the same time took steps to ensure a plane didn't crash onto the Pentagon roof "to inflict more casualties"????

LOL, WUT?
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill 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 October 2017, 08:03 PM   #29
MattNelson
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 24
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Guys you don't get it: AA11 hit the North Tower very precisely in the center of the 95th floor, and UA175 hit the South Tower very precisely many many feet off-center in the 82nd floor, because that's where the bombs were that went off 1/100th of a second earlier - can't you see??

[/CTmode]
Precision hit on WTC 1 and the Pentagon, mostly. WTC 1 less than 1 meter from center. The Pentagon hit on the one area renovated to withstand a terrorist bombing, farthest from the "big brass," as if to minimize casualties.
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 4th October 2017, 08:41 PM   #30
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,791
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
Precision hit on WTC 1 and the Pentagon, mostly. WTC 1 less than 1 meter from center. The Pentagon hit on the one area renovated to withstand a terrorist bombing, farthest from the "big brass," as if to minimize casualties.
1 meter? That is not precise, that is a rookie. Real pilots hit dead center, guess the rookie forgot to adjust for the center of the plane.

That is silly to the nth degree. The WTC is how tall? Over 1000 feet, there is no precision with hitting the WTC in the center. The same as driving a car, I have to assume you need remote control to keep your car on center line of your lane. The neat thing about flying, we land in the middle of the whole road, we practice this all the time, not the right side of the road, but in the middle. It is not precision, it is what pilots do, even murderer pilots, guess 175 was lacking in control, was his remote broke?

No matter where 77 hit, you would have to make up some stupid claim it was precise. What you don't know, 77 was in a PIO, and could have plowed into the ground, as likely as hit between the first and second floor. In the inside job remote fantasy how do you keep the people how set it up quiet?

77 hit the Pentagon based on his failure to get down in time, thus he had to circle to get down, and rolled out on the side in front of him.

Oh, your remote control picked the side. lol

How would anyone know about the Pentagon. Oh, in your fantasy it was an inside job false flag. wow

Got evidence for the false flag propaganda and lies. How much would it cost, and how many engineers are required to convert 767s and 757s to remote control?
__________________
"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

Last edited by beachnut; 4th October 2017 at 08:55 PM.
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 October 2017, 09:01 PM   #31
waypastvne
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 398
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post

"One fuselage piece from Flight 175 was photographed by FEMA, showing part of the tail/registration number... but the photo appears altered."


I looked at the photos and don't see any photoshop, or any reason to photoshop. You just need to look at it at the right perspective.

In the images on the left, The N6 piece of debris is in very close to the same position but photographed from different view points. The appearance of being one piece in the FEMA photo is just a coincidence.

I have placed some comparison arrows in the three photos. Compare what one red arrow is pointing at, to what the other red arrow is pointing at. ect.

Hopefully this puts it in perspective for you.


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 5th October 2017, 01:13 AM   #32
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: 24,846
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
The coincidence still bugs me -- of having the Pentagon renovated to withstand a terrorist attack exactly in the one "wedge" where it would be hit by a hijacked plane... and the plane not diving onto the roof to inflict more casualties.
Oh, dear me, is your research really that bad, and your Texas Sharpshooter that active?

Firstly, the wedges of the Pentagon extended from the centre of one side to the centre of the next, taking in a corner. AA77 hit close to the centre of a side, near the junction of the renovated wedge and an un-renovated wedge. So the first assumption - that AA77 hit "exactly in the one wedge" - is flat out wrong.

Secondly, there are five sides to the Pentagon. Assuming that AA77 hit one side at random, the odds of it hitting a side adjacent to the renovated wedge are a straight 40%. Hardly a bizarre coincidence. There's a good reason why "It's a two in five chance, but it might just come off" isn't a well-known cliché.

Thirdly, let's not beat about the bush; Hani Hanjour was a really crap pilot. He approached the Pentagon way too high, executed a very ragged and extremely dangerous 330 degree turn that could easily have crashed the plane - ISTR Beachnut has a plot of the changes in bank angle in that turn that show just how appallingly badly it was executed - and then nearly hit the ground on the final approach. Let's not understate that; he tried to hit one of the biggest office buildings in the world, and he nearly missed! He may well have known that he couldn't control the plane in a dive, or simply not had the courage to try.

All this, really, is just the appeal to incredulity. You, personally, can't believe that Hanjour would have made the choices he did; but you, personally, aren't a religious extremist with a minimum of ability flying an airliner full of terrified hostages to certain destruction and your own immanent death. You can't expect him to have made good choices, otherwise he wouldn't have been carrying out a suicide attack in the first place.

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 5th October 2017, 02:33 AM   #33
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,860
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
Precision hit on WTC 1 and the Pentagon, mostly. WTC 1 less than 1 meter from center. The Pentagon hit on the one area renovated to withstand a terrorist bombing, farthest from the "big brass," as if to minimize casualties.
On WTC1: Imagine for a moment it was YOUR job to crash an airliner into the north tower, how would you do it? I tell you how I would: a. Approach from north. Going down the river for easy visual orientation. b. Descend to about 1000 feet - above almost all other buildings, but below wtc roof - then level out. c. As seen as I can see WTC, aim straight at the right tower, it's easy to see from many miles out. d. Hold level, stay cool. A hit is 100% guaranteed. Flying a plane straight and hitting within 1 meter is as easy as parking a car in a garage - even bad drivers hit garage 100% of the time. Even bad drivers manage to stay in highway lane perfectly at high speed. Airliners are built to make steering simple and precisr.

Now on to WTC2: was that on remote control? If yes, why did not hit smack in the center? Avoid Special Pleading! Visual navigation is more difficult coming from south, as you don't have the river and the easy to recognize grid of Manhattan to guide you. This is a problem for inexperienced humans, not for r/c.

On to Pentagon: how about Hanjour crashed into the west side because that' s where he was coming from? Ever thought such a simple thought?
Also: do you know just what, specifically, was changed in that renovation to harden against bombs? Be specific, then explain how that makes a difference wrt plane strikes! You will find that it makes no goddamn difference at all! There is simply no logic to the claim that hitting the hardened side makes a difference. Or do you claim AA77 did NOT penetrate deep into the building and caused it to collapse? How do you imagine the damage to have been different had the renovation not taken place?
I'd almost bet you don't even know what structural measures the renovation did and didn't include. Am I right?

Sent from mobile phone through Tapatalk
__________________
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 5th October 2017, 02:55 AM   #34
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: 24,846
By the way, we've danced this dance so many times before that I even know the next couple of steps. The standard counter to the "Hani Hanjour wasn't actually a very good pilot" argument is to post the Danielle O'Brien quote, "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," after which I then point out that this is quote-mined by leaving out the last two sentences, "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." So in fact, O'Brien didn't think Hanjour was flying 77 too well to be a commercial pilot, but too dangerously to be a commercial pilot, taking risks that commercial pilots don't take; which is, of course, entirely consistent with the fact that he was a very inexperienced pilot who didn't care too much if he crashed the plane.

I thought I'd just fill in the next two steps to save everyone's time.

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 5th October 2017, 04:45 AM   #35
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 311
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
I looked at imageforensic. org and fotoforensics. com. In App. 2 you'll see the Error Level Analyses from those two sites that show lighter areas where I suspect the digital modifications were made. See the ELA tutorial on fotoforensics. com. I also consulted a friend who is an expert in digital art, and a 2008 web article that also suspected digital manipulation. I have a minor in Art if that's any consolation.

This subject will be cleared up when David Cole's FEMA FOIA is finally answered. See youtu. be/HsGVXZoMMKU?t=13m3s
The originals have never been released in any of the numerous NIST FOIAs. We're seen several folders with Baker's photos, but never those from the WTC 5 rooftop.
You failed to answer my question.
Quote:
What professional experience have you to make claims that images have been altered? None I expect, so you are speculating on an image composition you don't understand.
Browsing a number of websites does not equate to professional experience. You speculate on a image composition that you(other CT's) don't understand and therefore it must be "faked" or "modified". If your degree was in Digital Art Modification, I would say you had training in the area, not necessarily experience.
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 5th October 2017, 10:48 AM   #36
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 7,256
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
Thank you for your input. I'm happy to have this forum as a resource. Perhaps I'm giving Kevin Ryan too much credit. The coincidence still bugs me -- of having the Pentagon renovated to withstand a terrorist attack exactly in the one "wedge" where it would be hit by a hijacked plane... and the plane not diving onto the roof to inflict more casualties.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there are five "wedges" in the Pentagon. The terrorists had a 20% probability of hitting that wedge at random. That's hardly something to raise suspicion. As far as not diving into the roof, either they weren't aware that that would cause more casualties (if in fact it would), or they intended to do so and missed.

Both of these are mighty weak sauce to raise suspicion of a conspiracy.
CORed 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 October 2017, 10:53 AM   #37
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,238
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
Thank you for your input. I'm happy to have this forum as a resource. Perhaps I'm giving Kevin Ryan too much credit. The coincidence still bugs me -- of having the Pentagon renovated to withstand a terrorist attack exactly in the one "wedge" where it would be hit by a hijacked plane... and the plane not diving onto the roof to inflict more casualties.

The renovated section of the Pentagon at that time was designed for bomb blast and not designed for a large aircraft slamming into that section at high speed, which photos of the damaged area have shown.


9/11 Pentagon Damage High-Resolution Aerial Photos

https://publicintelligence.net/911-p...aerial-photos/


I might add that my Wing Commander was in the Pentagon when American 77 struck.
skyeagle409 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 October 2017, 10:55 AM   #38
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,013
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
Precision hit on WTC 1 and the Pentagon, mostly. WTC 1 less than 1 meter from center. The Pentagon hit on the one area renovated to withstand a terrorist bombing, farthest from the "big brass," as if to minimize casualties.
If you're going to stage a terrorist attack of any kind to further your nefarious evil plans to control whatever, or go to war with some country then why would you want to LIMIT CASUALTIES?

Seriously, why?

If you've got demo charges planted in buildings then why wait until 90% of the people inside the buildings have evacuated?

Why blow up an empty building?

Why hit the Pentagon and not Capitol Hill or the White House?

Why not send all four planes into Manhattan, the media center of the world?

You clearly don't understand terrorism on any level, nor can you put together a believable conspiracy theory. Al Qaeda did their homework, and made a bold move with their limited resources, and pulled off the greatest terror strike in history. Their only regret is not having three or four more planes on 9-11.

More questions:

Why isn't the ability to secretly wire a crowded NYC high-rise with explosives not frightening enough?

If you're going to stage an attack of this scale - why don't you frame the countries you wish to go to war against?

How do you keep thousands of investigators silent? Seriously, you had FBI, NTSB, ATF, FEMA, FAA, USAF, DoD, OSI, NYPD, FDNY, NYSP, and dozens of private insurance company investigators on site at Ground Zero. What act of magic keeps all these people from "telling the truth"?

Have you even met an NYPD officer? I'm guessing no. Here's the funny thing about NYPD cops, and police officers in general - when one of their own is murdered they ALL TAKE IT PERSONALLY. 37 Port Authority cops, and 23 NYPD officers were killed in the Twin Towers. If you think the rank and file NYPD is going to let that slide you truly live in a fantasy world.

The reason all 9-11 CTs fail is that no one can answer any of these questions, only ask more dumb questions.
__________________
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 5th October 2017, 11:05 AM   #39
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,205
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
Thank you for your input. I'm happy to have this forum as a resource. Perhaps I'm giving Kevin Ryan too much credit. The coincidence still bugs me -- of having the Pentagon renovated to withstand a terrorist attack exactly in the one "wedge" where it would be hit by a hijacked plane... and the plane not diving onto the roof to inflict more casualties.
You can't dive an airliner into something. A plane has to be built specifically for dive attacks to do that.

- The elevator control on an airliner is not built to throw the plane into a sudden steep dive. Why should it?

- An airliner has no dive-brakes (doesn't need them) and will very quickly over-speed, making it uncontrollable, even risking a mid-air break-up.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans 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 October 2017, 12:09 PM   #40
waypastvne
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 398
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post

- An airliner has no dive-brakes (doesn't need them) and will very quickly over-speed, making it uncontrollable, even risking a mid-air break-up.

Hans
B 767's do have spoilers. They are used asymmetrically for roll control, symmetrically for emergency decent, altitude control on approach, and are deployed on touchdown to avoid bounce.

They do increase drag and destroy lift, but you still couldn't do a steep dive with them fully deployed and not over speed the aircraft.

http://static.flickr.com/77/229982561_7b02ee032e_o.jpg

Last edited by waypastvne; 5th October 2017 at 12:33 PM.
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
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 11:00 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.