Stundie's NIST vs Popular Mechanics Thread

New forum member stundie has made a post in the Christophera conctrete core thread.

As it isn't very much related to that thread, here the main substance of his post:

stundie said:

Here some food for thought?

Far be it from me to quibble with established authority figures about WTC 1, 2 & 7, (Don't tell me I'm dishonouring the memory of 9/11., or that I hate America) but could somebody please reconcile the following contradictory analyses & statements for me?

The first one is a NIST statement denying the pancake hypothesis for WTC collapse, while the second is a quote from this Popular Mechanics book 'Debunking 9/11 Myths', p. 44.

NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers. Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

Popular Mechanics 'Debunking 9/11 Myths', p. 44:
"Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, the floor failed, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process pancaking.

A) NIST is correct - and the "meticulous and scientific analysis" of PM is wrong after their pomposity about how careful and thorough they are in their "debunking". So can we trust them?

or:

(b) Popular Mechanics is correct - and NIST, after 3 years of work, millions dollars, hundreds of experts & simulations, is wrong?

or:

(c) Neither is correct - as both sets of baffled "experts" desperately grasp at straws hide the fact that they have no idea how the Towers fell.

The funny things is, those who disagree with the Controlled Demolition theory are always asking for evidence of this, so let me reverse the question and ask you for EVIDENCE to suggest that the floors failed and they collapsed as either NIST or Popular Mechanics state?

As far as I'm aware, there is no proof because of the major clean up operation, which would suggest that both NIST and Popular Mechanics are THEORIES too?

Click to expand...

The full post is here but if you read it, I suggest we forgive him his belligerant tone and give him a chance to present a reasonable argument.

(d) NIST was dealing with collapse initiation and PM was dealing with the collapse post initiation.

As a clarification of Arkan's point:

NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers. Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

Click to expand...

Bolding mine.

NIST reports on the collapse initiation.

The original assumption (which I also made based upon little knowledge of the actual events inside the building, just my own knowledge of construction) was that the collapse started when a floor assembly let go at the connection with the outer structure.

NIST has concluded (correct me if I'm wrong) that the outer structure began the collapse when the outer columns began to bow.

Effectively the initiation is an event measured in fractions of a second, and in either scenario, whether columns failing or floor connections failing they then lead to the progressive collapse of the remainder of the structure, which to all intents and purposes can be called 'pancaking'.

So, I see no conflict between NIST and PM (Despite PM being an agent of moloch etc etc) because NIST is describing the initial event, and pancaking describes the subsequent events.

It would be like saying the collapse was initiated by explosive charges placed at high level within the building causeing a floor to crash down onto the floor below and so on.

You would say correctly that the explosives initiated the collapse, even though the progression of that collapse was due to the overloading of the subsequent floor assemblies by the falling structure you just initiated with your explosives.

Hope that helps.

maccy said:

New forum member stundie has made a post in the Christophera conctrete core thread.

As it isn't very much related to that thread, here the main substance of his post:


The full post is here but if you read it, I suggest we forgive him his belligerant tone and give him a chance to present a reasonable argument.
[/COLOR]

Click to expand...

When NIST is talking about pancaking in their faq, they are talking about the initation of collapse. The initation wasn't a pancake collapse. The sagging trusses pulled on the columns eventually causing them to snap.

Now then while the building were falling during the collapse, there was pancaking of floors. We know floors pancaking as we reports and seen large pieces of crushed floors sandwiched together.

hi stundie,

you gave a long list of dignitaries who "don't buy the official story". why haven't you given some details on what these people have to say on the subject with sources and links? are we supposed to just take your word for it? a few URLS would be good for starters.

for my view on PM v Nist i think that you will always have conflict of opinion on what was a startlingly chaotic and highly complex event on 9/11. the time i would be possibly be worried is if ALL of those qualified experts agreed on the minutiae of what happened. i believe disagreement is healthy, it's only one of the avenues that lead to an honest conclusion.

why then do you infer that the PM/NIST conflict indicates some kind of conspiracy?

BV

from the other thread:

maccy said:

Welcome to the forums Stundie.

Briefly, Popular Mechanics are talking in more general laymen's terms and NIST are being specific and technical. NISTs contentention, as I understand it, is that this is a progressive collapse - pancaking being a reasonable description of what happens after the collapse initiation but not suffiecient to describe the whole process.

Additionally, even if you can find something that is not fully explained, it does not validate an alternative theory - this is a god of the gaps type of argument.

I suggest you find another thread about this and bounce it or start a new thread. This thread (despite its slightly misleading title) concerns itself with Christophera's theory that the towers were built with a concrete core that was prewired with C4 explosive during constructions.

Trying to talk about anything else here will just muddle things even more.

Here are a few suggestions for posting here:

1. Familiarise yourself with the sites listed in the links page if you haven't already done so

2. Pick a subject to discuss and try and stick to that subject as much as possible; don't sidetrack into other subjects unless they are directly related; be methodical

3. to avoid repetition, use the search function to find threads that already address your subject - bump them or quote from them if you still have something to discuss

4. don't assume anything about the political views of the people here, or their reasons for arguing the way they do

5. political arguments are best taken to the politics forum

6. don't confuse arguing about the general plausibility of a hypothesis with arguing about the specific evidence of a phenomenom; for more about what I mena by this, see this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...99#post2098499

7. lastly, try not get sucked into personal disputes, posters can use some pretty blunt language in discussions, but in the main they are attacking the ideas; try and stick to reasoning and evidence. You can report serious personal attacks if necessary.

Once again, welcome!

ETA: The tone of your opening post is extremely confrontational, I suggest you tone things down and stick to the facts.

Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2118518#post2118518

Belz said:

stundie said:

I've been reading these posts in here and I'm ABSOLUTELY AMAZED by the child like attitude of some of the bloggers in here. As I was expecting more intelligence than the name calling which seems to run throughout these posts.

Click to expand...

200+ pages of arguing with the unreasonable will do that to you, too.

I actually believed the official story until I noticed certain things that didn't add up. The final straw was the NORAD Tapes which prove that the Pentagon lied to the commission but thats is not why I am here.

Click to expand...

What maccy said: this is a god of the gaps argument.

NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers. Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

Click to expand...

So Popular Mechanics' explanation is not exact ? How does this point to a conspiracy ?

(c) Neither is correct - as both sets of baffled "experts" desperately grasp at straws hide the fact that they have no idea how the Towers fell.

Click to expand...

An interesting, and leading, third point. Obviously this is the one you picked, for no other reason, ostensibly, that it makes things more interesting.

The funny things is, those who disagree with the Controlled Demolition theory are always asking for evidence of this, so let me reverse the question and ask you for EVIDENCE to suggest that the floors failed and they collapsed as either NIST or Popular Mechanics state?

Click to expand...

Read the NIST report, and read through the various threads here. I find it annoying when people on a forum tell me to search for information instead of giving it to me, but in this case there's just so much of it, you're bound to find your answers rather quickly... ASSUMING you're interesting in really finding out the truth, not confirming your bias.

As far as I'm aware, there is no proof because of the major clean up operation, which would suggest that both NIST and Popular Mechanics are THEORIES too?

Click to expand...

Would you rather they left the whole pile of debris there ?

Yes I maybe a tin hat wearing idiot, but that still doesn't answer the question?

Click to expand...

IF you ARE a tin foil hat wearing idiot, that DOES answer the question, because the questions don't make sense.

BTW Other tin hat wearers who don't buy the official story are: -

Click to expand...

Argument from popularity, argument from authority.

Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2118581#post2118581

I would also like to point out that "A) NIST is correct - and the "meticulous and scientific analysis" of PM is wrong after their pomposity about how careful and thorough they are in their "debunking". So can we trust them? " is a form of argumentum ad logicam, in that, even if PM is completely wrong on that one point, it does not automagically invalidate the rest of their points.

Arkan_Wolfshade said:

even if PM is completely wrong on that one point, it does not automagically invalidate the rest of their points.

Click to expand...

I see that one alot. If CT's went against that logic, then the CT side would be completely devastated.

The problem with pancaking causing the initiation of the collapse is the visual evidence of the columns bowing inwards as the structure fails.

This bowing would be explained by two things:

1. vertical loading on an unrestrained column causeing it to bend rather like charlie chaplins cane when he leans on it

or

2. the sagging of the floor trusses pulling on the outer columns (obvisously the floor trusses cannot stretch to any great degree, so once they start to weaken and sag toowards the middle the distance between the ends has to lessen and anything attached to those ends is going to be pulled)

NIST obviously feel that the floor assembly was still attached at collapse initiation and that the stress the sagging trusses placed on the columns by pulling them inwards lead directly to the failure of the columns where they are connected at top and bottom of every 30ft (correct me if wrong) length.

But once this failure is initiated, we find a huge amount of debris falling both inside and outside of the building, along with the mass of semi rigid structure falling from above the collapse initiation point.

It is this falling debris caused by the collapse initiation which then crashes down on to lower floor assemblies which are unable to support this additional load and which they themselves then lose connection with the support columns and crash down on to the floor below.

etc etc

bonavada said:

hi stundie,

you gave a long list of dignitaries who "don't buy the official story". why haven't you given some details on what these people have to say on the subject with sources and links? are we supposed to just take your word for it? a few URLS would be good for starters.

Click to expand...

I've started a thread for that as well, to stop it confusing this one.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69198

What's the betting stundie never comes back, after all this?

uk_dave said:

The problem with pancaking causing the initiation of the collapse is the visual evidence of the columns bowing inwards as the structure fails.

Click to expand...

Bowing inwards? I'd have to back and review it again, but for some dumb reason I decided to meticulously disassemble the argument of some CD proponent. One thing that I did was to describe the collapse of the first tower. I distinctly recall that a fraction of a second before it came crashing down, the outer columns bulged outwards briefly before they failed catastrophically. A lot of metal and glass was blown outwards at this point, followed by dust.

This bowing would be explained by two things:

1. vertical loading on an unrestrained column causeing it to bend rather like charlie chaplins cane when he leans on it

or

2. the sagging of the floor trusses pulling on the outer columns (obvisously the floor trusses cannot stretch to any great degree, so once they start to weaken and sag toowards the middle the distance between the ends has to lessen and anything attached to those ends is going to be pulled)

Click to expand...

Or...

3. The altered geometry of the upper part of the tower, above where the plane hit, resulted in a very unbalanced weight distribution of a block weighing hundreds of thousands of tons. This causes the structure below it to be deformed by the excessive stresses imposed by this configuration. This is exacerbated by the fact that there is an unknown amount of damage to the inside of the structure where the plane impacted, in particular the central steel core.

NIST obviously feel that the floor assembly was still attached at collapse initiation and that the stress the sagging trusses placed on the columns by pulling them inwards lead directly to the failure of the columns where they are connected at top and bottom of every 30ft (correct me if wrong) length.

Click to expand...

But once this failure is initiated, we find a huge amount of debris falling both inside and outside of the building, along with the mass of semi rigid structure falling from above the collapse initiation point.

It is this falling debris caused by the collapse initiation which then crashes down on to lower floor assemblies which are unable to support this additional load and which they themselves then lose connection with the support columns and crash down on to the floor below.

Click to expand...

etc etc[/quote]

From my recollection of the footage of the first collapse, what happens is that the upper section, which was tilted slightly after the impact, starts to shift. This causes the outer wall to bulge outward and buckle. A fraction of a second later, the tower begins to collapse at the point where the plane struck it. There's no reason the floors would be detached before this point. The upper block acts as a jackhammer, and gets smashed up itself in the process. It doesn't fall above the rest of the structure, it repeatedly collides with it. By the time it disappears into the dust cloud, it is significantly smaller than when the collapse began.

I'm surprised the towers stood for so long after impact. To this day, when I see the second plane hit (which is the same tower I am discussing above), I expect the top to tumble over. It is in such an improbable configuration at that point that I can't imagine how the whole thing didn't collapse on the spot.

I'm even more surprised that I'm wading back into discussing 9/11 conspiracy theories. I've tried disabusing these people of their rather fanciful notions before, and found them to be totally immune to anything even remotely resembling reality. Conspiracy theories are to my mind among the most pernicious forms of woo out there. It isn't bad enough that there are people out there that hate Western civilization so much that they are happy to kill themselves to attack it, and are celebrated for it when they do. No, it has to be the American government that is taking advantage of the existence of these evil people to kill its own citizens for some rather vaguely defined and ever-shifting reason.

I would just like to state here and now that every single typo in my previous posts is copyright.

Oh and future posts

and indeed, ths post.

Reply - To Bonavide!

"What maccy said: this is a god of the gaps argument" <----??

It is not a god of the gaps argument. Minetas testimony states that Cheney was being warned of the impending attacks on the Pentagon and when asked "If the order still stands" Cheney whipped his head back and said "Of course it still stands, did I say anything to the contrary" <I'm paraphrasing here for speed>

So Cheney knew the planes were coming, so what were his orders? Because Cheney never testified under oath and only met the commission holding Bushs hand under dubious conditions.

We will never know but logic would suggest this order WAS NOT to scramble fighters to track or shoot down the plane, but infact an order to make sure no fighter planes were scrambled.

Either that or Mineta lied under oath! I see no reason why Mineta would lie and Cheneys lack of testimoney could be seen as hiding something.

-----------------

Quote:
NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers. Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

So Popular Mechanics' explanation is not exact ? How does this point to a conspiracy ?

I never said it pointed to a conspiracy! The facts are EITHER one is RIGHT or BOTH are WRONG. Its a contradiction!

Again I will ask the question, where is the evidence to suggest that EITHER of the towers collapsed how both PM and NIST say they did?? Because these are THEORIES too, pushed forward by experts paid to investigate it.

----------------

Quote:
(c) Neither is correct - as both sets of baffled "experts" desperately grasp at straws hide the fact that they have no idea how the Towers fell.

An interesting, and leading, third point. Obviously this is the one you picked, for no other reason, ostensibly, that it makes things more interesting.

Hold on a mo. I have not picked out a reason, as I've stated they BOTH cannot be right. Trying to pick holes in point C is ridiculous considering its a conclusion from both point A & B.

Please tell me of any other conclusion I could have come to?

----------------------
Quote:
As far as I'm aware, there is no proof because of the major clean up operation, which would suggest that both NIST and Popular Mechanics are THEORIES too?

Would you rather they left the whole pile of debris there ?

No I would rather they investigated as to what happened. The illegal destruction of evidence was conducted over the objections of attack victims' family members and respected public safety officials.

The quick clean up operation is part of the reason, 5 year afterwards they are still finding human remains. Is that is not disrespectful to the people who died that day? Yes it's a big job, but wouldn't you prefer to find out why it happened based on EVIDENCE and not theories??

------------------
Quote:
for my view on PM v Nist i think that you will always have conflict of opinion on what was a startlingly chaotic and highly complex event on 9/11. the time i would be possibly be worried is if ALL of those qualified experts agreed on the minutiae of what happened. i believe disagreement is healthy, it's only one of the avenues that lead to an honest conclusion.

why then do you infer that the PM/NIST conflict indicates some kind of conspiracy?

I do not conclude conspiracy just from the conflicting ideas of PM and NIST, it goes much much deeper than that and would require new threads to discuss Minettas testimony, Fires found weeks after the collapse and a whole heap of other things which have not been explained.

This just a tiny part in the idea of a conspiracy. I've posted quotes on people who do not believe the offical story, but I can't post links, so I'm afraid you'll have to do some research.

------------------------

Sorry that my posting are in this style again. I've got to wait til I get 15 posts which shoudn't take long.

Maccy, I've now posted some qoutes from people who do not buy the offical story. Can't post the links though, so you'll have to google anything to find it.

Jumping to conclusions

"So Cheney knew the planes were coming."

Like all conspiracy buffs, you jump to conclusions like a frog.

Consider:
--Dick Cheney is the guy who shot his friend in the face.
--Dick Cheney regularly falls asleep at public functions.
--Dick Cheney may well be the most incompetent Vice President in American history.
--Dick Cheney and the rest of the administration were in a complete panic on 9/11.
--One could mount a convincing argument that Dick Cheney is insane.

It is thus kinda crazy--or at least an act of incredible egotism--to conclude you have any idea what Dick Cheney knew and what he was thinking at that moment five years ago, based on possibly-inaccurate accounts of his reactions to events and statements (which Cheney almost certainly misunderstood in the first place)!

You are probably projecting what you want to believe into Cheney's mind. Conspiracy folks commit this fallacy all the time.

So if it's not an order to shoot down the plane, what is it?

A QUOTE from 9/11 Commission hearings, you can find the video of Minetas testimony if you are in any doubt PerryLogan!

Mineta: “During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??”


So PerryLogan.....If Mineta’s testimony is to be taken into account, and there is no apparent reason why it should not be, questions about the timing of events the morning of 9/11 come into focus. Most obvious is, if the standing order given by the Vice President prior to the aircraft hitting the Pentagon was not a shoot down order, then what was it?

Its a simple question and I'm not jumping to any conclusion, I'm just stating facts!

Cheney has NEVER gone on record to confirm Minetas statement or to tell us what he mean't when he said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??”

Also the fact that "The 9/11 Commission Final Report" COMPLETELY discarded his testimony has never been explained.

The Vice President only agreed testify to the Commission along with the President in closed session, with no transcript, no witnesses, and no public accountability. What is he hiding?

So I have to conclude, that it was not an order to shoot the plane down, because the plane might not have hit the Pentagon if that was the case

So if you can answer the question, what was the order that still stood? Because according to Minetas testimony, he was being warned the plane was 50 miles out?

I am not projecting what I want to believe into Cheney's mind, I'm looking at all the facts and using critical thinking to evaluate what could have happened? So unless you came up with a better explanation?

Please don't try and treat me like some kind of nut-job which seems to be a running theme through these forums. As I always say, there is no such thing as magic, just magicans and fools.

So I do not believe in Aliens, Ghosts, ESP or any other kind of stuff that gets associated with conspiracy theorist. I wouldn't even call myself a conspiracy theorist, but it's a tag that people like you seem to stick on people like me for asking what I would call valid questions.

I've investigated 9/11 very thoroughly reading both the conspiracy theorists and the debunkers, but one thing I can say for sure is that the official story we were told doesn't make sense or add up if you are prepared to search further.

The funniest part of your post is:-
--Dick Cheney and the rest of the administration were in a complete panic on 9/11.

The you go onto say :-
It is thus kinda crazy--or at least an act of incredible egotism--to conclude you have any idea what Dick Cheney knew and what he was thinking at that moment five years ago.

Sorry I do not mean to laugh, but how do you conclude that Cheney and th admin was in a complete panic?

stundie said:

I do not conclude conspiracy just from the conflicting ideas of PM and NIST, it goes much much deeper than that and would require new threads to discuss Minettas testimony, Fires found weeks after the collapse and a whole heap of other things which have not been explained.

This just a tiny part in the idea of a conspiracy. I've posted quotes on people who do not believe the offical story, but I can't post links, so I'm afraid you'll have to do some research.

Click to expand...

If you would take the time to look around the threads here, I think you'll find the research has already been done. I'll start you off with the latest, but certainly not the first, thread dealing with Mineta's testimony. It includes testimony that CTs invariably leave out.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68450

Replied on other post.

Please visit the link you posted too see my comments about Minetas testimony.

I've hopefully demonstrated that the only plane it could have been is the plane that hit the pentagon and that it couldn't have been a shoot down order, because if it was, why didn't they shoot it down.

This is going to get confusing; can we merge these please?

MarkyX has replied here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68450&page=2.

joelblanchette said:

Bowing inwards? I'd have to back and review it again, but for some dumb reason I decided to meticulously disassemble the argument of some CD proponent. One thing that I did was to describe the collapse of the first tower. I distinctly recall that a fraction of a second before it came crashing down, the outer columns bulged outwards briefly before they failed catastrophically. A lot of metal and glass was blown outwards at this point, followed by dust.

Click to expand...

Definitely inwards:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546&q=trinity+church+wtc

stundie said:

So Popular Mechanics' explanation is not exact ? How does this point to a conspiracy ?

I never said it pointed to a conspiracy! The facts are EITHER one is RIGHT or BOTH are WRONG. Its a contradiction!

Click to expand...

No, they are both right. The towers "pancake collapsed" as PM states but the inititiation of collapse wasn't the pancaking of the floors, it was the inward bowing of the exterior collumns as NIST states. PM isn't talking about the initiation but the collapse itself.

stundie said:

No I would rather they investigated as to what happened. The illegal destruction of evidence was conducted over the objections of attack victims' family members and respected public safety officials.

Click to expand...

What illegal destruction?

stundie said:

Fires found weeks after the collapse and a whole heap of other things which have not been explained.

Click to expand...

What's there to explain about the fires? A building fell, it caused fires. They burned for a while. Big deal.

stundie said:

The Vice President only agreed testify to the Commission along with the President in closed session, with no transcript, no witnesses, and no public accountability. What is he hiding?

Click to expand...

So Cheney is evil enough to partake in a conspiracy that killed 3,000 people but he's too afraid to testify under oath? How does that make sense?

stundie said:

Please visit the link you posted too see my comments about Minetas testimony.

I've hopefully demonstrated that the only plane it could have been is the plane that hit the pentagon and that it couldn't have been a shoot down order, because if it was, why didn't they shoot it down.

Click to expand...

Seriously, and in all honesty given the absolute chaos that followed the second plane hitting the towers would you have shot down a plane full of innocent people?

There were literally thousands of planes in the air and some them were off course, would you have shot them down?

These are serious decisions that needed to be made in the heat of the moment, so would you have made the call?

Hind sight is a wonderful thing and it is so easy to judge people on what the could and should have done, but we none of us will ever know what went through the minds of those who tried their utmost to get to grips with this extremely fast and deadly terrorist action.

I do find it quite appalling that the cters us the words and the actions of those that were in the spot light and had to make decisions against them. These are just people who,unlike us,had to try and decide what on earth to do when an entire nation comes under attack, out of the blue. IMO they did the best they could and although ultimately could not prevent it did not make it worse by shooting down other passenger planes when the skies were full of them

stundie said:

...a whole heap of other things which have not been explained.

Click to expand...

How large a heap of unexplained things would you be okay with before people started accusing you of murder?

For the sake of staing on topic, can I suggest that we only discuss the explanations for the building collapse on this thread.

There's a discussion about the Mineta testimony in progress here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68450

More specific threads about NORAD and the amount of air traffic in a typical day in the US can be found here

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61752
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67952

stateofgrace said:

Seriously, and in all honesty given the absolute chaos that followed the second plane hitting the towers would you have shot down a plane full of innocent people?

There were literally thousands of planes in the air and some them were off course, would you have shot them down?

Click to expand...

Good points and reminds me of the tragic Payne Stewart plane crash. F-16s followed that flight for about 3 hours and no one in authority could decide what to do. So much confusion and indecision was going on WITHOUT a WTC-like tragedy in the background.

Fires found weeks after the collapse and a whole heap of other things which have not been explained.

Click to expand...

What's there to explain about the fires? A building fell, it caused fires. They burned for a while. Big deal.

Click to expand...

I'm often told when I go to provincial parks to not make a firepit if one already exists in the area, as roots inside the new pit could smolder and start a forest fire sometime later.

Speculating!!

Peephole said:

No, they are both right. The towers "pancake collapsed" as PM states but the inititiation of collapse wasn't the pancaking of the floors, it was the inward bowing of the exterior collumns as NIST states. PM isn't talking about the initiation but the collapse itself.

Click to expand...

But the NIST Report doesn't support PM theory of the pancake collapse? So I'm not sure what you are talking about? Why would NIST talk about the initiation but not the structual failure and then PM decided to conclude the argument.

Like I said, one of them could be right, but they could both be wrong. For all the talk of evidence, there is no evidence to back up this either NIST or PMs theory but its taken as truth, just like the theory for controlled demolitions.

Peephole said:

What illegal destruction?

Click to expand...

Removal of evidence from a crime scene is ILLEGAL or so I believed?

Peephole said:

What's there to explain about the fires? A building fell, it caused fires. They burned for a while. Big deal.

Click to expand...

I was talking about the molten metal, fires found weeks after the collapse. I'd love to hear JREF forumers debunking this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx33GuVsUtE

Ive heard debunkers saying fuel from the jets Molten Aluminum but yet noone can still explain it other than calling it unimportant? Or a moot?

DavidJames said:

How large a heap of unexplained things would you be okay with before people started accusing you of murder?

Click to expand...

Thought that being part of the JREF forum, you would believe that most things can be explained by reseaching. How about the amount of unexplained things on 9/11 would be a start....but the facts is your ranting....when did I ever accuse anyone of murder??

I'm not sure as to what happened on 9/11. Questions have not been answered which need to be answered because the 9/11 commission has failed to do so.

Stop!!

Bandersnatch said:

I'm often told when I go to provincial parks to not make a firepit if one already exists in the area, as roots inside the new pit could smolder and start a forest fire sometime later.

Click to expand...

Please, you are trying to convince me the fires burning below was some kind of firepit?

If kersone based fuel doesn't melt steel and it cannot get hotter than these tempreture of Kersone. How comes there big lumps of steel fused with concrete? How did the tempratures get hot enough to melt the steel?

I'm all ears on this one?

stundie said:

But the NIST Report doesn't support PM theory of the pancake collapse? So I'm not sure what you are talking about? Why would NIST talk about the initiation but not the structual failure and then PM decided to conclude the argument.

Like I said, one of them could be right, but they could both be wrong. For all the talk of evidence, there is no evidence to back up this either NIST or PMs theory but its taken as truth, just like the theory for controlled demolitions.

Click to expand...

hmmmmmmm
NIST was tasked with explaining why the towers fell.

That means they have to explain what initiated the collapse, since gravity did the rest once it was underway.

PM gave a description of how the collapse progressed after initiation.

There is no conflict.

Oh and there is plenty of evidence to back it up. The steel columns and connections were examined, the damage from the plane impacts was modelled, the structural design of the buildings was assessed and a perfectly believeable, understandable and correct explanation produced.

stundie said:

I was talking about the molten metal, fires found weeks after the collapse. I'd love to hear JREF forumers debunking this one.

Click to expand...

Why would demolition explosives leave molten metal that would burn for eight weeks afterwards? Isn't the purpose of a controlled demoliton to get a building down quickly and safely?

Just asking questions.....

stundie said:

...when did I ever accuse anyone of murder??

Click to expand...

Stop being deliberately obtuse. You're no different then the dozens of other CTist who come here "just asking questions". I'll take notice when instead of flapping about coincidences and "unexplained things", you actually bring evidence of something. You'd be the first by the way.

stateofgrace said:

Seriously, and in all honesty given the absolute chaos that followed the second plane hitting the towers would you have shot down a plane full of innocent people?

Click to expand...

Yes there were thousands of planes, which had transponders. NORAD don't just start shooting random planes from the sky.

stateofgrace said:

There were literally thousands of planes in the air and some them were off course, would you have shot them down?

Click to expand...

Yes there were thousands of planes in the sky, all of them apart from the hijacked ones had transponders switched on. NORAD don't just start shooting random planes from the sky you know.

stateofgrace said:

These are serious decisions that needed to be made in the heat of the moment, so would you have made the call?

Click to expand...

After seeing the planes crash into WTC 1 & 2, yes I would have done.

stateofgrace said:

Hind sight is a wonderful thing and it is so easy to judge people on what the could and should have done, but we none of us will ever know what went through the minds of those who tried their utmost to get to grips with this extremely fast and deadly terrorist action.

Click to expand...

So what do we pay these people for if they are unable to protect its citizens. They train for days like this, constant drills, like the one on the day. So to say they were not prepared is quite a perposterous thought.

stateofgrace said:

I do find it quite appalling that the cters us the words and the actions of those that were in the spot light and had to make decisions against them. These are just people who,unlike us,had to try and decide what on earth to do when an entire nation comes under attack, out of the blue. IMO they did the best they could and although ultimately could not prevent it did not make it worse by shooting down other passenger planes when the skies were full of them

Click to expand...

Yes hindsight is a great thing! If NORAD wasn't playing War Games I can guarantee those planes would have been intercepted like 60 odd planes were previously that year for going off course or losing radio contact.


You might not want to blame anyone for 9/11...but 3000 lives lost and no one held accountable. If the terrorists had decided to attack, any other day, they may have been stopped.

Alt+F4 said:

Why would demolition explosives leave molten metal that would burn for eight weeks afterwards? Isn't the purpose of a controlled demoliton to get a building down quickly and safely?

Just asking questions.....

Click to expand...

Who said anything about Demolitions??

So if it's not demolitions, then what is it burning away for weeks?

Someone has suggested either thermite or thermate which sounds logical to me but hey....what do I know, I'm just a mad CTer!!

stundie said:

"What maccy said: this is a god of the gaps argument" <----??

It is not a god of the gaps argument.

Click to expand...

Oh, yes it is.

you said:

I actually believed the official story until I noticed certain things that didn't add up. The final straw was the NORAD Tapes which prove that the Pentagon lied to the commission but thats is not why I am here.

Click to expand...

Basically, you're saying that, because there are points that you don't have an answer for, it proves that the Pentagon lied. Essentially, that LACK of information is PROOF of a particular theory. Only in some cases can absence of evidence be construed as evidence of absence.

Minetas testimony states that Cheney was being warned of the impending attacks on the Pentagon and when asked "If the order still stands" Cheney whipped his head back and said "Of course it still stands, did I say anything to the contrary" <I'm paraphrasing here for speed>

So Cheney knew the planes were coming, so what were his orders?

Click to expand...

Again, non sequitur. The fact that some order stood or not doesn't mean he knew about the planes. Please provide a quote and source that shows that he did.

We will never know but logic would suggest this order WAS NOT to scramble fighters to track or shoot down the plane, but infact an order to make sure no fighter planes were scrambled.

Click to expand...

Speculation. Logic doesn't suggest this at all.

Either that or Mineta lied under oath! I see no reason why Mineta would lie and Cheneys lack of testimoney could be seen as hiding something.

Click to expand...

False dichotomy. There are other explanations. Personally, I like the one where Stundie's misinterpreted the quote.

NOTE : please learn to use the quote function.

I never said it pointed to a conspiracy! The facts are EITHER one is RIGHT or BOTH are WRONG. Its a contradiction!

Click to expand...

Not really. If I said the universe is like an expanding balloon, would I be wrong because the universe is NOT a balloon ? Just because an explanation is dumbed down doesn't mean it's in error or a lie.

Again I will ask the question, where is the evidence to suggest that EITHER of the towers collapsed how both PM and NIST say they did?? Because these are THEORIES too, pushed forward by experts paid to investigate it.

Click to expand...

They are findings, not theories. Like when experts make a report about an office fire. Do you trust them then ? They were paid, too.

No I would rather they investigated as to what happened.

Click to expand...

They did. Read the report.

The illegal destruction of evidence was conducted over the objections of attack victims' family members and respected public safety officials.

Click to expand...

A) They didn't need to examine EVERY piece of metal from the site, Stundie.

B) Please link some of those objections. I'd like to see them.

The quick clean up operation is part of the reason, 5 year afterwards they are still finding human remains. Is that is not disrespectful to the people who died that day?

Click to expand...

It's not "disrespectful" at all. It was a huge event. Those kinds of things are expected, albeit regrettable.

Yes it's a big job, but wouldn't you prefer to find out why it happened based on EVIDENCE and not theories??

Click to expand...

You are aware, of course, that theories are BASED on evidence ?

Fires found weeks after the collapse and a whole heap of other things which have not been explained.

Click to expand...

Outward lie. Fires in enclosed areas can continue for months. This is no new phenomenon.

This just a tiny part in the idea of a conspiracy. I've posted quotes on people who do not believe the offical story, but I can't post links, so I'm afraid you'll have to do some research.

Click to expand...

Beliefs are not evidence.

uk_dave said:

hmmmmmmm
NIST was tasked with explaining why the towers fell.

That means they have to explain what initiated the collapse, since gravity did the rest once it was underway.

PM gave a description of how the collapse progressed after initiation.

There is no conflict.

Oh and there is plenty of evidence to back it up. The steel columns and connections were examined, the damage from the plane impacts was modelled, the structural design of the buildings was assessed and a perfectly believeable, understandable and correct explanation produced.

Click to expand...

So PM say pancaking happened...and NIST are saying it didn't?

Yes, there is a conflict there I'm afraid! Unless what you are saying is the NIST started off the invetsigation (They ever explained the collapse just how it started) and PM explained the rest (Not how intiated, but what happened afterwards.) Please!!

stundie said:

Removal of evidence from a crime scene is ILLEGAL or so I believed?

Click to expand...

That wasn't a crime scene.

Ive heard debunkers saying fuel from the jets Molten Aluminum

Click to expand...

Yes. The facade of the building was made from aluminum. You don't expect some of the stuff to melt ?

Thought that being part of the JREF forum, you would believe that most things can be explained by reseaching. How about the amount of unexplained things on 9/11 would be a start....but the facts is your ranting....when did I ever accuse anyone of murder??

Click to expand...

Actually, his was a good question. How large a heap of unexplained things would you be okay with before people started accusing you of murder?

stundie said:

Someone has suggested either thermite or thermate which sounds logical to me but hey....what do I know, I'm just a mad CTer!!

Click to expand...

I don't know very much about thermite or thermate, so could you explain to me how the use of this product would explain the 'burning away for weeks'?

Cheers

stundie said:

fires found weeks after the collapse.

Click to expand...

Fires found 100 years after the collapse. Fires underground can burn for a long time.

Perhaps the most famous coal seam fire in history ignited in 1961 at Centralia, Pennsylvania, when someone decided to burn some rubbish in an old coal pit. The fire lit a coal seam that stretched for many kilometres. Over the next few years, the town authorities tried pouring water on the fire, blocking off vents with concrete and even excavating the burning coal. As costs rose to millions of dollars, the decision was taken to relocate the town's 1100 inhabitants.

Click to expand...

I guess you must be right, a fire started by burning rubbish can destroy a whole town, but three burning skyscrapers collapsing could never have fires after a couple of weeks.