 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||
| 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. |
25th May 2007, 05:02 AM
|
#1 |
|
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
Distortion Of Fact - Samples for Critique
Over the following posts I will present my investigation of the first of Dr Griffin's 115 allegations of deception by the 9/11 Commission in their Report.
This covers the first 5 claims he makes. I am presenting these as a demonstration of my work process, for the purpose of critique and feedback. I encourage ( and indeed beg for) constructive criticism, as well as any corrections or additional factual information anyone can provide. I thought it sensible to ensure I was on the right track before addressing too many of his claims, and five seems a nice round number to begin with. I owe a special thanks to MikeW and his 911myths website - as you will see much of my information comes directly from his pages. -Gumboot |
|
__________________
  O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
|
|
|
|
25th May 2007, 05:07 AM
|
#2 |
|
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
DISTORTION OF FACT A Comprehensive Analysis of The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie by Dr David Ray Griffin. Throughout this document the phrases “The 9/11 Commission Report” and “The Report” refer to the Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (ISBN 0-393-32671-3). “The 9/11 Commission” and “The Commission” refers to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon The Unites States – the Government-appointed body which produced The Report. INTRODUCTION At this site, Dr David Ray Griffin – a retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology – summarises part of his book; The 9/11 Commission Report: Omission And Distortions – by listing 115 points of contention which he asserts are omission and distortions in the report, amounting to lies (herein “The Essay”). The Essay begins:
Quote:
This analysis will attempt to determine the validity of Dr Griffin’s allegations by either affirming or rejecting each of his claims. METHODOLOGY The most common definition of “lie” is a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive. However for the benefit of this paper, rather than determine whether each lie alleged by Dr Griffin is indeed a lie (that is a deliberate effort to deceive on the part of the Commission) I will investigate the validity of the alternative claim raised by each of the allegations. As example, the following statements: 1. The lie of distortion that the car belonged to my father. 2. The lie of omission that the car had six wheels. From the perspective of determining whether each point is indeed a lie, it is essential to determine whether the Report was aware of the distortions or omission inherent in their claims, and to demonstrate that the Commission knowingly presented this false information (or failed to present this true information) with the intention of deceiving the reader. Such a procedure is inherently difficult as I am not privy to the minds of the Commission members (as Dr Griffin, also, is not). Instead, I intend to examine the alternative claim of fact which is inherent in each point of contention. In example 1) above, “the lie of distortion that the car belonged to my father” contains the inherent claim of fact that the car did not belong to my father. Likewise in example 2) “the lie of omission that the car had six wheels” contains the inherent claim of fact that the car did have six wheels. To extend the metaphor, rather than determine whether the writer of the Report knew the inherent truths mentioned above, and intentionally deceived, I instead intend to consider the inherent claims themselves and determine their validity. The methodology shall be displayed thus: ALLEGATION OF FALSEHOOD (“THE ALLEGATION”) The lie of distortion that the car belonged to my father. CONFIRMATION OF THE CLAIM On page 36 of the report it is claimed that the car belonged to my father. OR ALTERNATIVELY At no point in the report is it claimed that the car belonged to my father.
Quote:
IDENTIFICATION OF THE INHERENT CLAIM: The inherent claim of this allegation is that the car did not belong to my father. INVESTIGATION OF THE INHERENT CLAIM: A detailed analysis of the inherent claim, determining as far as possible its validity. Sources for this section will be comprehensive. This section will constitute the major part of the work. AFFIRMATION OR REJECTION OF THE INHERENT CLAIM: The claim is correct; my father did not own the car – it was registered under my mother’s name. OR ALTERNATIVELY The claim is false; my father purchased the car on date X, registered it in his name, and renewed said registration in his name for a further 14 years to the present. Although the 115 omissions and distortions listed by Dr Griffin in the essay are presented as distinct allegations, in fact some of them relate to the same claims. In these instances I have grouped the allegations together and responded to them collectively. Numbers in parentheses at the end of each allegation refer to the pages of The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions in which the allegation is discussed. |
|
__________________
O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
|
|
|
|
|
25th May 2007, 05:07 AM
|
#3 |
|
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
Let her rip man....lol
TAM  Edit: ah, I see you have already let her rip... |
|
|
|
|
25th May 2007, 05:12 AM
|
#4 |
|
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
Gumboot:
Areyou working from a copy of his book Ommissions and Distortions, so as to tackle his footnotes/references as well, or strictly from the webpage 571 page lie? TAM
|
|
|
|
|
25th May 2007, 05:21 AM
|
#5 | ||||||||||||
|
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
Claim One
115 ALLEGATIONS OF OMISSION AND DISTORTION
Quote:
The Report claims that all of the nineteen alleged hijackers are dead, and died during the attacks. The first chapter of the Report We Have Some Planes (pg.1-46) identifies the hijackers and allocates them amongst the four hijacked flights as follows: American Airlines Flight 11 Mohamed Atta Abdul Aziz al Omari Satam al Suqami Wail al Shehri Waleed al Shehri United Airlines Flight 175 Marwan al Shehhi Fayez Banihammad Mohand al Shehri Ahmed al Ghamdi Hamza al Ghamdi American Airlines Flight 77 Khalid al Mihdhar Majed Moqed Hani Hanjour Nawaf al Hazmi Salem al Hazmi United Airlines Flight 93 Saeed al Ghamdi Ahmed al Nami Ahmad al Haznawi Ziad Jarrah The Report further claims:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
These claims originate in the days immediately after September 11, 2001 as the FBI began what would become the largest criminal investigation in the agency’s history. On September 14th the FBI released a list with the names of nineteen middle-eastern men they believed were the hijackers. Source: The Telegraph FBI Press Release These were: American Airlines Flight 11 Mohamed Atta Abdulaziz Alomari Waleed M Al Shehri Satam Al Suqami Wail Al Shehri United Airlines Flight 175 Marwan Al Shehhi Fayez Ahmed Mohald Al Shehri Hamza Alghamdi Ahmed Al Ghamdi American Airlines Flight 77 Khalid Al-Midhar Majed Moqed Nawaq Alhamzi Salem Alhamzi Hani Hanjour United Airlines Flight 93 Ahmed Alhaznawi Ahmed Alnami Ziad Jarrahi Saeed Alghamdi Of the nineteen listed, five have slightly different names or spelling than those listed in the Report. The first media reports of alleged hijackers being alive appeared on 23rd September. The BBC reported:
Quote:
The BBC identifies the following: Waleed Al Shehri – A pilot from Saudi Arabia Abdulaziz Al Omari – An engineer from Saudi Arabia Abdulaziz Al Omari – A pilot from Saudi Arabia Saeed Alghamdi – Interviewed by London-based Arabic newspaper Khalid Al Midhar – May also be alive On 27th October 2006 the BBC issued a statement in their Editors blog, stating that the initial allegations in their 2001 article were a result of mistaken identity. A Telegraph article, also of 23rd September 2001, cites four individuals who claim the hijackers stole their identities. This article cites the Saudi engineer from the BBC article; Abdulaziz Al-Omari. It also cites Saeed Al-Ghamdi and indicates he is also a pilot from Saudi Arabia. The article further cites two other hijackers; Salem Al-Hamzi (worker at Yanbu Industrial City, Saudi Arabia) and Ahmed Al-Nami (administrator for Saudi Arabian Airlines, Saudi Arabia). Momentarily ignoring variations of spelling, this gives a total of seven individuals claiming identity as six of the alleged hijackers. It is important to note that these articles were written based on a preliminary name-only list of hijackers. An official list of the hijackers – with photographs – was released on 27th September. On the 6th of February 2002 Saudi Arabia officially acknowledged that 15 of the 19 hijackers were their citizens, as reported by USA Today:
Quote:
Eight of the nineteen hijackers have, at various times, been identified as being alive by the media. A detailed investigation of each individual claim follows. Abdulaziz Al Omari This allegation arose from the BBC articled quoted previously. In this article the Al Omari cited is an engineer with Saudi Telecoms. He claimed his passport was lost whilst studying in Denver, USA. A second man with the same name is cited in the same BBC article. He claimed to be a pilot with Saudi Arabian Airlines. Obviously, if two individuals are claiming to be the same hijacker, there has been confusion. Either one, or both of them are in error. Once photos were released of the hijackers it became obvious that Al Omari the engineer was an entirely different person to Al Omari the hijacker. However that still left Al Omari the Saudi Airlines pilot. On 16th September 2001 CNN broadcast Al Omari the pilot’s photo, identifying him as the pilot of AA11. However, the FBI quickly determined that Mohamed Atta was the pilot of AA11, not Al Omari the hijacker. The CNN have since apologised to Al Omari for this confusion, and conducted an interview with him. In the interview and from his September 16 photograph it is clear he is not the Al Omari presented in photographs issued by the FBI on 27th September. So what about Al Omari the hijacker? According to Saudi Information Agency, Al Omari the hijacker was 23; much younger than either of the other Al Omaris. He studied religion at university, where he befriended a number of clerics. In December 2000 he left for Afghanistan where he trained in Kandahar and fought alongside the Taliban. Ahmed Al-Nami This allegation arose from the Telegraph article, and identifies a 33yr old administrative supervisor with Saudi Arabian Airlines based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. However the profile for Al-Nami the hijacker is very different. Like Al Omari, he was young and also trained at a religious university. According to his friends and family, in 1999 he started to become highly religious, so much so that his family feared he had bipolar disorder. In December 2000 he left on a trip to Mecca. His family never saw him again, although they received a phone call from him in June 2001. It is believed that we went to Afghanistan to train in Kandahar, just like Al Omari. Khalid Al Mihdhar This allegation arises in the BBC article, where it is speculated he “might be alive”. A Saudi computer programmer called Khalid Al-Mihammadi claimed in September 2001 that the photo initially released by the FBI was him. However the article that released this information also revealed that the FBI initially released two alternative names - Khalid Al Mihdhar and Khalid Al-Mihammadi – with different photographs for each. Which means Al-Mihammadi the computer programmer is not Al Mihdhar the hijacker. Indeed, Khalid Al Mihdhar the hijacker was an Al Qaeda veteran. In 1995 he travelled to Bosnia with fellow 9/11 Hijacker Nawaf al Hazmi to join the Bosnian Muslims in their war against the Bosnian Serbs. After this he travelled to Afghanistan where he joined Al Qaeda and fought against the Afghan Northern Alliance. According to his family, in 1998 he fought in Chechnya. Mohammed Atta The allegation that Atta is still alive originates from his father. His father’s story has changed dramatically over time, making his assertions unreliable. Here’s some highlights: Mohamed al-Amir Atta first talked to the media in an interview for the New York Times on the 19th of September, 2001. In this interview Atta Senior denies his son was involved in the attacks.
Quote:
Atta’s father also makes a number of other claims throughout the interview:
Quote:
Atta Senior next appears in a 24th September interview for Newsweek.
Quote:
The next interview would come from the Guardian on September 2nd 2002, reporting an interview with the German Bild am Sonntag newspaper.
Quote:
Two years later, in an Associated Press interview on the 3rd anniversary of the attacks, Atta Senior first blames Mossad for the attacks, and then God (as punishment for the USA’s evil). He proposes that a Palestinian who rams an aircraft into the White House killing President George Bush and his family will go to heaven. Perhaps the article that is most damning of Atta Senior is an interview from October 2004 with the Egyptian Magazine “EgyptToday”.
Quote:
A final interview was conducted with a CNN producer in July, 2005.
Quote:
As we can see, Mohammed Atta’s father cannot be considered a reliable source. His story continuously changes, is self-contradicting, and he is clearly heavily biased in the subject matters at hand. He is also clearly poorly informed regarding 9/11 – every single one of the claims he makes in the EgyptToday interview is totally false. Other records of Atta’s life paint a very different picture. His fellow students in Germany recall him abruptly changing after a long trip away (which video evidence indicates was a trip to Afghanistan). He came back very religious, political, and wearing a beard. As the leader of the 19 hijackers, Atta spent much longer in the USA than most of the conspirators, and records of his movements – including a traffic violation, financial transactions, and purchases with a credit card in his name, leave a very solid evidence trail that supports the official version of events. Saeed al-Ghamdi Again it is the BBC article of 23 September that identifies al-Ghamdi as alive. According to their report a London-based Arabic newspaper called Asharq Al Awsat interviewed him after the attacks. The Telegraph article of the same day expanded on this reference. According to their story, as with Al Omari, al-Ghamdi was a Saudi pilot. As with Al Omari, his picture was broadcast on CNN to the world. Saeed claims he was in Tunis at the time with 20 other students learning to fly the Airbus A320. Like Al Omari, al-Ghamdi had previously studied at the same Florida flight school that some of the hijackers used. A clear pattern arises. Just as with Al Omari, the photograph released by the FBI on 27th September was not al-Ghamdi the pilot. The Germany newspaper Der Spiegel investigated some of the hijacker-alive claims, and interviewed Mohammed Samman – the reporter who talked to al-Ghamdi the Saudi pilot. Samman was happy to confirm that the al-Ghamdi in the FBI’s suspect photographs issued on 27 September was not the pilot he had talked to. But what of al-Ghamdi the hijacker? According to a Boston Globe article of March 2002, al-Ghamdi and three other 9/11 Hijackers from the same area of Saudi Arabia (Wael and Walid Alshehri and Ahmed Alnami) met at the Al Farouq training camp in Kandahar, Afghanistan. The same Al Qaeda camp where other 9/11 hijackers trained. In 2000 these four hijackers, including al-Ghamdi, dedicated themselves to Jihad in a Saudi mosque, according to local clerics and friends. In March 2001 al-Ghamdi appeared in an Al Qaeda “farewell” video broadcast on Al Jazeera. In the video he is seen studying flight maps and training manuals, and declares the USA “the enemy”. He appears in the video with other 9/11 hijackers. Salem Al-Hamzi Al-Hamzi is one of two sets of brothers amongst the 9/11 Hijackers. The doubt over his identity arises from the Telegraph article, where it cites a petrochemical worker from the Yanbu Industrial City in Saudi Arabia. However Al-Hamzi the worker is a different age to Al-Hamzi the alleged hijacker, has never been to the USA (the FBI cited Al-Hamzi the hijacker’s residence as in New Jersey), and perhaps most odd of all, makes no mention of the accusations laid against his presumably also innocent brother Nawaf. Could it be this particular Al-Hamzi doesn’t have a brother called Nawaf, and is, indeed, an entirely different person? The Saudi Information Agency seems to be talking about an entirely different Al-Hamzi. According to them, the two Al-Hamzi brothers were from Makkah, and left Saudi Arabia in March 2000 to train at the same Kandahar camp where the other alleged hijackers trained. Sound familiar? Wail and Waleed Al-Shehri There’s no less than three claims to the identity of the second pair of brothers to take part in the 9/11 hijacking. The first , Waleed Al-Shehri, appeared in the BBC article previously mentioned, and was a pilot in Casablanca. He denied having a brother called Wail, or knowing anyone in his family called Wail. His claim is that a friend saw his photo, however this story appeared before the FBI released the photographs. We can trace this photograph back to the same CNN news broadcast in which many other hijackers were displayed with photographs of entirely innocent men. Al-Shehri the pilot also trained at the school in Florida where others such as Al-Omari trained. Further confirmation came from the investigation conducted by Der Spiegel. In their article they claim the pilot from Morocco was not called Waleed Al-Shehri at all, but Walid Al-Shri; the mistake appears to be a result of the transliteration of his Arabic name. Another claim was that the two brothers were sons of a Saudi diplomat based in Bombay. The diplomat in question was identified as Ahmed Al-Shehri, and these claims arose in Saudi media shortly after the attacks. The Boston Globe contacted Ahmed Al-Shehri on 15 September and asked him about the two brothers. His response was less than compelling.
Quote:
A day later, in a 16 September article, the Washington Post reports that Ahmed Al-Shehri denied the two alleged hijackers were his sons. The FBI identified Waleed as Waleed M Al-Shehri, and this single often-excluded middle initial may hold the answer. In Saudi Arabian naming tradition, the last name refers to the tribal name, sometimes including hundreds of thousands of members, as demonstrated by Al-Shehri the diplomat. The middle name for men is usually taken from the father. In the case of Ahmen Al-Shehri, a son called Waleed would have the middle initial A – for Ahmed. As it happened another man called Muhammad Ali Al-Shehri claimed to be the father of the two hijackers. He hadn’t seen his sons since December 2000. In a further NBC interview a living brother of the hijackers – Saleh – stated that he felt his brothers were dead and had been brainwashed. In a Telegraph article a cousin of the brothers claimed that after a trip to Medina in 1999 they changed, growing beards, becoming very religious, and shunning their former friends. The Saudi Information Agency profile on the brothers indicates that they were religious, and left Saudi Arabia to train at Al Qaeda’s Kandahar camp in Afghanistan. This certainly accounts for the claims from living people that they were the suspects named. However this doesn’t of course mean the hijackers are indeed dead. In the wake of the attacks an extensive FBI investigation was conducted. Given the suicidal nature of the attacks, the hijackers were not especially concerned about hiding their tracks, and as such the investigation uncovered a substantial amount of evidence implicating the nineteen hijackers. The tickets for the flights were registered in their names, and video surveillance captured the hijackers of AA11, UA175, and AA77 as they passed through airport security. There was no video surveillance at the security gate for UA93. Calls from passengers and crew on each of the four flights identified the hijackers as middle-eastern, and on some flights their seat numbers were identified. The nineteen hijackers are the only people on any of the four flights with Arabic names. Some of this evidence was presented in the case of United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui at the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia. A further trail of evidence puts all of the 9/11 hijackers through Al Qaeda’s training camp in Kandahar, Afghanistan, as previously discussed. Lastly, martyr videos for many of the hijackers exist which depict their targets behind them. These have been assembled into a comprehensive series of videos which present compelling evidence that Al Qaeda and the nineteen hijackers did indeed carry out the attacks. The series is titled “The Usual Suspects” Part One:
Part Two:
Part Three:
Part Four:
There is substantial evidence to support the contention that the nineteen named hijackers were indeed responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and died that day. The evidence supporting the contention that they are still alive is weak, and close investigation reveals that those who came forward as the hijackers were simple cases of mistaken identity.
Quote:
|
||||||||||||
|
__________________
O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
25th May 2007, 05:24 AM
|
#6 |
|
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
Originally Posted by T.A.M.
Gumboot:
Areyou working from a copy of his book Ommissions and Distortions, so as to tackle his footnotes/references as well, or strictly from the webpage 571 page lie? TAM
At this stage I am just using the website, and investigating the origins of the CT claims, rather than DRG's specific sources. Once I receive my copy of his book (it's in the mail) I will amend my work where necessary (however from what I have seen so far DRG just seems to swallow whatever CT claim is floating nearby). -Gumboot |
|
__________________
O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
|
|
|
|
|
25th May 2007, 05:32 AM
|
#7 |
|
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
1st point is very thorough. Excellent job. Only criticism, if any, is in a couple of the hijacker claim analysis, there is no article link or reference to evidence made. If the analysis is opinion only, than that is fine, but if there is a reference from which you are basing the analysis on, than like in the other claims you have listed, we should see a link or a reference. I am not sure which is the case here, so I just thought I'd mention it.
TAM
|
|
|
|
|
25th May 2007, 05:48 AM
|
#8 | |||
|
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
Quote:
The report states:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This claim immediately poses a problem as it relies on Atta’s personal opinion. “Fondness” is entirely subjective and cannot be measured. However, for the moment I will consider the claim that Atta drank alcohol, ate pork, and received lap dances. These claims originate from a single source – an interview with Amanda Keller – an American who claimed to be Mohammed Atta’s girlfriend in Florida. The interview was conducted by Mad Cow Productions researcher Daniel Hopsicker who alleges that Atta was running a heroin smuggling operation for Osama Bin Laden. The findings of Hopsicker’s research were published in his book Welcome To Terrorland, and this appears to be the only source for the claims made about Atta. The interview can be watched here:
It’s worth noting that Ms Keller makes no reference to pork or lap dances in this interview, and recounts that “Mohamed” frowned on her for drinking alcohol in public. Similar general claims of drinking and un-Muslim-like behaviour were made about the hijackers. Some examples include: The Telegraph Mad Cow Productions Free Arab Voice The Boston Herald Before the validity of these claims is examined, it is important to determine their significance. Although the allegation contains the inherent claim that Mohamed Atta had a fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances, it also contains an implied claim. This is that Mohamed was not in fact, a religious fanatic as the Commission Report claims, and therefore did not carry out the September 11 attacks. One of the flaws in this line of reasoning is that Religious Fanatics do not necessarily follow closely the religious teachings of their religion. The Qur’an states:
Quote:
We have already seen from the Report that the hijackers made a conscious effort to blend in with other westerners – dressing smartly, shaving off their beards, and distancing themselves from other Islamic extremist groups. Such “blending in” has been a standard aspect of covert military and intelligence operations for centuries. The Romans often employed spies, who would infiltrate the communities of their enemies and live amongst them, adapting their customs. This appears to be an idea that some Islamic Extremists have embraced:
Quote:
http://www.answers.com/topic/takfir-wal-hijra http://www.norwalkadvocate.com/news/...tion-headlines http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...182746,00.html Some sources of evidence suggest it wasn’t just this particular extremist sect whom followed these principles:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Other high profile Islamic Terrorist plots indicate blending in may be commonplace. Such as this article about one of the Madrid Bombers:
Quote:
S. Abdallah Schleifer, the publisher and senior editor of TBS Journal (www.tbsjournal.com), and al Jazeeras Yosri Fouda give their thoughts here:
Quote:
It’s clearly not as simple as Dr Griffin presents it to be. Further investigation of the specific claims made about the hijackers suggests the argument may be weaker than it appears. Soon after initial reports linking Amanda Keller and Atta, Ms Keller claimed that the man she had dated was another student at the flying school also called Mohamed.
Quote:
In September 2006 the Herald Tribune reported that the FBI had confirmed Amanda Keller had not known Atta.
Quote:
Other eye witness accounts of Ms Keller and her partner “Mohamed” further suggest it may not have been the leader of the 9/11 plot, for example Tony and Vonnie LaConca, the couple who owned the house rented by Keller and Mohamed. They were interviewed by the Sun Herald.
Quote:
Quote:
And it appears this other Mohamed may actually exist, with evidence coming – oddly enough – from Mad Cow Productions.
Quote:
But what about other articles? At the head of this section we saw numerous articles recounting three of the hijackers – including Atta – enjoying alcohol and lap dances at a strip club called the Pink Pony. But what does the original article, in USA Today, say?
Quote:
There are other examples of the hijackers drinking as well, such as this story from The Telegraph:
Quote:
Quote:
We know the Commission Report didn’t mention these activities by the hijackers, but Dr Griffin’s allegation is that these things really did happen, and that by not mentioning them the Commission were lying by omission. However on closer inspection, these stories don’t seem to have much weight behind them after all.
Quote:
|
|||
|
__________________
O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
||||
|
|
|
|
25th May 2007, 05:49 AM
|
#9 |
|
Downsitting Citizen
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
|
Excellent work, Gumboot, and a good idea to group like claims together. That's a big project!
In terms of hijacker evidence, there's also physical remains and DNA evidence in some cases:
Quote:
|
|
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links |
|
|
|
|
|
25th May 2007, 05:50 AM
|
#10 |
|
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
Originally Posted by T.A.M.
1st point is very thorough. Excellent job. Only criticism, if any, is in a couple of the hijacker claim analysis, there is no article link or reference to evidence made. If the analysis is opinion only, than that is fine, but if there is a reference from which you are basing the analysis on, than like in the other claims you have listed, we should see a link or a reference. I am not sure which is the case here, so I just thought I'd mention it.
TAM
Each of their names should link to the 911myths page for that hijacker. I felt it was pointless presenting the thorough analysis that Mike has already done for every single hijacker, especially given how many have identical stories. In most cases it's simply a case of CNN presenting the wrong photo - something Mike quickly dispells by presenting the photos side by side on his site. -Gumboot |
|
__________________
O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
|
|
|
|
|
25th May 2007, 06:13 AM
|
#11 |
|
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,910
|
Originally Posted by gumboot
One additional example for alcohol is the Shuckums story, which you mention later. There are reasons to question that, but it's undeniably another source. Another are the stories of the hijackers in Las Vegas (Google gives you more). They're not all officially accepted either (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1992178.shtml says that "police doubt" that a stripper saw them at a club), but we know some of them were there & they can't be ignored. There's another set that puts a partying Atta in the Philippines in December 2000 (http://www.iht.com/articles/2001/10/05/clark_ed3_.php). We have Atta leaving Germany for Pakistan on 29th November, though, and video of him with Jarrah in Afghanistan on January 18th, so this seems unlikely. But it can't be ruled out. So... I'd say either place less emphasis on Keller, make it clear you're only looking at some sample sources and just explaining the problems they have (which is what I tried to do). Or if you're up for it, expand the article to look at these cases too. |
|
|
|
|
25th May 2007, 06:15 AM
|
#12 | |||||||||||||||
|
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
Claim Three
Just a note this particular one involves some technical information regarding AA77, in particular g-forces and FDR understanding. It's fairly likely I've made some goofs here.
Quote:
Regarding Hani Hanjour it mentions:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This particular claim first emerged shortly after 9/11, during an ABC News interview with air traffic controller Danielle O’Brien. O’Brien was a controller at the Dulles Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) Centre on September 11, and was the first controller to locate AA77 after it vanished from Indianapolis Centre’s radar screens at 0854EDT. During the interview O’Brien comments on the way the radar contact was moving:
Quote:
Another common person cited is Marcel Bernard, the chief flight instructor at Freeway Airport in Bowie, Maryland. Hani Hanjour went to Freeway in August 2001 to rent a Cessna 172, however he showed such poor flying skills that they declined to rent him an aircraft. The Conspiracy Theory film Loose Change has an interview with Bernard.
Quote:
Perhaps they did ask him, and didn’t like the answer. In an interview with Newsday, Bernard gives his opinion:
Quote:
But Dr Griffin is claiming more than this. He is claiming that Hanjour’s skills were so poor he could not have flown AA77 into the Pentagon. Conspiracy Theorists will often make statements such as this one:
Quote:
The above quote makes a mistake that Conspiracy Theorists repeatedly fall for. The alleged precision of the aircraft’s flight relies on the assumption that it was the pilot’s intention to perform precisely as actually occurred. This is, of course, nonsensical. There is no reason to assume the hijackers had any intention other than to hit The Pentagon somewhere. The location of impact and movement of the aircraft prior to impact are not important objectives. Indeed, as we will see, various aspects of the aircraft flight suggest a lack of expertise by the pilot. The crucial stage of AA77’s approach is the final manoeuvre in which the aircraft descended from 8,500ft to ground level while making a wide circle south of the Pentagon. According to the recovered Flight Data Recorder from AA77: At 0934EDT AA77 was approximately 10km west of the Pentagon, headed directly for it, at an altitude of 8,500ft. At 09:34:01 the FDR records the beginning of a manual flight control input to the right, banking the aircraft to starboard and beginning a slow turn. At this point the aircraft’s heading was 88.6o – almost directly east. It was travelling at 339KT (ground speed) at the time. A full 198 seconds later, at 09:37:19EDT, AA77 levelled out at 2,200ft at a heading of about 60o, and with a ground speed of 318KT. It completed nearly an entire circle, making a circuit that covered 330o. The circle of AA77’s flight was about 8km across. The manoeuvre was performed at a fairly constant speed around the 300KT mark, and the aircraft’s average rate of descent was about 1,900ft per minute. In contrast, AA77’s FDR records that the flight’s initial climb out of Dulles International to 29,000ft was achieved in 13 minutes with an average rate of ascent of 2,200ft per minute. Given that a high rate of descent is much easier than a high rate of ascent, due to the benefits of gravity, it is clear that the aircraft’s rate of descent in its final turn, while rapid, could not by any standard be considered “aerobatic”. The pilot typically maintained between 20o and 30o of bank angle, with a one to two second peak of 41o of bank angle. Certainly such a manoeuvre would not be comfortable for passengers, however given the ultimate fate of the flight, it can be assumed that whoever was at the aircraft’s controls was not concerned with passenger comfort. Much more extreme manoeuvres can easily be performed in large airliners when passenger comfort is not a concern. For example these two videos below:
Boeing 707 (an older larger airliner than the 757) test pilot Alvin “Tex” Johnson heralds the dawn of the Jet Passenger age by performing a barrel roll at Seafair, August 6, 1955 above a stunned crowd.
A Boeing 757-200 (same model as AA77) of No.40 Squadron, Royal New Zealand Air Force performs a high speed (350KT) low level (100ft) pass followed by a 45 degree climbout to 7,500ft. A critical component of airframe survivability while manoeuvring is how much g-force is applied. During a turn, g-force is the force that pushes you to the outside of the circle, such as how you will tend to lean to one side as you make a sharp turn in a car. The tighter and faster the turn, the higher the g-forces. 1 g is equal to the force of earth’s gravity. So at 4 gs everything will feel four times as heavy. Aircraft designed for high-g manoeuvres such as fighter aircraft have to be made very strong, otherwise the forces acting on them can tear them apart. The g-forces applied to AA77 during its descending turn can be calculated fairly easily using a simple formula: A = v2 / r Where r = the radius of the turn and v = velocity during the turn. As previously stated, AA77’s turn was approximately 8km across, and the turn was completed at around 300KT. As the speed varied somewhat we will use a higher value of 350KT. A higher velocity will result in higher g-forces. Converting to international units we get a velocity of 180ms-1 and a radius of 4,000m. A = (180x180) / 4,000 A = 8.1 A represents the constant acceleration that the turning object experiences due to centripetal force. Acceleration due to gravity is 9.8ms2, thus we can determine that the average lateral g-forces experienced by AA77 during the descending turn were 0.82 gs. In comparison, on January 22nd, 2002 Icelandair Flight 315 (a Boeing 757-208) was involved in a serious incident during approach to Oslo airport Gardermoen. During a go-around due to an unstable initial approach, the aircraft entered an extreme manoeuvre which exceeded the aircraft’s maximum g-limits. Although passengers were alarmed, the aircraft landed safely. According to the report into the incident:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Most people would expect an inexperienced pilot to crash an airliner within moments of coming so close to the ground. On 9/11 this is precisely what happened. Moreover, on its final seconds of approach AA77 struck multiple tall highway lamp posts and a large generator; further evidence of poor flying on behalf of the pilot. Some have asserted that the low approach of AA77 was in fact aerodynamically impossible, due to something called “ground effect”. One such person is Nila Sagadevan, an aeronautical engineer and qualified pilot. He wrote a paper refuting the notion that the poorly trained hijackers could have pulled off the September 11 Attacks. He mentions in the paper:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The inter-titles and text have been added to the animation by Conspiracy Theorists. Note the unsteady movement of the aircraft, with constant control inputs, corrections, and over corrections. These are sure signs of poor flying ability. Additionally, a number of amateurs have made attempts to replicate AA77’s flight using highly accurate commercially available flight simulator software.
The evidence strongly suggests that AA77’s final doomed flight was well within the capabilities of someone with only the most minimal flying capabilities, and well within the skill level of Hani Hanjour who just managed to scrape through an FAA Commercial Pilot’s License.
Quote:
|
|||||||||||||||
|
__________________
O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
25th May 2007, 06:17 AM
|
#13 |
|
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
Originally Posted by MikeW
Thanks Mike, you're quite right. I understand that Dr Griffin's evidence for his assertion is derived entirely from Daniel Hopsicker's work, hence why I focused on Keller's interview, however I will almost certainly expand the article to cover those other sources. -Gumboot |
|
__________________
O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
|
|
|
|
|
25th May 2007, 06:27 AM
|
#14 |
|
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
Claim Four
Quote:
Quote:
This is perhaps one of the most straight forward claims to investigate. Put simply, the flight manifests remain the property of their respective airlines, and none of the four flight manifests have ever publicly been released by the airlines. Although this alone is enough to reject the inherent claim, to fully investigate the claim it is necessary to understand why Dr Griffin makes this allegation. On March 30, 2006 David Ray Griffin gave a lecture entitled The Myth And The Reality at Grand Lake Theatre in Oakland, California.
Quote:
www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/UA175.victims.html www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/UA93.victims.html There’s a clue in the web address itself – these are lists of victims, not passenger manifests. Furthermore, the portal to the victim list pages (which also include a page for the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon) states:
Quote:
AA77’s victim list only names 50 of the 53 passengers (excluding hijackers) onboard. UA175’s list only names 47 of 51 passengers (excluding hijackers). UA93’s list only names 26 of 33 passengers (excluding hijackers). On July 31, 2006 the United States District Court Eastern District of Virginia took the unprecedented action of publishing all of the trial exhibits from United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui online at their website.
Quote:
The exhibit is a flash animation constructed from the flight manifests which identifies the names and seat numbers of all of the crew and passengers on each of the flights hijacked on 9/11. A .zip file can be downloaded from the site, or alternatively the animation can be watched at 911myths.com Alternatively this page has still images produced from the flash animation. The names and seat numbers of all nineteen hijackers are identified in this court exhibit. It is clear to see that Dr Griffin’s assertion simply is not true, and his misrepresentation of the CNN lists is an example of the level of dishonesty Conspiracy Theorists will resort to in order to reinforce their theories. For a more in depth look at the flight manifest claim, I recommend the excellent summary at 911myths.com.
Quote:
|
|
__________________
O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
|
|
|
|
|
25th May 2007, 06:35 AM
|
#15 |
|
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
Claim Five
Quote:
The Report makes no mention of other building collapses due to fire, either before or after 9/11. Nor does it mention that the collapse of the Twin Towers was unique.
Quote:
Like the previous claim, this one is easily investigated.
Quote:
Dr Griffin probably didn’t have a $60,000 steel-framed hay barn in mind when he made his statement, but it illustrates an important point about this particular common Conspiracy Theory argument. The reality is steel buildings have and do collapse due to fire, and steel buildings are vulnerable to collapse from fire. This is why building codes in all western countries require that steel structural elements are either encased in concrete or coated in fireproofing material. Conspiracy theorists will often rephrase their claim from “steel building” to “steel high rise” to “steel skyscraper”, evolving to the extreme of “steel skyscraper in North America over 100 stories” or similar. Using the same flawed logic, one could counter this argument by pointing out that every steel-framed skyscraper that has been intentionally rammed by a Boeing 767 airliner at high speed has suffered a global collapse. Both the design of the Twin Towers and the events that happened on 9/11 were unique in world history. Comparing these events to other dissimilar events is misleading and dishonest. Before looking further into other high-rise fires, it is important to understand the specific events that occurred on 9/11. The collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 was studied by a government agency called the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The study required a high degree of specialists expertise and involved extensive photo analysis, engineering testing, fire testing, and structural modelling. A study of the collapses was far outside the mandate and expertise of the 9/11 Commission. The NIST Report on the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 is enormous – totally about 10,000 pages when all of the technical supporting documents are included. All of their papers, including draft reports, can be accessed from their website. It is important to take note, for this and later claims made by Dr Griffin, that the 9/11 Commission Report was released over a year before NIST released their final report on the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2. NIST’s study into the collapse of WTC7 is ongoing, with a final report expected to be released in 2007. The first important aspect to investigate is NIST’s explanation for the cause of the collapse. The NIST Report is a large and complex document to study, however they have also provided a more accessible series of frequently asked questions.
Quote:
When considering Dr Griffin’s claim, it is important to note the key aspects of the collapse – impact causing structural damage and dislodging fireproofing, jet fuel dispersed over multiple floors, sagging floor trusses, and inward-bowing perimeter columns. All of these are factors specific to the aircraft impact event and the unique design of the towers. In looking at other examples of skyscraper fires, it is important to ask if these same characteristics were present. The answer, in all cases, is no. In regard to performance of multi-story steel-framed structures in fires, it is worth investigating the worst industrial fire in history. On May 10, 1993 a small fire at the Kader Industrial (Thailand) Co. Ltd. Factory spread rapidly to engulf three four storey buildings, claiming the lives of 188 workers. This fire is a stark demonstration of how steel structural elements perform when not protected from exposure to fire.
Quote:
On January 16, 1967 a fire started in the McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago.
Quote:
Quote:
Most obviously, the Windsor Tower was not hit by a 767, and in fact did not suffer any structural damage prior to the fire starting. None of its fireproofing material was stripped off, and the fires started on one floor before spreading, rather than being started on multiple floors simultaneously as a result of spilled jet fuel. The differences do not end there. Dr Griffin’s primary contention is that fire has not caused steel-framed buildings to collapse. However the Windsor Tower was not a steel framed building.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
__________________
O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
|
|
|
|
|
25th May 2007, 06:53 AM
|
#16 |
|
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,910
|
Originally Posted by gumboot
Incidentally, I've a copy here & can help, if you like. PM or email me with whatever you'd like to know & I'll look it up: not quite as convenient as having a copy to hand, but it should help for now. |
|
|
|
|
25th May 2007, 07:14 AM
|
#17 |
|
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
Gumboot:
Fair enough, not duplicating, however, we both know, if the articles you are creating are repeatedly referring to one main source (9/11myths) the truthers will condemn it as using a bias source, regardless of what sources 9/11myths itself has used. Apart from that, I have yet to read points 2-5, as I am at work...will try to get to them after. TAM
|
|
|
|
|
25th May 2007, 07:15 AM
|
#18 |
|
Scholar
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 72
|
Originally Posted by gumboot
If I've misinterpreted your methodology, forget I spoke. |
|
|
|
|
25th May 2007, 07:19 AM
|
#19 |
|
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ANY OF THE 19 HIJACKERS ARE STILL ALIVE. There is a difference in reports, and suspicion, and speculation, and EVIDENCE.
TAM
|
|
|
|
|
25th May 2007, 07:29 AM
|
#20 |
|
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
Originally Posted by coughymachine
The first stage of the investigation is to assess whether the report does indeed omit the claims Dr Griffin makes. In all of the five first claims Dr Griffin is correct in that the report omits this information. However, Dr Griffin's allegation is not that they omitted it, but that this omission was a falsehood. It relies on the inherent claim in each case that the information omitted by the commission is actually true. Hence the thrust of my study is to determine whether these inherent claims have validity. For example the 9/11 commission omits information that Space Monkeys caused the Twin Towers to collapse by dropping typewriters on them from orbit. Of course it omitted this - it's simply not true. Likewise, when I reject each inherent claim I am essentially stating "the Commission was right to omit this from the Report, because it is not true". In your example of the hijackers, Dr Griffin's inherent claim is that at least six hijackers are still alive. This is false. All nineteen of the hijackers died on 9/11 in the aircraft that hijacked. Thus it would be illogical and wrong for the commission to make mention that any hijackers are still alive. For what it's worth, I am fully anticipating that one or two of Dr Griffin's inherent claims will actually be true. He raises a number of points of minimal relevance to 9/11, and by probability surely at least one of his claims must have some weight of truth in it, even if it is irrelevant to any allegations of an inside job. -Gumboot |
|
__________________
O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
|
|
|
|
|
25th May 2007, 09:24 AM
|
#21 |
|
World Maker
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 62,889
|
Gumboot, you are one hell of a thorough investigator. If you ever come anywhere near Québec City, I'm buying you a Pizza.
Quote:
|
|
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done." |
|
|
|
|
|
25th May 2007, 09:50 AM
|
#22 |
|
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,776
|
Originally Posted by gumboot
I believe that DRG has done much the same with some aspects of the 911 Commission report as well. There is likely some peripheral matters in which someone was involved in a CYA, but that is a far cry from a vast, complex and needlessly complicated conspiracy such as the "Truth" movement alludes to. I look forward to your writings. It must be taxing work. |
|
|
|
|
25th May 2007, 10:11 AM
|
#23 |
|
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
It is funny. They want an INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION, but who would they get? They do not have nearly enough, if any, qualified scientists and engineers in the truther ranks to conduct such a scientific investigation, and criminally they have nobody but a couple of lawyers, who may not even be criminal attorneys.
I would love to see a list of who the truthers feel should carry out the NEW INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION. TAM
|
|
|
|
|
25th May 2007, 10:18 AM
|
#24 |
|
Based on a true story!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,092
|
Originally Posted by T.A.M.
It is funny. They want an INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION, but who would they get? They do not have nearly enough, if any, qualified scientists and engineers in the truther ranks to conduct such a scientific investigation, and criminally they have nobody but a couple of lawyers, who may not even be criminal attorneys.
I would love to see a list of who the truthers feel should carry out the NEW INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION. TAM
1. I have only a basic understanding of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics. Barely more than a layman's, so I am not qualified to it. 2. I am a former government employee, in the defense department, and presently do work for municipal governments around the country. So, I'm also a shill. |
|
__________________
"JimBenArm is right" Hokulele Mom |
|
|
|
|
|
25th May 2007, 10:25 AM
|
#25 |
|
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,045
|
Andrew, may I have your permission to use these refutations on Screw Loose Change (with proper attribution/credit of course)? As it happens I have decided to devote the next week or two to a thorough look at DRG and his claims and you've done a superb job here thus far.
|
|
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog. |
|
|
|
|
|
25th May 2007, 10:32 AM
|
#26 |
|
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
|
Originally Posted by T.A.M.
It is funny. They want an INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION, but who would they get? They do not have nearly enough, if any, qualified scientists and engineers in the truther ranks to conduct such a scientific investigation, and criminally they have nobody but a couple of lawyers, who may not even be criminal attorneys.
I would love to see a list of who the truthers feel should carry out the NEW INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION. TAM
Honest. What? Stop laughing, I'm serious. No, really. Stop. (edit: Actually, now that I think about it, someone mentioned Cynthia McKinney even further back.) |
|
|
|
|
25th May 2007, 10:42 AM
|
#27 |
|
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
|
Originally Posted by JimBenArm
*There is no such beast as a "JREFer", only members of the JREF forums (who hold a wide variety of views and opinions and do not represent JREF the organization) |
|
|
|
|
25th May 2007, 10:52 AM
|
#28 |
|
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,204
|
not to add to the clutter, but Gumboot, would you mind me (or you) posting this on a site somewhere ; much like Gravy did with his WTC 7 Lies and the Wilie Rodriguez refuation?
|
|
__________________
Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato. “Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.” “Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.” |
|
|
|
|
|
25th May 2007, 03:48 PM
|
#29 |
|
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
Originally Posted by Brainster
Originally Posted by Arus808
Absolutely, please do. When I have the entire thing finished, I'm intending to produce it as a PDF as well which anyone is free to distribute and host. If anyone wants to produce an html version of the finished product as well (I'm no good at that website stuff...  ) go for it.I do expect this to take some time - some of the later FBI/foreknowledge/ISI related claims are probably going to take some serious digging to uncover. Fortunately there's a big chunk of claims in the middle about NORAD...  -Gumboot |
|
__________________
O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
|
|
|
|
|
25th May 2007, 04:03 PM
|
#30 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by gumboot
Magnificent work, Gumboot! It underscores the necessity for gathering your work, Mark's invaluable compilations of eyewitness quotes, Ryan Mackey's superb exposition of the physics of the building collapses, Dr. Greening's papers refuting the bogus science of the fantasists, and various incisive contributions by JREF forum members into a readily-accessible encyclopedic source. |
|
|
|
|
25th May 2007, 04:16 PM
|
#31 |
|
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,204
|
Originally Posted by gumboot
Absolutely, please do.
When I have the entire thing finished, I'm intending to produce it as a PDF as well which anyone is free to distribute and host. If anyone wants to produce an html version of the finished product as well (I'm no good at that website stuff... ) go for it.I do expect this to take some time - some of the later FBI/foreknowledge/ISI related claims are probably going to take some serious digging to uncover. Fortunately there's a big chunk of claims in the middle about NORAD... -Gumboot |
|
__________________
Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato. “Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.” “Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.” |
|
|
|
|
|
26th May 2007, 12:36 PM
|
#32 |
|
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,131
|
Howdy
I linked to Slide #12 to answer a CT statement, this is the reply I got should some one with a more detailed knowledge of this area wants to engage. Sorry Hanslune [That me they already had another Hans there], no offence intended. I had no time to read your question. I had adressed it, as I said that the time was not a crucial matter (my own estimation being approximatively 0.7 second - but estimations of the speed vary). A number of "experts" tried to answer the objections. But I'll note the background remains the same: Hani Hanjar was indeed a poor pilot, and is supposed to have performed manoeuvres very difficult even to an experienced pilot. And they suppose too that a Boeing 757 would maneuver like a F16 when it comes to straighten up near the ground. When the first investigators came, they found it was so unlikely, if not impossible, that they invented that the plane had bounced off the ground. This detail vanished from more recent accounts - why was it there at first? And if the 757 could manoeuvre so abruptly, why didn't its tail scrape the ground? This is the problem with bogus theories: remove an anomaly it is immediately replaced with another. Coldelephant is right: the nose of the aircraft, black and narrow, is nothing like a Boeing 757. Of course, you'll cite "experts" who will contradict what any 5-year-old child would clearly see. And why was its picture removed from a frame? xxxx://xxx.forteantimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2483&start=1095 |
|
|
|
|
26th May 2007, 04:05 PM
|
#33 |
|
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
Originally Posted by Hans
Hi Hans, As you'll see from my response above, there was nothing especially incredibly about AA77's flying prior to impact. The 330o descending turn resulted in less than 1 g of lateral force and had a very modest descent rate of 1900ft per minute. The aircraft did not straighten up inches off the ground, as some claim. It came out of the descending turn at 2200ft. There was nothing difficult nor exceptional about Hani Hanjour's performance in AA77. What he did, anyone with even the most basic flying abilities could have pulled off. Hanjour had a commercial instrument pilot's license, and was certified on a commercial jet airliner, with simulator experience. -Gumboot |
|
__________________
O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
|
|
|
|
|
26th May 2007, 04:55 PM
|
#34 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
|
Originally Posted by chipmunk stew
In a JFK thread, I posted a YouTube from Penn and Teller, showing how the "jet effect" caused the head to go back, not forward (along with the reflex). Again, we got a tirade about trusting "magicians", and went off on James Randi again. You just have to laugh at these things. |
|
|
|
|
10th June 2007, 10:53 PM
|
#35 |
|
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
Next five draft claim investigations coming up...
-Gumboot |
|
__________________
O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
|
|
|
|
|
10th June 2007, 11:25 PM
|
#36 | ||||||
|
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
Claim Six, Seven, and Eight
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The above allegations all relate directly to the intensity of the fires in WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. As such I have grouped these claims together, to avoid repeating the same information multiple times. The 9/11 Report does not address any of the matters above, and indeed it does not mention the collapse of WTC7 at all. The scope of its summary is limited to the 102 minutes between the impact of AA11 on WTC1, and that building collapsing. Before proceeding with investigating these matters, it is important reiterate that the 9/11 Commission Report was released over a year before the NIST report released its final report on the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2. NIST has not yet released their final report on the collapse of WTC7. In 2002 NIST was given the mandate of investigating the collapse of these three buildings, and their exhaustive investigation is both comprehensive and highly technical. The NIST investigation is the official government-approved investigation into the collapse of these buildings. The 9/11 Commission was not mandated to investigate the specific details of the collapses, nor, were it given this mandate, did it possess the expertise or resources to conduct such an investigation. As Dr. Griffin’s book was published in 2005, it is understandable that it does not cite the final NIST report, which was not released until late 2005. However it is not reasonable that Dr Griffin was unaware that NIST was conducting their investigation. Between May 2002 and July 2004 NIST released six interim reports containing summaries of their progress to date in their investigations. Furthermore, it is neither reasonable, nor understandable that Dr Griffin continues to raise these specific concerns over 18 months after the release of the final report by NIST. This behaviour is one of intellectual dishonesty. It is important at all times to bear the above points in mind, when considering the allegations raised by Dr Griffin.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In investigating these claims, I will first assess the nature of the fires in WTC1 and WTC2 and how they contributed to the collapse of the towers. This directly addresses claims (6) and (7). I will secondly analyse the fires on 9/11 in relation to other high-rise fires, in order to address the second part of claim (6). Lastly, I will consider the fires in WTC7, in an effort to investigate claim (8). In his book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, Dr Griffin asserts:
Quote:
Three videos are known to have captured the impact of AA11, however these do not capture the impact clearly. In contrast, when UA175 impacted WTC2, the eyes of the world were already turned to the area. The impact was witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people in the NY/NJ area, it was broadcast live on news networks such as CNN, and it was captured in dozens of videos and photographs. A compilation of aircraft impact videos can we watched here:
As part of their investigation, NIST used these videos and photographs in a paper calculating how much fuel was burned in the initial fireball.
Quote:
Most startling of all is Dr Griffin’s assertion that photographs show, in fact, that not a single floor beyond the fire’s starting location was hot enough to ignite paper or plastic or to break windows. The fires were located inside a steel skyscraper, hundreds of feet in the air. Every person who was in or near the area of impact for more than a matter of minutes is dead. Not a single photograph exists that was taken in or near the area of impact. Dr Griffin’s assertion is senseless, and his claim that photographs exist to support it is an outright lie – an ironic predicament considering the topic of his Essay. What we do have available to us is countless photographs and hours of video footage of the outside of the towers, and the ten thousand pages of NIST’s comprehensive investigation. On pages 25 to 28 of NIST NCSTAR1, diagrams depict visual observations of fire on the four faces of WTC1. Extensive fires were observed on every floor from the 92nd to the 98th. This itself refutes Dr Griffin’s claim that fires did not move beyond the immediate impact floors. Images such as these: http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/wtc29.jpg http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/WTC_on_fire9.jpg Further illustrate the intensity of the fires in the WTC. Page 43 of NIST NCSTAR1 has a diagram depicting observable fires in WTC2 on every floor from the 78th to the 83rd. Again, it is important to reiterate that these are fires observed from the outside of the building. They should be taken as an absolute minimum indicator of the extent of the fires. It is important to remember that the design of the towers restricts the ability to determine events occurring inside. In conventional skyscraper design, the façade is not load-bearing, and is usually predominantly made of glass. In contrast, the exterior façade of the towers was comprised of tightly-spaced load-bearing steel columns, with very narrow windows between them. As a result a smaller percentage of the façade allowed a visual observation of internal fires. Numerous first responders and civilian witnesses reported that the fires in the WTC were so intense they could feel the heat on their faces from the street below. Further testimony of the heat of the fires is found in the NYPD’s aviation unit, which was dispatched to the WTC shortly after the impact of AA11, and nearly collided with UA175.
Quote:
Conspiracy Theorist will often make statements similar to the following in the film 9/11 Mysteries:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Using controlled experimentation techniques, NIST determined upper-limit temperatures of 1000o C; ample temperature to drastically reduce the load-bearing capacity of the columns and truss assemblies in the towers. As demonstrated previously, Conspiracy Theorists often present the tower collapses as being primarily or even solely a result of fire, totally ignoring important aspects of the day’s events such as the aircraft impact and shredding of fire proofing. These are vital elements of the collapse sequence, and cannot be overlooked. These elements were quite different in each of the towers, and they help to explain why WTC2 collapse so much sooner than WTC1. Ultimately, all building collapses are caused by gravity. When the supports holding a mass off the ground are no longer capable of resisting the force of gravity which is drawing that mass towards the earth’s surface, the supports will fail and collapse will occur. A greater mass has greater Gravitational Potential Energy (GPE) and thus requires stronger support. In comparing the two towers on 9/11, it is immediately clear that WTC2 had much more mass above the impact point that WTC1. There were more than twice as many floors above the impact point of WTC2 compared with WTC1. This immediately means the gravity load acting on the damaged floor area is much greater. Another important factor to consider is impact damage in each building. The aircraft impacts contributed to the collapse by spreading jet-fuel through many floors, but they also severed columns and damaged floor trusses in the impact area. UA175 hit the towers travelling considerably faster than AA11. A relatively simple way to illustrate the significance of speed in impact is to calculate the total Kinetic Energy released in the impact. Kinetic energy can be calculated using the formula: KE = ½mv2 Where m = the mass of the aircraft and v = the velocity of the aircraft. At impact AA11 weighed approximately 110,000kg and was travelling at approximately 220ms-1 (490 MPH). KE = 0.5 X 110,000 (220 X 220) KE = 0.5 X 110,000 X 48,400 KE = 2,662,000,000J KE = 2.6GJ In contrast, UA175, also weighing approximately 110,000kg, was travelling at over 260ms-1 (590 MPH). KE = 0.5 X 110,000 (260 X 260) KE = 0.5 X 110,000 X 67,600 KE = 3,718,000,000J KE = 3.7GJ As you can see, UA175 had 42% more energy at impact than AA11. This meant 42% more energy to sever columns and shred critical fireproofing from steel elements. It meant 42% more energy to destroy floor truss assemblies. These factors are important as they contributed to the sequence of events that resulted in building collapse. A further important factor in the collapse sequence was the nature of fireproofing on the steel in the buildings.
Quote:
Quote:
Steel columns perform well under compression, with the force of their gravity load applied directly along the length of the column. However as the columns were pulled inwards the load started to include a lateral load. Columns perform poorly under lateral loading. For a simple practical example of the forces at play: Take a regular drinking straw and apply force directly along its length. Considering it is made only of thin plastic, it is surprisingly strong. Now bend the straw slightly. You will find it will fold over completely under only a small amount of force. This is a crude example of the difference. As the floor trusses sagged more and more the steel columns were pulled further into the building, and the lateral load increased. At a critical point this lateral loading deformed the columns to the point that they were no longer capable of holding up the massive weight of the floors above. This was further exacerbated because the aircraft impact had severed columns in the core and exterior, thus increasing the load on the remaining columns. The bowing of the exterior columns was observed across the entire south (WTC1) and east (WTC2) face of the building, thus when the columns failed, the entire wall failed at once. The results were catastrophic. The asymmetrical nature of the failure caused the top of the building in each case to twist. Although the columns in the buildings were large, they represented a tiny fraction of the total area of a given floor – the footprint of all of the core columns and exterior columns amounted to a little over 1% of the area of one floor. Once the top section twisted only a matter of a few inches, these columns no longer lined up, and nothing was left to hold the upper mass of floors up. In a faction of a second the upper mass began to descend. Because the columns no longer lined up, the full impact energy was exerted on the light weight truss assembly of the first floor below the aircraft impact zone. The floor trusses were designed only to carry the static gravity load of a single floor, not the mass of seventeen floors (WTC1) or thirty three floors (WTC2). They certainly could not resist a dynamic load that great. The enormous difference between a static and dynamic load can be easily illustrated. Take a heavy bowling ball, and place it on your foot. Then take the same bowling ball, lift it to eye height, and drop it on your foot. The impact of the upper mass tore the floor truss free of the core and exterior columns, adding it to the mass crashing down onto the next lowest floor. As the debris fell it increased in mass and accelerated due to gravity, meaning each consecutive floor had more force impacting it than the floor above it. Given then, the sequence of events that led to the collapse, it is obvious why WTC2 collapsed first. It suffered greater structural damage in the aircraft impact. The crucial floor trusses had only half as much fireproofing against the fires. And finally, WTC2 had a significantly larger mass bearing down on the already over-loaded crippled columns in the impact zone. As previously mentioned, Conspiracy Theorists often compare the fires in the WTC towers to other high-rise fires, in an effort to demonstrate that the fires in the towers were minor, and should not have resulted in collapse. Despite claiming in his essay that “several” high-rise buildings have suffered more severe longer-lasting fires without collapsing, in his book Omissions and Distortions Dr Griffin only provides one example:
Quote:
http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pd...ons/tr-049.pdf The first important factor to consider is one of scale, as it is Dr Griffin’s assertion that by comparison the fires in the WTC1 were small. According to the USFA report:
Quote:
Each floor of the WTC was almost twice the size of a floor of One Meridian Plaza. According to the USFA report the fire spread through 8 floors. The aircraft impact area alone for WTC1 and WTC2 were both larger than the entire area affected by fire in One Meridian Plaza. At the very least, the fires in each of the towers was significantly larger than the fires in One Meridian Plaza. One Meridian Plaza did not collapse. Before determining whether this suggests the towers should not have collapsed, it is important to consider the specific details of each incident. Firstly, and most obviously, One Meridian Plaza was not hit by a jet airliner travelling at high speed. It did not suffer any structural damage at all prior to the fires starting. Secondly, while the fires in the WTC were started in large areas of multiple floors simultaneously by jet fuel, the fire in One Meridian Plaza:
Quote:
Quote:
A summary of the timeline for the One Meridian Plaza fire reveals that though it burned for a long time, it did not ever reach the level of intesity Dr Griffin claims.
Quote:
In contrast, on 9/11 intense fires were raging on multiple much larger floors within minutes of the fires starting. A final question to ask is what damage the fire actually did to One Meridian Plaza. Photos at the end of the report reveal a striking feature. The floor trusses in the affected floors sagged between columns – up to three feet in places. Unlike the WTC light-weight trusses, the photographs reveal the floors in One Meridian Plaza were supported by heavy steel beams. Yet despite this, they still sagged considerably. It was the sagging of floor trusses in the towers that caused the collapse of those buildings, due to the unique design which placed all of the supporting columns on the perimeter. As previously discussed, another building fire often cited by Conspiracy Theorists is the February 12, 2005 fire in the Windsor Tower in Madrid, Spain. I have previously demonstrated that the building had a very different design to the WTC – having a concrete core – and that the steel components of the building did suffer collapse. But what about the size of the fires? Conspiracy Theorists will often cite photographs such as this one to demonstrate how intense fires were in the building. However, like with One Meridian Plaza, the photographs are deceptive due to scale. We can find out crucial information about the size of the building here. The Windsor Tower had 32 stories, of which 29 were above ground. It stood 106 meters high, and had a total floor area of 20,000m2. Assuming that the fire burned through the entire area of all 32 floors, the total floor area thus engulfed in fire was 20,000m2. We can calculate an estimate of total volume of the fire affected area by calculating an average height per floor. 106m high divided by 29 above ground floors equals an average of 3.65m per floor. Allowing the same average height for each of the below-ground floors, this gives us a total fire volume of area x height = 20,000 x 3.65 = 73,000m3. The diagram on page 18 of NIST NCSTAR1-1 tells us that the five aircraft impact stories of WTC1 were also each 3.65m high, and that six of the aircraft impact stories in WTC2 were 3.6m high. The 78th floor of WTC2 was 4.26m high. Each floor of the WTC was approximately 3,900m2. Thus we can determine the total volume of the aircraft impact area in each tower. WTC1 = (3,900 x 5) x 3.65 = 71,175m3 WTC2 = (3,900 x 6) x 3.65 + (3,900 x 4.26) = 102,024m3 As we can see, the total impact area alone of WTC1 is almost as large as the entire volume of the Windsor Tower, and the impact area alone of WTC2 is considerably larger than the entire volume of the Windsor Tower. Just as with One Meridian Plaza, although the fires may seem comparably large, or even bigger, this perception is a result of the fires occurring in a building the fraction of the size of the towers. Dr Griffin’s allegation regarding WTC7 contains the inherent claim that WTC7 collapsed. However components of this claim are that the building was not hit by an aircraft, and did not suffer significant fires. There is also an implied claim in his allegation, which is that WTC7 should not have collapsed at all. NIST have not completed their investigation into the collapse of WTC7. However in June 2004 they released NIST-SP 1000-5 – Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center. This included Appendix L – Interim Report on WTC7. http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_.../appendixl.pdf This Interim Report provides information on damage suffered by WTC7 due to the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 and the extent of fires, both based on eye witness testimony. These are covered from page L-17 to L-26. They suggest significant structural damage and extensive fires. Other independent investigations have uncovered similar information. Mark Roberts, a New York City tour guide and amateur 9/11 Conspiracy Theory “debunker”, has written an extensive paper specifically on WTC7. World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the “9/11 Truth Movement” Online Version This paper has collated together extensive eye witness testimonies as to the condition of WTC7 prior to its collapse, including the state of:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If these eye witness testimonies are accurate, WTC7 suffered greater structural damage, relative to its overall size, than either of the two towers. If these eye witness testimonies, from dozens and dozens of firemen are accurate, WTC7, at 174m tall, 47 stories and 174,000m^2 of rentable office space, suffered the most extensive high-rise fire in history. Unlike other smaller high-rise fires I have previously mentioned in this paper such as One Meridian Plaza and the Windsor Tower, the fires in WTC7 raged without any fire-fighting operations conducted against it for seven hours. The full scale of the fires in WTC7 can perhaps best be illustrated by a photograph taken by Aman Zafar. This photograph of Manhattan was taken some time after both WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed. The thick column of smoke pouring into the sky is from the fires burning unchecked in WTC7. http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-109_1_small.jpg Videos such as the beginning of this one capture the enormous volume of smoke coming from WTC7.
The fires in WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 on September 11, 2001 were not, as Dr Griffin and other Conspiracy Theorists claim, small, cool, or localised. They were, in fact, the worst high-rise fires in history. All three buildings suffered crippling structural damage prior to the fires starting. The South Tower collapsed much sooner than the North Tower because it suffered substantially more structural damage from the aircraft impact, and because the devastated structural columns were bearing over twice as much structural mass. The inherent claim that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse is rejected. The inherent claim that the South Tower should not have collapsed first is rejected. The inherent claim that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed is partially rejected. WTC7 did collapse, it was not hit by an aircraft, however, the fires were not small or localized. The implied claim that WTC7 should not have collapsed is rejected. |
||||||
|
__________________
O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
11th June 2007, 02:51 AM
|
#37 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
Claim Nine
Quote:
Quote:
The claim that WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 were destroyed by some form of controlled demolition is by far the most common Conspiracy Theory relating to the September 11 Attacks. While Theorists often disagree on other details of the attacks, and disagree on the method of demolition used (theories range from regular explosives through to more exotic methods such as orbiting energy weapons and nuclear explosives) almost all theorists agree that the buildings did not collapse as a result of fire and structural damage. In previous claims we have seen the efforts by Theorists to refute the accepted explanation for the collapses. This claim is the first to address the Theorists’ counter-explanation. In his book Omissions and Distortions, Dr Griffin defines a “controlled demolition” as:
Quote:
As I investigate each of the ten characteristics, there are a number of questions to bear in mind: 1) Did the collapse of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 feature this characteristic? 2) Do explosive controlled demolitions feature this characteristic? 3) Is this characteristic unique to controlled demolitions? Unless the answer to all three questions is “yes”, the point has no validity. By way of illustration: CHARACTERISTIC: The buildings all fell downwards towards earth. 1) Yes, all three collapses on 9/11 featured this characteristic. 2) Yes, all explosive controlled demolitions feature this characteristic. 3) No, all buildings that collapse must fall downwards towards earth, due to gravity, regardless of what caused the collapse. The first step is to identify known building implosions. Here is some examples: JL Hudson Department Store. Detroit, Michigan. Oct 24, 1998. 133m. Tallest building ever imploded.
First Hawaiian Bank Building. Honolulu, Hawaii. Jan 9, 1994.
Wachovia Building. Atlanta, Georgia. Sept 30, 2006.
Park Lane. Dallas, Texas. Date unknown.
Landmark Tower. Forth Worth, Texas. Mar 18, 2006.
Logicon Building. San Pedro, California. Aug 7, 2006.
Intel Building. Austin, Texas. Feb 25, 2007.
Aladdin Hotel & Casino. Las Vegas, Nevada. Apr 27, 1998.
Tencza Terrace Apartment Building. Fort Myer, Florida. Jun 4, 2006.
Two 16-story buildings. Edinburgh, Scotland. Nov 26, 2006.
50 High St. Buffalo, New York. May 25, 2007.
CN Building. London, Ontario. Date unknown.
Now, on to the characteristics: 1. Each collapse occurred at virtually free-fall speed. Free fall is the speed an object falls at when the only force applied to the object is gravity. Free fall can only occur in a vacuum as any object falling through an atmosphere will experience friction from the atmosphere which will slow its descent. Acceleration due to earth’s gravity is 9.8ms2. The time taken for an object to free fall a given distance can be calculated using the formula: Where d = the distance fallen and g = acceleration due to gravity. The height of the three buildings in question were: WTC1 = 417m WTC2 = 415m WTC7 = 174m Thus the time for free fall from the top of each building would be: WTC1 = 9.2s WTC2 = 9.2s WTC7 = 5.9s The key word in Dr Griffin’s claim is “virtually”. Because objects falling under force of gravity are in a constant state of acceleration, minor changes in time can result in significant height changes. For example, although an object falling 415m would do so in 9.2 seconds, in 10.2 seconds – only one second longer – an object would fall 509m, almost 100m further. An object falling for 11.2 seconds – only two seconds longer – would fall 614m. The distance increases exponentially, so that by the time you double the duration of the fall – to 18.4 seconds, the object would fall 1,659m – almost four times as far! If you multiply the time by four times, the distance fallen will increase by sixteen times. It is difficult to determine the precise time that each collapse lasted, for several reasons. Firstly, when the collapses occurred they sent up huge walls of dust and debris that covered the ground and obscured the latter stages of the collapse. Secondly, anyone close to the building during the collapse was desperately running for their lives rather than filming the event. While determining the precise duration of the collapse is difficult, it is a little easier to determine whether the collapse occurred near to free fall speed or not. This page has a video frame analysis of the collapse of both towers: http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/...ne/videos.html Note that at 16 seconds the collapse wave of WTC1 is just passing the top of WTC7, which is itself 174m high. Quite clearly WTC1 collapsed significantly slower than free fall speed. WTC2’s collapse wave is still above WTC7 at 14 seconds, thus it too collapsed significantly slower than free fall. In regards to WTC7, the following video is telling: http://www.911research.com/wtc/evide.../wtc_7_cbs.mpg The collapse begins with the failure of the building’s east mechanical penthouse at about 5s (you will see part of the top left of the building collapse). At 18s the building disappears from view, and has not yet reached the ground. Thus we know that WTC7 took longer than 13s to collapse – more than twice as long as at free fall speed. It is somewhat a moot point whether imploded buildings fall near free fall speed, as clearly none of the buildings that collapsed on 9/11 shared this characteristic. 2. Each building collapsed straight down, for the most part into its own footprint. This is certainly a characteristic of building implosions. Indeed, it’s arguably the most important requirement of a building implosion. When demolition experts collapse buildings using explosives they have to ensure debris does not damage any surrounding structures. But what about the buildings on 9/11? It should be evident to anyone that neither of the towers fell even remotely into their own footprint. The entire World Trade Center site was totally destroyed by the collapse of the towers. FEMA’s World Trade Center Building Performance Study provides a comprehensive analysis of the condition of buildings affected by the collapse of the towers and WTC7: Chapter Three – WTC3 Chapter Four – WTC 4, 5 and 6 Chapter Five – WTC7 Chapter Six – Bankers Trust Building (Deutsche Bank) Chapter Seven – Peripheral Buildings On Page 3 of Chapter 7 they present a table of 56 buildings damaged in the attacks, spread across 25 city blocks as well as the entire World Trade Center site and World Financial Center complex. Of the 56 buildings, five were totally destroyed, three suffered partial collapses that resulted in total structural instability, eleven suffered significant structural damage, and the remaining thirty-seven suffered moderate damage. When WTC7 collapsed, it fell onto 30 West Broadway, a 17-story concrete and steel structure known as Fiterman Hall. Damage inflicted on 30 West Broadway was severe:
Quote:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/...c/fig-7-13.jpg 30 West Broadway was not immediately next to WTC7. As the following diagram shows, it was on the far side of Barclay Street. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:W..._Site_Plan.svg Barclay Street is not a narrow alley, but a four lane road. Damage to 30 West Broadway was so severe that the building is being demolished, as reported by WNBC on October 30th, 2006:
Quote:
3. Virtually all of the concrete was turned into very fine dust This is one of the stranger assertions Dr Griffin makes. Simple logic dictates this is not true, for either 9/11 or confirmed explosive demolitions. The purpose of a building implosion is to collapse a building quickly in a contained space, so that removal of debris can be achieved quickly. Turning all of the concrete in a building into dust does not in any way aid the demolition process. Dust is a problem for demolition companies, and during demolition debris piles are often sprayed with fire hoses in an effort to keep the level of dust to a minimum. Concrete is much easier to contain and remove when in large pieces than in dust form. Turning the concrete to dust does not assist in collapse, and an enormous amount of explosives would be required simply to achieve this, for no added benefit. It is simply illogical to think that any building implosion would result in “virtually all of the concrete” being turned “into very fine dust”. The question remains, was all of the concrete in the buildings turned into dust? The simple answer is no, it wasn’t. The only substantial use of concrete in the towers was the 4 inch layer on each floor pan, amounting to a little over 11,000m3 of concrete per tower. Although dust covered much of lower Manhattan after the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2, an analysis of the dust suggests concrete did not play a significant component.
Quote:
Gypsum was used as drywall in the WTC in enormous quantities, especially in the building core. During the collapse this drywall would have quickly become a fine white powder. Unfortunately the analysis of the dust does not distinguish between gypsum and concrete products by percentage, however it is logical and likely that the majority of the 31.8% cited is gypsum, and not concrete. Finally, a close inspection of photos from Ground Zero reveals that concrete was present at the site in large quantities. Such as the following collections: http://911da.org/crr/images/CRRDB/Wo...%20Removal.htm http://home.hiwaay.net/%7Elangford/wtc/ Further, an estimate of debris at Ground Zero by Phillips and Jordan, Inc. (the company that managed the disposal of debris from the WTC and managed the crime scene support facilities) indicates large quantities of concrete were present:
Quote:
4. In the case of the Twin Towers, the dust was blown out horizontally for 200 feet or more. Both the collapses on 9/11 and building implosions involve large clouds of dust travelling great distances. This should really be of no surprise. Any sort of destruction of a building will produce dust particles. Buildings contain plaster, concrete, masonry, light fittings, fibreglass, fireproofing materials, and a multitude of other things which will break into dust under significant forces. Dust is very easily blown great distances by wind, and building collapses of any kind produce wind. The following videos all depict building collapse that are not implosions, but that produce clouds of dust that spread over large areas.
5. The collapses were total, leaving no steel columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air. This simply isn’t true, in regard to the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2. WTC2 Collapse video. WTC1 Collapse video.
Both of these videos reveal large sections of the core of each building standing after the remainder of the structure has collapsed. In the case of WTC1, this section was considerably higher than WTC7, thus over 174m (570ft) high. These sections obviously did not remain standing – the core of the buildings were never intended to stand on their own. Other post-collapse photos such as this one: http://www.newyorkcitycommunity.com/images/p9200005.jpg Show sections of the exterior columns standing. The highest point of the façade in the above photo is the 18th floor – 65m (213ft) high. WTC7 collapsed in a different way. http://www.bibleetnombres.online.fr/...tc7_debris.jpg As the above image shows, the exterior wall of WTC7 fell on top of the debris pile. This would have crushed and broken any columns still standing upright. 6. Videos of the collapses reveal “demolition waves,” meaning “confluent rows of small explosions.” Dr Griffin cites this claim as coming from an article written by Jeff King at the following website: http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/collapse%20update/ Jeff King is a Conspiracy Theorist who thinks the tower collapses produced “pyroclastic flows”. Pyroclastic flows are clouds of super-heated gases as hot as 1000degreesC travelling as fast as 700km/h, and are only produced by volcanic eruptions. Jeff King alleges:
Quote:
The “disintegration” that occurs in the WTC collapses is a direct result of the exterior columns peeling away and the floors collapsing one atop the other in succession. This is because the towers collapsed due to an external failure. WTC7, which NIST hypothesises collapsed due to internal failure shares the relatively intact falling façade of a building implosion, and does not feature the characteristic claimed by Dr Griffin. 7. Most of the steel beams and columns came down in sections that were no more than 30 feet long. As mentioned above, WTC7 collapsed with the exterior façade relatively intact. As previously discussed this façade fell atop the debris pile. As a result it is impossible to determine what size segments the columns of WTC7 broke into. In regards to WTC1 and WTC2 there are numerous collapse photographs and post-collapse photographs and videos of sufficient resolution to determine that the core and exterior columns fell primarily in small sections. The reason for this is simple. That’s how long they are. Building columns are not single enormous lengths of steel, but rather small lengths joined together. In the specific case of the WTC towers, NIST NCSTAR1-1 provides information on the length of these sections on pages 10 and 11. Diagrams on page 25 and 26 illustrate the prefabricated exterior panels. The exterior panels consisted of three columns 11m in length joined by 1.3m wide spandrel plates at each floor level. The 3m by 11m panels were each three stories high, and spliced half way through a floor. The panels were staggered across the face of the building to improve strength. The core columns were spliced in three story lengths as well, thus each section of core column was also 11m long. Despite this, the steel did not break apart evenly or neatly, and ironworkers worked at Ground Zero during clean up cutting steel into lengths that could be more easily removed, as these images demonstrate: http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/0034.jpg http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/200...t-thermal.html 8. According to many witnesses, explosions were heard in the buildings. The overwhelmingly most distinct characteristic of all of the implosion videos I have presented is deafening explosions prior to and sometimes during collapse. These are not minor explosions, but sounds loud enough to peak a camera microphone from a considerable distance away. They are unmistakable. Certainly there are conflicting witness testimonies of explosions on 9/11. However, they are almost exclusively from inside the buildings, and are often taken out of context. For example the actual collapses themselves were almost universally described as a “huge explosion”. This page has a good summary of the flaws in the “loud noise means explosives” argument. What is most compelling is there is literally hours of footage from 9/11 taken in and around the towers prior to and at the moment of collapse. Not one video camera captured the deafening explosions that are the distinct mark of a building implosion. Yet in all of the building implosion videos I have provided, explosions are clearly captured from considerable distances away. 9. Each collapse was associated with detectable seismic vibrations (suggestive of underground explosions). Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York recorded the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 on their seismographs. In addition on 9/11 Protec (an explosive demolition documentation company) had a number of portable seismographs monitoring construction sites in the area that also detected the collapses. Brent Blanchard, Director of Field Operations at Protec, wrote a paper refuting Conspiracy Theorist claims that the buildings were demolished using explosives. In the paper he addresses seismograph data:
Quote:
In their investigation of 9/11 Conspiracy Theory claims, Popular Mechanics talked to Arthur Lerner-Lam, a seismologist at the observatory: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context." Popular Mechanics: Debunking 9/11 Myths Applying simply logic, both towers are clearly seen collapsing from the top, and as previously discussed, the cores of each tower remained standing for some time after the initial collapse. Had the towers been destroyed due to underground explosions as Dr Griffin asserts, these observable phenomena could not have occurred. 10. Each collapse produced molten steel (which would be produced by explosives), resulting in “hot spots” that remained for months. This is perhaps the strangest of Dr Griffin’s claimed characteristics, in that, if true, it refutes the implosion theory. Explosives work by producing enormous amounts of over pressure in a very short space of time, shattering and breaking steel and concrete. Explosives do not generate significant amounts of heat, and what heat is produced is quickly dissipated. Explosives simply cannot produce enough heat to liquefy steel, which melts at around 1,500oC depending on the precise composition of the alloy. On the other hand, when the towers and WTC7 collapsed they had raging infernos inside them as we previously saw. They were also full of large quantities of flammable material which was buried. Underground fires can burn for very long periods of time, at very high temperatures:
Quote:
In their FAQ, NIST refute Dr Griffin’s interpretation of alleged molten steel:
Quote:
Dr Griffin presents ten characteristics that he asserts (without justification) are evidence of a controlled demolition of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. As shown, the collapse of these buildings did not display many of these characteristics, others are not characteristics of any confirmed building implosions, and other characteristics are common in other building collapse situations. The inherent claim that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition is rejected. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
__________________
O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
11th June 2007, 02:59 AM
|
#38 |
|
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
Claim Ten
Quote:
The 9/11 Commission Report does not discuss the design of the towers in the body of the text, however in the footnotes to Chapter Nine:
Quote:
There are a number of inherent claims in this allegation:
Quote:
As with previous discussions about the World Trade Center towers, the appropriate official document to refer to is the NIST report, not the 9/11 Commission Report.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
A January 2002 article at Graduating Engineer uses the same phrase:
Quote:
In Dr Griffin’s book Omissions and Distortions he states:
Quote:
Quote:
These core sections did not remain standing for very long, for the simple reason that they were incapable of remaining standing. The core of the towers were never designed to stand on their own. With the majority of the structure gone, the cores were subjected to forces that greatly exceeded their structural limits. A final problem with Dr Griffin’s assertion is his claim that the debris pile at ground zero was “only a few stories high”. In previous parts of this document I have provided links to numerous ground zero photographs, and more are included at the following links: http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/ http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/wtc-photos.htm The inherent claim that 47 massive steel columns in reality constituted the core of each tower is accepted. The inherent claim that, given the “pancake theory” of the collapses, [the core columns] should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air is rejected. The buildings did not suffer “pancake” collapses, video evidence reveals the core of each tower did remain standing for some time, and it is entirely expected that, bereft of the support of the rest of the structure, these core sections quickly collapsed. |
|
__________________
O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
|
|
|
|
|
11th June 2007, 05:48 AM
|
#39 |
|
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,008
|
Bravo gumboot, these posts are about as extensive as it gets.
Originally Posted by gumboot
|
|
__________________
R.I.P Dr. Adequate |
|
|
|
|
|
11th June 2007, 06:18 AM
|
#40 |
|
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
Originally Posted by Mancman
Bravo gumboot, these posts are about as extensive as it gets.
I'd just like to add here, that 99 also had a large fire, and smaller fires were seen on 100, 101, and 104. But not 102/103 for some reason. Thanks! Do you have a specific source handy for that? Would be useful information. I would hypothesize that fires spread right through to 104 but just weren't visually identified by anyone on 102 and 103. -Gumboot |
|
__________________
O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
|
|
|
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
