Inside 9/11 - Hijacking the air defense

reply to post by Elbereth


No, but I was curious as to if you had bothered to research Mr. Farmer. Other than to use the typical truther chant "even the Commission admits their work is a lie"

reply to post by vipertech0596


Really into labels aren't you?

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by Elbereth

 

Erhm, we DO know about the deception by the Pentagon and DoD. The timeline and testimonies submitted by both, suggested that they were tracking AA77 and UA93 prior to their respective crashes, and that they were ready to intercept at least UA93. The reality, of course, was quite different. It was a major CYA move.

So you assume. Who has been deposed regarding the outrageous deceptions?

reply to post by Elbereth


Really helps separate the wheat from the chaff on here. I was trying to discern where you were coming from, and from your reply about labels, I must have hit pretty close to the mark.

reply to post by Elbereth


Try reading the 9/11 Commission Report in its entirety. Then look into some of the released documents from the Commission and FBI.

reply to post by Hessling

Thanks for the post. I don't get to this forum much these days but it's nice to see some more facts emerging. The thread does seem to have been deflected on to a more general discussion of the fighters' response, but for me it's a cool update - I hadn't seen the pilotsfor911truth presentation before... though I do find their style a little unclear sometimes.

Originally posted by vipertech0596

Yawn....almost as boring as the physics textbooks we used back in high school. And quite frankly, that was too many years ago for me to attempt to claim I am an expert in Physics like everybody in this thread seems to be.

But you don't seem to read to a particularly high standard.

1. I kept seeing the word ASSUME or a variation of it. Quite a few assumptions were made.

For example, the paper on momentum transfer analysis made several assumptions, all of which were in favour of the official account....

If we assume that the upper section comprising 16 storeys falls under a full gravitational acceleration through a height of one (removed) storey, a distance of 3.7 metres we can calculate that its velocity upon impact will be 8.52 metres per second and have a kinetic energy due to its mass and velocity of 2.105 GJ. (Using the figure of 58000 tonnes as detailed in the report by Bazant & Zhou.[1]) In reality there would be some losses of energy due to residual strength within the failing columns of the removed section, but these are ignored for the purposes of this analysis.

and later in the same paper...

Those storey columns more distant from the impact would be of a larger cross section, requiring higher loads to cause full elastic deflection. Using only half of the maximum elastic deflection, 56mm (16 * 7 / 2), is, again, an assumption in favour of collapse continuation.

Originally posted by vipertech05962. Each of the papers seem to have started out with the goal of ensuring they did not agree with the official investigations. That is flat out dishonest research.

No, it isn't. Your assumption here is that it's dishonest to disagree with the official line. Why? You clearly find this threatening. If it were a neutral scientific topic, and one researcher set out to refute or correct perceived mistakes in another's work, would that also be dishonest?

Speaking of honesty, you cite with approval 911Myths as a source. That's a website I've spotted rather a lot of dishonesty in - one example that leaps to mind is the whole straw-man approach to the issue of Atta's passport. Much hot air is wasted "proving" that the passport could have survived the conflagration unscathed... then at the end, we're referred to the 9/11 commission report, which states that the passport was handed to a cop by an unknown guy in a suit. In other words, it's the hugest assumption that the passport was ever in the plane in the first place: there's absolutely no evidence to suggest it was.

reply to post by rich23

Speaking of honesty, you cite with approval 911Myths as a source. That's a website I've spotted rather a lot of dishonesty in - one example that leaps to mind is the whole straw-man approach to the issue of Atta's passport.

The one example that leaps to mind is Atta's passport huh? In what respect? That there are photocopies of it? Surely you are not going to claim that it was his passport that was found. Because that isnt on 911myths. Satam Al Suqami's was. And the "straw man" you seem to be referring to is that it is pointed out that paper/cardboard can and DOES survive aircraft accidents. So, if you think that pointing out that it is not strange for personal effects to survive disasters then so be it. Enjoy the warmth of the sand.

As for 911myths.com as a whole, I always encourage people to check out the links to various sources, in that respect the website is more a focal point for information, rather than a "source" in and of itself.

But please, if you have examples of actual dishonesty....bring them forth.

In other words, it's the hugest assumption that the passport was ever in the plane in the first place: there's absolutely no evidence to suggest it was

It is? The owner of said passport was known to have been on the plane. Checked in by ticket agent, on the manifest and allowed to board by the gate agent.....both of whom identified Mr. Al Suqami. So why is that HUGE assumption?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by rich23

 

The one example that leaps to mind is Atta's passport huh? In what respect? That there are photocopies of it? Surely you are not going to claim that it was his passport that was found. Because that isnt on 911myths. Satam Al Suqami's was. And the "straw man" you seem to be referring to is that it is pointed out that paper/cardboard can and DOES survive aircraft accidents. So, if you think that pointing out that it is not strange for personal effects to survive disasters then so be it. Enjoy the warmth of the sand.

The point I'm trying to make - and that you wilfully ignore - is that there's no evidence that the passport survived the inferno. There's evidence that it was handed to a cop (the testimony of the cop), And that is all. The dishonesty I referred to is that this piece of information was left to a link to the 9/11 commission report. Oh dear, I confused Atta's name with Al Suqami's... well, I'm not the only one to have made that mistake. I can however tell the difference between evidence and assumption.

The owner of said passport was known to have been on the plane. Checked in by ticket agent, on the manifest and allowed to board by the gate agent.....both of whom identified Mr. Al Suqami. So why is that HUGE assumption?

edit on 5-7-2011 by vipertech0596 because: added

The evidence is that the passport was handed to a cop. The assumption is that it came from the airliner. We actually don't know any more than the cop's testimony.

And I'd like to see your sources for the identification of mr Al Suqami, please.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Elbereth

 

Really helps separate the wheat from the chaff on here. I was trying to discern where you were coming from, and from your reply about labels, I must have hit pretty close to the mark.

You give yourself far too much credit.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Elbereth

 

Try reading the 9/11 Commission Report in its entirety. Then look into some of the released documents from the Commission and FBI.

Apparently you have read it. My sympathies. In all that reading did you uncover nothing that made you scratch your head?

Its all very interesting, but the problem is not evidence or proving anything, but getting a court that will prosecute the suspects and condem them if found guilty.

Right now its more or less the equivalent of having proof against Nazi top brass and attempting to present it to a german court, or any combination of executive and people above the law that suits you.