An Overview and Debunking of the AE9/11T's List of Demolition Signs

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by snowcrash911

 

AE911"Truth" have been getting their slimy little fingers into many aspects of "9/11 lore and myth"....to include being cited frequently ("Argument to Authority") by that other little "club", the so-called "Pilots" for "Truth".

So yes, there are examples of cross-pollinating occurring......

Last I checked, a wedge has been driven though Chris Sarns, Jon Cole, David Chandler and Richard Gage's retraction of support for CIT...

But what do I care... me and you know much more about the Pentagon they do, and many debunkers do.

What I certainly would appreciate though, is if you maybe explained your position on Hanjour's supposedly impossible (which actually wasn't) corkscrew turn again, in elaborate detail, in a suitable Pentagon thread, or link me to previous elucidations. I can cite you as a 757 pilot and that helps.

That one's still hella popular with the no planers and no crashers.

reply to post by snowcrash911

...... if you maybe explained your position on Hanjour's supposedly impossible (which actually wasn't) corkscrew turn again, in elaborate detail, in a suitable Pentagon thread, or link me to previous elucidations. I can cite you as a 757 pilot and that helps.

It is clear to see in the NTSB video......the actual turn was a simple approximately 30° average angle of bank, descending turn......something that happens EVERY day, in commercial aviation.

In fact, it is a commonly understood maneuver (though not commonly practiced by commercial airliners....because it just isn't necessary).

When you want to locate a place to land (and "airstrip"....although in terms of the Pentagon, it was not about "landing" of course.....but, the way to locate a spot is similar)....you fly overhead the location, then fly a circle back, as you descend.

In military parlance it's called a "circling overhead approach".

I tried to find real-life examples.....there are few. This popped up, and is relevant (although not exactly what was seen on 9/11 @ the Pentagon....this is an actual maneuver used in specific situations, and only when visibility is limited...this is obviously a training situation, as this type of Instrument Approach would not be needed in VFR conditions):



Here is another example.....again, a circling approach:




We rarely use the "Circling Approach" anymore in actual airline operations.....it is dated, and outmoded. I can't find the military IFR Approach Plates for Kanehoe Bay, HI.....it is a military airport.

In fact, the "Circle to Land" procedure, and an Instrument Approach, is really, really out dated....I can't find any old "Circling" Approach procedures at any of the airports that used to have them.

There is a Wikipedia reference, however....fortunately:

Circling to land

The advent of GPS has made all these old Instrument Approach Procedures obsolete.


But this is not the same, as an "Overhead 360"....

This is one (Overhead 360) done and posted from a simulator, PC program, to visualize:





Here is the relevant NTSB rendition of the American flight 77 FDR:



Please note the "need" for people to add a "soundtrack". Also please note that one particularly adept Internet user has his video popping up on YouTube first, when conducting a search at that site.....username "JohnDoeXLC" is none other than Rob Balsamo....yeah, that guy.....

I'm just wondering if the folks at AE9/11T will ever correct their mistakes and lies on their list. I thought they are demanding the truth. How can one be for the truth, and lie lie lie and deceive people right on the first page?

I'm also surprised that no one wants to comment on the fact that many of the points on the list are blatant lies, and the fact that only a five minute search corrects their lies and tells the actual truth.

My main concerns are the lies about the no deformations seen in any of the WTCs prior to collapse, or those pyroclastic clouds and such. Come on people, how can one defend such blatant dishonesty, in the name of truth?

Originally posted by GenRadek
I'm just wondering if the folks at AE9/11T will ever correct their mistakes and lies on their list. I thought they are demanding the truth. How can one be for the truth, and lie lie lie and deceive people right on the first page?

I'm also surprised that no one wants to comment on the fact that many of the points on the list are blatant lies, and the fact that only a five minute search corrects their lies and tells the actual truth.

My main concerns are the lies about the no deformations seen in any of the WTCs prior to collapse, or those pyroclastic clouds and such. Come on people, how can one defend such blatant dishonesty, in the name of truth?

Truth has nothing to do with it; it is all about money and fame in a fringe population. AE911T will not correct their mistakes because, if they do, they will not be able to sell the Special Activist Pac [ "A $289 value designed for serious activists. Save 20% off our already discounted bulk pricing! Price: $230.00" shop.ae911truth.org...] to true believers who need their desire for inside-job conspiracy fulfilled. The garbage that AE spews makes them money that allows self perpetuation of their empty conspiracy with filled coffers. This has been described as a "self-licking ice cream cone" by an astute observer in another thread. Gage needs an income and the acolytes will provide it through David Griffin's power of prayer.
At this point, reason and reality have no bearing on the AE911 crew much as they have no bearing on many of the some-group-for-truth organizations. Some really want to believe demolitions did the job. Those people have little experience with operations and planning of such evolutions and don't know what they don't know. There is no evidence of explosive demolition. Those that claim such have never been involved in explosive demolitions, have an personal agenda, or were far too close to the explosions that they did set off and were addled. [This last is actually a problem with some military folks during training exercises. They get closer and closer to bigger and bigger explosions for the rush until they get a little too close on one bangex and they are killed or damaged. If a team member is nicknamed Boom-Boom, keep him between you and the target and watch how many charges he draws before you leave.]

reply to post by pteridine


I havent seen anything new come from the truth movement in years. Its like all the truth movement topics are on a turntable, and every turn we get the same old tripe that we had a few months back being brought out as "NEW" and "UNDEBUNKABLE!" Or like a giant game of "Whack-a-mole". Once one truther topic is buried, another pops up as though "new". Whack it, and the other pops up again.

And after how man years, AE9/11T has such an insignificant amount of people, that have no real idea to what they signed on for on their petition, or what the group is promoting. Sad really.

If someone had the time, they should go over that list and breakdown each person's qualifications to make any sort of relevant commentary in regards to 9/11.

What's goin' on today; is there a 9/11 Truther holiday? Are they all paying their respects at the "9/11 truther memorial" Or What?

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
What's goin' on today; is there a 9/11 Truther holiday? Are they all paying their respects at the "9/11 truther memorial" Or What?

They are going over old threads and deciding which "truths" haven't seen the light of day for a while and need a recycle. I expect to see Jonesy's thermite paper any time now. It is a favorite of mine.

reply to post by GenRadek


So do you think the U.S. OS is accurate? Do you think this was purely a terrorist attack? I find that more out there than any of the conspiracy theories I've heard.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
What's goin' on today; is there a 9/11 Truther holiday? Are they all paying their respects at the "9/11 truther memorial" Or What?

They are going over old threads and deciding which "truths" haven't seen the light of day for a while and need a recycle. I expect to see Jonesy's thermite paper any time now. It is a favorite of mine.

Possible. But I have a strange feeling it might be a fake phone calls rehash.

Actually we should do a sweepstake. Here's my rough book for the next big thread.

Something about jews 7-4 fav
Something abstruse about aeroplanes by a Balsamo sock 11-4
No planes (no victims counts) 3-1
"Here's a building in Belize on fire and not falling down" 6-1
Fighter pilot exercises 8-1
They have rockets on the roof of the Pentagon 12-1
Hijackers alive and well 14-1
Fake phone calls 20-1
A "whistleblower" who used to clean the toilets in wtc 9 has died aged 83 25-1

reply to post by andersensrm


Which part?

i do believe that we were not told the whole truth about 9/11. But the BS the Truth Movement is shoveling is not it. I do believe that our govt F^*&ed up royal and dropped the ball on this one. They are not being honest about the intel failures, the red tape BS, inter-agency rivalry, incompetence on all levels, etc etc etc. THAT is where I want to see heads roll. Who wants to admit that because of them leaving an important memo underneath a pizza box in his office, covered in pop, ended up allowing the worst attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor? Incompetence and stupidity is far more probable than secret demolition charges planted by ninja demo crews and no planes with holograms and thermites brought down the WTC to cover up (insert evil plot here) etc etc etc.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by andersensrm

 

Which part?

i do believe that we were not told the whole truth about 9/11.

But the BS the Truth Movement is shoveling is not it. I do believe that our govt F^*&ed up royal and dropped the ball on this one. They are not being honest about the intel failures, the red tape BS, inter-agency rivalry, incompetence on all levels, etc etc etc. THAT is where I want to see heads roll. Who wants to admit that because of them leaving an important memo underneath a pizza box in his office, covered in pop, ended up allowing the worst attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor? Incompetence and stupidity is far more probable than secret demolition charges planted by ninja demo crews and no planes with holograms and thermites brought down the WTC to cover up (insert evil plot here) etc etc etc.

I agree, however it was pretty convenient that 9/11 led to us going to war. Is it really so hard to believe that this was a set up of a black operation? Not to say our government coordinated the whole thing, but they knew about it, and did nothing. I don't think the buildings came down due to the plane crash, I THINK it would have taken more.( obviously I am no expert, so that doesn't say much) I do see however that there is a tendency to "blow it out of proportions". We try to explain how explosives would have been set up with the technology that we know of, and we forget that there is more advanced technology out there that we know nothing about. I believe that there were planes full of people that crashed into the buildings, (except the pentagon), but I do not think that the planes alone brought down towers 1 and 2.

reply to post by andersensrm


Sounds like a LIHOP/MIHOP combo with a side of Deliriums.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


OK then please explain to me how sagging trusses can pull in columns? I can't, and I can guarantee you can't either. Don't forget to explain why you think 5/8th and 1" bolts are stronger than massive box columns.

The so called bowing is not trusses sagging, that I know. If it's not the cladding bowing inwards, then there has to be another explanation.

If this is all the evidence you have of sagging trusses...



It's not very convincing. There are other possible explanations, but of course you don't want to pursue that do you? You are only interested in what appears to support the OS.

In reality regardless of bowing, the cores collapsed first, so trusses sagging could not have been the cause of the collapses anyway.



IF there was inward bowing then it was probably caused by the core collapsing, pulling the trusses down at the core ends.

reply to post by ANOK

OK then please explain to me how sagging trusses can pull in columns? I can't, and I can guarantee you can't either. Don't forget to explain why you think 5/8th and 1" bolts are stronger than massive box columns.

The so called bowing is not trusses sagging, that I know. If it's not the cladding bowing inwards, then there has to be another explanation.

If this is all the evidence you have of sagging trusses...

Here we go again.
The sagging trusses have been explained to you many times.
The bolts is a very easy one. Shear strength. Bolts have a rating stamped into the heads. The ones you get from Home Depot have a very low rating. I can’t tell you how many I have torn in two. They didn’t snap because they are so weak. On the flip side think lug nuts. We have all stood on a tire wrench trying to loosen that one darn nut on the side of the road. But they rarely break. Anyone who works with metal will tell you it’s very common to have the metal tears before the bolts snap.

It's not very convincing. There are other possible explanations, but of course you don't want to pursue that do you? You are only interested in what appears to support the OS.

We don’t mind talking to you about other explanations. If you only had one shred of proven evidence to base your explanation on.

Junk thread. If I could -1 star and -1 flag it I would.

Originally posted by samkent

Here we go again.
The sagging trusses have been explained to you many times.

No it hasn't.

The bolts is a very easy one. Shear strength. Bolts have a rating stamped into the heads. The ones you get from Home Depot have a very low rating. I can’t tell you how many I have torn in two. They didn’t snap because they are so weak. On the flip side think lug nuts. We have all stood on a tire wrench trying to loosen that one darn nut on the side of the road. But they rarely break. Anyone who works with metal will tell you it’s very common to have the metal tears before the bolts snap.

You're missing the point. Not too long ago one of your OS arguments was that the fasteners were a weak point and why they all failed allowing the floors to drop.

The sagging truss hypothesis contradicts that claim.

The fasteners could not have been stronger than the massive box columns, they would snap long before the trusses could pull in columns. On top of that, it has been explained to you many times why sagging trusses can not put a pulling force on the columns. Shear strength of the fasteners has nothing to do with it, they can no way be able to hold more force than the columns themselves, they would snap before the columns even moved.
Especially if they were all heated up to the point of expansion causing sagging.

I guess I shouldn't assume you would remember that is has been explained to you many many time why sagging trusses can not put a pulling force on the columns. It's physically impossible.

We don’t mind talking to you about other explanations. If you only had one shred of proven evidence to base your explanation on.

Physics is evidence.

IF the trusses sagged from heat they simply would not have the tensile strength to pull in columns. When steel heats up it expands, that expansion has to go somewhere. The expansion could not push out the columns so it sags downwards, the only way it could. If the sagging can not push out columns, it can also not pull in columns, QED.

The whole hypothesis is nonsense, you don't have one shred of evidence either. You have never addressed the points I raise.

Originally posted by ANOK
No it hasn't.

Hey now, I can say I've been here a while, and I've seen sagging trusses explained specifically to you at least 5 times. You have to be willfully forgetting it.

Originally posted by RadioactiveRob
Junk thread. If I could -1 star and -1 flag it I would.

So in other words, you have nothing intelligent to say, or comment regarding the lies, twists, and innuendos of AE9/11T and accept it all without question?

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by ANOKIs there any proof the deflection was 55"?

Well it was more than a foot, I hope we can all agree by looking at the photo.

Originally posted by ANOKI'm just looking for answers, the aluminum cladding bowing in makes more sense.

The aluminum cladding bowing inward independently of the steel frame makes no sense at all. I can demonstrate this in THREE ways.

1. There isn't enough space between the cladding and the steel for such a deflection to take place. As shown below, the distance between the cladding and the steel is much less than the overall thickness of the columns.

This fact is visible in drawings of the columns:


It is also obvious from photographs....


If you won't believe those, please show an example of a building with a comparable metal cladding that is somehow fastened far away from the structure.

And, the deflection visible in photographs is greater than this, by far....


Therefore, the observed bowing of perimeter columns cannot be explained by aluminum cladding bowing independently of the steel structure.

2. (a completely independent SECOND PROOF)

The Cladding on the columns was installed in lengths corresponding to a single story.

Here, you can see it being installed by workers standing inside the towers....


I'm going to assert that each single one of these pieces of cladding were attached to the columns behind them in at least one single place. If it were not so, the cladding would flap in the breeze!

Given the length of the cladding pieces, and the fact that they are each attached to the building frame, the bowing observed in many photos cannot be explained without bowing of the columns, because the observed bowing takes place over several stories of the building. the multiple segments of cladding involved cannot possibly bow in this manner unless the steel under them is bowing.

3. A THIRD completely independent proof.

Some force must have caused the visible bowing of the cladding. If it wasn't being pulled in by the steel structure, then what the hell was it?

It can't be buckling (use a technical dictionary if you're not sure of this word) independent of the steel, because even if overloaded (and this is pretty much excluded by design) the individual segments of cladding would be bowing over their own length at most, not somehow coordinating a 'group buckling' over several stories.

This also excludes any possible differential thermal expansion of the cladding (which should not happen anyway), because in that case we should also observe the "tincanning" over the length of a single story piece of cladding.

It wasn't the wind, my friends.

There are NO plausible forces that could cause the observed bowing, except the bowing of the steel structure attached to the cladding.

There, you have been proven incorrect on the cladding issue in three separate ways. I'm going to go ahead and link to this in my signature in case this issue ever comes up again.

You can thank me later.

There are NO plausible forces that could cause the observed bowing, except the bowing of the steel structure attached to the cladding.

You are so emphatic and loquacious in your efforts to prove your point you ignore the obvious. In fact I suggest it is tragic that you spent so much time constructing your argument that you entered the realms of fantasy.

Do you not know that camera lenses suffer from barrel effect distortions?

Here it is;





You get this effect using a wide angle lens or if you zoom in on a telephoto lens image in your computer.

I do think you know this but in your eagerness to take a causative approach in your argument you stumble over your own closed mindedness.

You are a person who is in denial and you refuse to accept that there are bad people in this world who will commit any crime to get what they want and that they are American.

I can see by the way you structure your case that you are trying to feel your way through a deductive based argument but you fail because you do not know how to. I see why you had trouble understanding the rigid frame issue I was discussing. You attacked me on my technical knowledge when in fact your reasoning is defective. Sad. You simply could not formulate a logical question.

reply to post by ProudBird

Please note the "need" for people to add a "soundtrack". Also please note that one particularly adept Internet user has his video popping up on YouTube first, when conducting a search at that site.....username "JohnDoeXLC" is none other than Rob Balsamo....yeah, that guy.....

What is it to you what people "need"?

"...username "JohnDoeXLC" is none other than Rob Balsamo....yeah, that guy..."

Rob Balsamo is in fact a commercial airline pilot and co-founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Yeah, that guy what? What are you insinuating by pointing him out in that manner?

It seems to me that you are an activist against activists!