WTC Collapses

[scott3x]

General response to this thread: I am not taking a side on the conspiracy-or-not thing. Not yet. I have only very recently had my curiosity piqued re this issue. I have far too little data to form a strong opinion one way or the other. Not yet.

Fair enough.

However, some things are seeming to fail to add up.

For the moment, i am most, though certainly not only, perplexed by the paucity of aircraft parts found, positively identified, and publicized, in all of the crash sites.

At the Pentagon site, especially, there should have been much, much, more a collection of aircraft parts which should not have been magically vaporized. While a jetliner is admittedly a kind of a thick skinned blimp engineered to have needed structural integrity but not much more, there are, nonetheless many structural parts not subject to facile disintegration. The skin might be imagined to be turned into confetti by a 100s MPH impact. But fuselage spines and longerons, wing spars, very solid landing gear parts, massive engine parts, tungsten control surface counterweights, and such like, should have all survived and should have all been found, identified, and publicized.

I haven't heard much complains in regards to the parts for the twin tower planes. -However-, in regards to the pentagon plane, I firmly believe that no plane ever hit the pentagon; that instead, one simply flew over. The evidence for this has been provided by the Citizens Investigation Team (CIT) and their site, www.thepentacon.com , details how the plane came in at an angle making it impossible for the damage to have been caused from it. Apparently, immediately after the plane was over the building, the building exploded, making it -appear- as if the plane had actually collided with the building. One person, however, saw the plane coming out from the other side. Then there is the taxi driver who claimed to see the plane coming from the official side; CIT makes it clear that he's struggling to maintain the lie but he does a bad job of it...

If I did not have bad luck, i would have no luck at all, goes the old joke. Well, my luck was that on the very day that i began to be seriously perplexed about the lack of satisfying pentagon information, the pentagon thread was locked by the staff's unlimited and perfect wisdom.

That was definitely annoying . Here's an idea- currently, there is a proposal in Formal Debates:
Proposal- Was 9/11 an inside job?

If you agree, I could start a debate thread, giving the arguments why I think that 9/11 was an inside job and you could counter with the reasons why you're still not sure it is; after that, we could move on to a discussion in the formal debates forum, wherein everyone could participate.


[quoteThanks to you, Scott3x, for your energy and integrity in conducting these threads. I may, or, may not, share your particular opinions and conclusions. But I do appreciate your energy in helping us have a venue in which to explore the possibilities and reach our own decisions.[/QUOTE]

Thanks UH . Honestly, there are times when I just think of quitting; I've spent -so- much time debating shaman_'s points, for instance; for him to say that it's left him unchanged definitely makes me feel like I'm wasting my time. However, when I get a comment like yours it reminds me that me and shaman_ aren't alone in this place- others are watching and -their- opinions may indeed be swayed.

 

[scott3x]

We know the area of the floors, the thickness and density of the lightweight concrete, the size and amount of rebar in the concrete, the gage and corrugation height of the steel floor pans, and the material and construction of and the spacing of the floor trusses.

From this information one can calculate the weight. Didn't Gregory Urich do this already?

If not I would say it would be a good project for you psik. If you need any help let me know.

It is certainly curious how they can do furnace tests on full scale 35 foot sections of floor slabs with trusses in NCSTAR1-6 and never mention how much it weighs.

psik

I think it's fair to say that there are many glaring ommissions and errors in NIST's reports. The peer reviewed paper, Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction, one of whose authors is in this forum (Tony Szamboti), agrees with the government on 14 points, but also points out many flaws in their investigation.

So, sure we can agree that NIST left out a lot of important information in their report, just as we can agree that not talking about WTC 7 in the 9/11 Commission was a glaring omission. But if one can calculate what you need without NIST, why not do so?

 

[scott3x]

Thanks to you, Scott3x, for your energy and integrity in conducting these threads. I may, or, may not, share your particular opinions and conclusions. But I do appreciate your energy in helping us have a venue in which to explore the possibilities and reach our own decisions.

There are millions of 'woo-woo sites'. That and porn.:shrug:

I am sure you have seen your fair share of them.

The difference is that if someone like you were on a 9/11 conspiracy site, you'd probably get banned for your language. Kenny managed 1 post before getting banned. The problem with this is that the debate becomes rather one sided, which happens a fair amount over at JREF as well. It's easy to preach to the choir- the hard part is putting forth one's views where a lot of people are hostile to them.

 

[scott3x]

@Tony & Scott3x

Do either of you guys know where to find the weight of a floor slab with its pans and trusses?

psik

yes.

http://www.scott3x.stolenpostsfromsciforumstomakehisownwebsite.freesite.com

Very funny . My site, http://scott3x.tripod.com/, doesn't contain the information in question. I didn't 'steal' posts, I simply quoted parts of them, and I made it clear where I got the material. Not only that, but a lot of the posts I quote or paraphrase are my own. I was simply trying to put up all the arguments; I stopped a while back because this thread has simply become much too big to put it all in, but I've been thinking of continuing where I left off.

 

[John99]

@Tony & Scott3x

Do either of you guys know where to find the weight of a floor slab with its pans and trusses?

psik

yes.

http://www.scott3x.stolepostsfromsciforumstomakehisownwebsite..com

 

[scott3x]

shaman_, if -anyone- could be said to generally respond to your posts, I think that candidate would be me- I frequently do so even if I have to be responding to posts a few hundred posts back because I simply can't respond to so many points so fast. Personally I believe that you've skipped more of my points and posts that I've skipped yours. But that's fine with me.

Scott, every time I have mentioned the workstation tests you have changed the subject and rambled on about computer simulations.

I've already told you, I thought the workstation tests were the computer simulations. In regards to the workstation tests you spoke of, you have yet to provide me an a page or 2 or an excerpt with the relevant information regarding your views on this, as I requested back in post 1830 (I now have NCSTAR 1-5, if there's a particular page or 2 in there you believe demonstrates your point, by all lmeans point it out, or even excerpt it here).

Then if I make an issue of it you accuse me of dodging your points!

It seems that you don't want to go too far into the issue of the computer simulation; I notice that you haven't responded to my last post on them:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2169653&postcount=1851

 

[scott3x]

yes.

http://www.scott3x.stolepostsfromsciforumstomakehisownwebsite..com

Come on John, you'd already posted that before- I even quoted you so the evidence is there. I think the right thing to do when someone hasn't responded to a post of yours is to remind them with a link to your old post. Ofcourse, I definitely think that there are some posts of yours that are best forgotten, but in this case, I actually responded .

 

[shaman_]

I've already told you, I thought the workstation tests were the computer simulations.

I am pointing out to you that your accusations of dodging points are amazingly hypocritical considering that you are the one who was actually dodging the point! Understand?

In regards to the workstation tests you spoke of, you have yet to provide me an a page or 2 or an excerpt with the relevant information regarding your views on this, as I requested back in post 1830 (I now have NCSTAR 1-5, if there's a particular page or 2 in there you believe demonstrates your point, by all lmeans point it out, or even excerpt it here).

What? I have to write or find a summary for you now? Read the damn NIST report!

It seems that you don't want to go too far into the issue of the computer simulation; I notice that you haven't responded to my last post on them:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2169653&postcount=1851

Oh right now there is a time limit to the responses.

You must realise that you are struggling when you accuse me of avoiding something because I don’t respond to a post less than 24hours old. You haven’t responded to several of my posts on the previous pages, is that because you can’t?


There was no ‘tweaking’ in the computer simulation. The parameters were adjusted to match the bowing, which was filmed, photographed and explained by eyewitnesses. NIST were matching the pulling with the photographic evidence. Get it?

 

[leopold]

"i headed down there about 11, 11:30 that night with camera in my hand.
i literally walked past cops, passed all the military security, and within 10 minutes i found myself right in the middle of ground zero. there were 100's of people there. i just freaked out because i had no idea how bad it was."
-dave goldberg development executive, camera planet.

that's pretty strange behavior from a government that just planted bombs in a building wouldn't you say? to allow just any ol' person with a camera to access ground zero?

 

[Ophiolite]

Can Scott and his fellows explain how Vladimir Putin was able to call Bush the day before the attack to warn that Al Qaeda were planning a major attack for the following day? Or is Putin in on the conspiracy too?

 

[scott3x]

Can Scott and his fellows explain how Vladimir Putin was able to call Bush the day before the attack to warn that Al Qaeda were planning a major attack for the following day? Or is Putin in on the conspiracy too?

If Putin did indeed warn Bush, why did Bush say nothing? I tried to google info about it but found nothing- can you provide a link? Assuming it's true, why does Putin have to be in on an inside job? Just because he heard that the attacks were coming? If it's true, I think it'd be much more interesting to know why it's been kept so hush hush. It's well known that the Bush administration didn't follow up on some key leads until it was too late. You know I don't believe that the planes took down the twin towers, but I think it's wise to take a look one of the would be hijackers, Moussaoui. Here's an excerpt from an interview with widows of people killed on 9/11 with Chris Matthews: 9/11 widows react to Rice's testimony:

MATTHEWS: Do the dots seem closer after today?

[KRISTEN BREITWEISER, A WIDOW OF 9/11 ATTACK]: You know what? It’s not hard to do in retrospect. It’s not Monday-morning quarterbacking. You have the director of the CIA on the morning of 9/11, whose first response was "I hope this doesn’t have anything to do with that guy taking flight lessons." He was referring to Moussaoui.​

There's much more ofcourse but we'd be straying from the WTC collapses. Perhaps we could take it to the 9/11 poll thread...

 

[scott3x]

I've already told you, I thought the workstation tests were the computer simulations.

I am pointing out to you that your accusations of dodging points are amazingly hypocritical considering that you are the one who was actually dodging the point!

Misunderstanding a point is not the same thing as dodging one.

 

[shaman_]

Scott you misunderstood the point numerous times. You changed the subject every time and I did try to explain it to you. Now that you do understand, instead addressing the comments regarding the workstation tests you are requesting that I write or find a 2 page summary for you.

It's a minor point Scott and I don't really care but understand that to follow this up with accusations of point dodging is a but ridiculous. OK?

 

[MacGyver1968]

So hows everyone in the world of woo? I haven't been around in a while.

 

[leopold]

So hows everyone in the world of woo? I haven't been around in a while.

i've noticed that nobody responded to my last two posts so i'm either on everybodys ignore list or they're still looking at the floor.

 

[scott3x]

Scott you misunderstood the point numerous times. You changed the subject every time and I did try to explain it to you. Now that you do understand, instead addressing the comments regarding the workstation tests you are requesting that I write or find a 2 page summary for you.

Your 'comment' referred to a 180 page document. I'm not going to read it to find if your point is valid or not. If you can't quote a page or 2, as I always do for you unasked, then I'll simply dismiss your claim.

It's a minor point Scott and I don't really care but understand that to follow this up with accusations of point dodging is a but ridiculous. OK?

Alright, perhaps I didn't give you enough time to respond to the issue regarding Steven Jones. But it seems that you now only talk about it, instead of addressing it. I'm not asking you to read a 180 page document to find out if your claim is valid or not. I excerpted the points Steven Jones made, I even explained them.

 

[Uno Hoo]

Fair enough.




I haven't heard much complains in regards to the parts for the twin tower planes. -However-, in regards to the pentagon plane, I firmly believe that no plane ever hit the pentagon; that instead, one simply flew over. The evidence for this has been provided by the Citizens Investigation Team (CIT) and their site, www.thepentacon.com , details how the plane came in at an angle making it impossible for the damage to have been caused from it. Apparently, immediately after the plane was over the building, the building exploded, making it -appear- as if the plane had actually collided with the building. One person, however, saw the plane coming out from the other side. Then there is the taxi driver who claimed to see the plane coming from the official side; CIT makes it clear that he's struggling to maintain the lie but he does a bad job of it...




That was definitely annoying . Here's an idea- currently, there is a proposal in Formal Debates:
Proposal- Was 9/11 an inside job?

If you agree, I could start a debate thread, giving the arguments why I think that 9/11 was an inside job and you could counter with the reasons why you're still not sure it is; after that, we could move on to a discussion in the formal debates forum, wherein everyone could participate.


[quoteThanks to you, Scott3x, for your energy and integrity in conducting these threads. I may, or, may not, share your particular opinions and conclusions. But I do appreciate your energy in helping us have a venue in which to explore the possibilities and reach our own decisions.

Thanks UH . Honestly, there are times when I just think of quitting; I've spent -so- much time debating shaman_'s points, for instance; for him to say that it's left him unchanged definitely makes me feel like I'm wasting my time. However, when I get a comment like yours it reminds me that me and shaman_ aren't alone in this place- others are watching and -their- opinions may indeed be swayed.[/QUOTE]


Thank you for your cordial posts.

Your mention of a debate scenario as you envision it is interesting. I could certainly take the role of a naive party who has a genuine curiosity but a poverty of knowledge. That seems to be my life story. At this moment I cannot say yes or no. I have tasks that are well defined and of great importance which I am somewhat behind schedule in executing. These tasks must be have primary demand upon my time and energy. I am certainly going to look for a way to add such a debate activity, but it will be day to day for a while before I can agree to discipline enough time to it be able to do it in a worthy manner. You have a yes, but the timetable is yet to be determined and may honestly be a day or a year. So, thank you very much for asking, continue thinking about it, and who knows but what I might be surprised by a quicker turn of events than i presently pessimistically imagine.

In my new interest and search of information on the internet, including John99 favorite woo woo and porn sites, it seems that the more information I process, the more murky the conclusion is. This may be telling in itself, because you would normally expect that more information would lead to a more well defined conclusion. It would be easy, but rash, to jump to a belief that it becomes more murky because there is deliberate disinformation.

Having a substantial background in building design, structural design, aircraft design and such like, in addition to a substantial education in basic physics, I have discovered a surprising amount of loose ends in the information re the four famous 9/11 events. There are just too many things that should have been clearly productive of a decisive conclusion, but have instead lead me to a murky indecisiveness.

I can easily understand how someone could believe that the information is unclear because it has been manipulated. But at this time i feel that I am far from being convinced one way or the other.

Non illegetimi carborundum.

 

[Uno Hoo]

There are millions of 'woo-woo sites'. That and porn.:shrug:

I am sure you have seen your fair share of them.

Millions? By all means please post your list and i will check to see if i have been to any of your favorite millions of such sites.

In the wait for you to compile your list, I must tell you something. Just a little secret between you and me. The events of 9/11 are important. 9/11 represents a huge toll of human suffering and death, on that day and in the aftermath, and it burns me up to read where some asshole like you makes a joke about woo woo and porn in connection with someone's serious interest in the 9/11 matter.

 

[Ophiolite]

If Putin did indeed warn Bush, why did Bush say nothing? I tried to google info about it but found nothing- can you provide a link?

I believe this was revealed in a three part BBC documentary on Iran, currently airing in the UK.

Assuming it's true, why does Putin have to be in on an inside job?

You miss the point. You claim this was a put up job by elements of government. Why then would Putin ascribe it to el qaeda?

 

[John99]

Millions? By all means please post your list and i will check to see if i have been to any of your favorite millions of such sites.

In the wait for you to compile your list, I must tell you something. Just a little secret between you and me. The events of 9/11 are important. 9/11 represents a huge toll of human suffering and death, on that day and in the aftermath, and it burns me up to read where some asshole like you makes a joke about woo woo and porn in connection with someone's serious interest in the 9/11 matter.

your right. i see how much you guys care. send me a pm and we can discuss it.