...and you can sift thru the aftermath, while we make more history.

Lack of accountability and control of the narrative are keys to the kingdom of bad mojo.

There's also Who Killed John O'Neill. I wish they would stop with the planes though. 4 planes with NO seat debris, and pilots that can magically not only hit the towers, but hit their targets on the towers. A plane would of had resistance if it hit the building. A wing or tail would have fallen off, and seats would have been showering the streets of NY. The flash we see IS a homing devise. The hologram of a plane was on the mystery pod. I know it sounds crazy. But where is the seat debris? Yes some would burn up, but at least in Pa, there should have been some seats and sections.

I got this photo of a video I was watching one day. I thought to myself that that "plane" just melted into that building. How can that be? The WTC was a steel net, and the plane is weaker. If a plane did hit the towers, it would have broken up at some point. Again, I NEVER thought I would be a "No Planer" but I am. I want evidence that I am wrong. All I want is to see ONE plane seat from any of the 4 crashes. 4 planes is over 800 seats. Where ARE they? How can so many accept the governments "facts" without ALL the evidence. How is the Pentagon video acceptable? Does anyone think with today's congress Obama would be able to get away with a blurry attack video of the Pentagon? And if this video is true, which I think it is, why wasn't an investigation of all these companies done?

<a href="http://imgur.com/i0mBqyb"><img src="" title="Hosted by imgur.com"/></a>

And today, all these people who fell for the 9/11 bullshit are wanting answers about being spied on. It's laughable to me. They were content with the shit answers the government gave over 9/11, so sit back and eat shit now. How's that taste? We "truthers" have been eating eveyones shit for years. Now that shit has come home. 9/11 IS the reason they can do all this shit to us. And until you accept the fact that 9/11 was an inside job this WILL continue.

If one looks at all the things 9/11 has enabled our "government" to do, it becomes pretty clear at least to some. Had PNAC not mentioned needing a "New Pearl Harbor" to advance their agenda of a new pax americana, I could have some doubt. 9/11 paved the way for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that had been on the drawing board for quite some time. It paved the way for the Patriot Act, the suspension of habeas corpus. posse commitus, etc.

280,000lbs of hot fudge sundae, and if it hit the side of that building at 540mph, it still punches right through to the interior.

That said, even if your point was valid about the materials of the plane's construction, there is considerably more steel in that aircraft than you assume.

it would be like a "pencil puncturing that screen netting."

Also, the scenario envisioned by the builders was a 707 on one engine, failing to reach the airport. The reality of it was a 767-223ER fully loaded, and at full military thrust, traveling beyond VNE.

The scenarios are not comparable on velocity alone, let alone mass and materials.

Edit: Also, as the building designers envisioned, the buildings withstood the 7.7 million foot-tons of torque on impact, it was the fires that brought the buildings down, not the impacts. The destroyed support columns only shortened the amount of time required for the fires to bring it down, by reducing the carrying capacity of the supports from the outset.

designed to withstand a fully loaded 747.

you are correct. They were designed to withstand a fully loaded 707. Fully loaded!

And they did. 7.7 million foot-tons of torque on the higher velocity of the two impacts. Even though the builders assumed a one-engine limping 707 failing to reach the airport, not a full-tilt-boogie kamikaze hit.

The towers resisted the impacts just fine. What they did not resist was the fire, and loss of insulation.

Not sure what that diagram is supposed to reveal, since it lacks a 767.

An interesting question would be whether the building designers intended that statement to apply to the comparatively puny 707, or the 707-300, which isn't that much smaller than a 767-223ER (extended range).

But again, it's an academic question, since the towers absorbed the impacts.

... flying 600 mph

The 4 engines gave the 707 7 chances to hit a core column---four engines and two landing gear on the wings, and the center landing gear.

The 767, with just two engines, had just 5 chances to hit core columns 17 feet apart. But NIST claims that in WTC1 6 core columns were severed. Allah is indeed great!

Page 132 and a few pages beyond. Enjoy.
http://books.google.com/books?id=yE1Pyui4GpkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=City+in+the+sky+:+the+rise+and+fall+of+the+World+Trade+Center+Glanz&hl=en&ei=QHKiTuX4Dcjc0QGW8fmkBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=707&f=false


Edit: Leslie Robertson has admitted they did no calculations on the fuel load/fire subsequent to impact. So, technically, what they claimed of the towers for a 707 was true, and also true of the impacts on 9/11. The towers performed well, and did not collapse on impact.

They were brought down by the fires.

You are, however, correct to point out the considered velocity was quite a bit higher than I remembered.

Skilling told the Seattle times in 1993 that the towers would survive the fires from an airliner impact.

How come you guys don't know this basic stuff? They must have chased all those who knew anything
about 9/11 out of here, huh?

NIST certainly does not demonstrate that the buildings were brought down by fires. Their samples of core steel only show heating to 480 F.

while people said it would survive the fires, they did ZERO computational analysis of the fires. It was an opinion only.

As it turned out, a bad opinion.

Feel free to keep repeating this bullshit about 'how come you guys don't know this basic stuff' when you don't even read the links you are spoonfed.

Leslie Robertson says no fire studies were done. How does he know what studies were not done?

Robertson's boss tells it different. "We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

Your problem is that you get your talking points from lying propaganda websites.

Years before I did? You don't know a fucking thing about me.

Finish reading that page from City in the Sky. Leslie Robertson performed the second airplane impact study. Again, fire not seriously factored in. Spray on insulation not factored in. Assumptions made on fire resistance based on the performance of the thicker, masonry-protected ESB/B-25 impact.

Why would you link that from the Times, when the quote is right there word for word in the book I just linked?

No information about the performance of the towers in a fire, resulting from an aircraft impact (the 707 question) has ever surfaced to my knowledge, from either of those studies.

You have a quote. From an apparent assumption by a person with a vested interest in getting the towers built on time and on budget.

How do you know his studies were the only ones? Skilling said the fires were factored in.

Leslie Robertson seems to have memory problems. He told a Stanford audience in the spring of 2002
that he saw "like a little river of steel, flowing" and he seemed to have forgotten all about that later on.
He's not a reliable witness.

I would link that from the Times because that's what John Skilling said. You're calling Mr. Skilling a liar?
What interest in time and budget was present in 1993 when he made the statement. Your hysterical
tendency to invent facts goes a long way to explain why you're so confused.

I have invented nothing.

Perhaps Robertson realized that what he saw might have been some other metal.

I think it is entirely possible that Skilling is either lying or exaggerating. Recall that his entire purpose at that time was to get the towers built, and he was paid handsomely for it.

In 1993 Skilling was NOT trying to get the towers built. They were more than 20 years old by then. Your persistent need to invent your facts betrays you.

approved. Sure.

Let's see the detailed fire study IN RELATION TO THE 707 IMPACT STUDY Skilling performed prior to construction.

*crickets*

He simply said that they had looked at all the possibilities. It's impossible for an impact study to "forget" the fires. Any competent study of impact would need to consider the mass of the fuel on board.

Your aggressive (and imcompetent) efforts to lawyer away the evidence show you to be highly emotional about these issues. Why is that?

""We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much.""

From your link to the 1993 article in the Times. He's speaking in present tense. The NEXT quote, was from the run-up to construction. (Also referenced in my link) But the first and last quotes in your own linked article are from '93; prompted by the bombing.

Such habits are incompatible with the search for truth.

""We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much.""

From your link to the 1993 article in the Times. He's speaking in present tense.
Skilling is being interviewed in that 1993 article, in the times. He is speaking in present tense. He is talking about what was done back during the run-up to constructing the buildings. In that 1993 interview, he is talking about various threats to the building, INCLUDING the study of the 707 scenario, in response to the '93 bombing.

I did make one mistake, I thought the second paragraph from the '93 article was cribbed from a much earlier interview, but it was not.
Still doesn't change the fact that this statement is flat out wrong:

"Mr. Skilling did not reference the 707 study in 1993"

He does, in the italicized excerpt above.

He references A 707 study, but not THE 707 study. We don't know if he's talking about the Port Authority study, the Leslie Robertson study, or some other study.

He clearly says they designed the building to survive the fires. And just like a fundie creationist you fabulate bogus reasons to imagine that he was lying.

Kinda makes the 'we' inconvenient for your position. WE LOOKED AT EVERY POSSIBLE THING WE COULD THINK OF. Not 'we looked at a couple studies'. 'WE' is Skilling and Co, PERFORMING THE ANALYSIS. Meaning, the 707 impact scenario he and friends did when planning the construction of the buildings. There is no other logical conclusion.


He/PA/Etc have never offered up the methods/calculations used in the alleged fuel-fire consideration in relation to plane impacts. You have no idea if it was done or not. Robertson didn't do it. I see no evidence Skilling and co. did either.

You continue to invent excuses for excluding evidence instead of dealing with it.

I am not 'excluding' it, I am dismissing it as insufficient. It might become relevant if there is substantiating evidence.

Currently you have offered none. Not even so much as HOW they came to believe it was molten steel, or a steel stalagmite. You suggested a means to attempt it (scratch it with a car key), but absolutely fuck-all about whether they actually did it, or what they did, etc, beyond allegedly LOOKING at it.

Dr. Glanz wrote in the NYT that it was steel. Unless you think he was so silly as to risk his
scientific reputation on such a claim without taking minimal trouble to verify it, you've got
nothing but denial.

I am not aware of Glanz also holding the vocation of 'Fair Witness'.

without checking it.

You don't know much about journalism, do you?

It happens.

No need to leap to assuming that someone like Glanz intentionally misrepresented it.

So first you say the melted steel is an extraordinary claim, and then you claim that Dr. Glanz
can honestly make a mistake about it.

It can also be an honest mistake. For instance, he may have accepted someone else's statement on-site that it was steel, without verifying. That's not exactly reckless, if he didn't understand the significance of a stalagmite made of formerly molten steel in the WTC rubble at the time he made the statement.

Why is this confusing to you?

He didn't say "somebody said there was melted steel". He reported it as a fact. He's implying that he saw it in a trip to the basement. If he didn't see it himself, that's not an honest mistake.

Dr. Glanz is a PhD astrophysicist. Do you think he doesn't know the melting point of steel?

You continue to dig yourself deeper and deeper, demonstrating your desperation.

I'm sure Glanz does know the melting point of steel. When he said that, did he know that temperatures high enough to melt steel would be a controversial topic, specifically in regards to the WTC collapse?

When he stated it, why would he have known that the fires in the tower could not have produced those temperatures?

I agree with you that a PHD/Astronomer can know the melting point of steel. I don't assume he knows the expected max temps that can be encountered in a building fire that high up in a building of that size, with that large of a hole in it, with JP-8 present in large quantities.


Talk about inventing assumptions.

if he didn't have already know it himself. CNN, NBC, NOVA, BBC, New Scientist, Scientific American, FOX News--all of them told us that fires could have melted the steel.

NYT did not. So I'll suppose they knew better from the start.

JP-8 was present for less than ten minutes, says NIST, and more like four minutes according to FEMA's experts.

In the case of tower 1, from the 90th floor on up one has a mere 1.5% of the structural steel, by weight. (as per Donald Fox)

Severing 6 or so of the 47 core columns and half of the exterior columns on one side at that level won't make the structure fail, agreed.

Office fires only burn hot in any one spot half an hour or so. The jet fuel must account for much damage, but I think that if there had been a supply of jet fuel lasting the whole 12 years to this day, the lower levels' structural steel would still be unharmed, barely warm!

Seats, lifejackets and other effects from the interior of the aircraft were found on the rooftops of WTC 5, and the Bankers Trust building.