I can't explain the OCT to you, it's not my story, it's explained in the "good book" you were peddling to me. The story that became a realty on TV to another poster and you agreed. Why do you need me to explain the OCT to you anyway? I already explained pretty explicitly why that "good book" is a worthless piece of trash. Did you not understand? What would you like to discuss about the airplanes? And why should I ignore the buildings? I wasn't looking to begin in any particular place, it's what YOU want to discuss and I can oblige depending on the context.
That's incorrect, NIST never explained how the two towers "collapsed". There's nothing in the NIST report that explains it. NIST even admitted in a footnote that they did not go beyond the point of collapse. NIST did say the collapse was "inevitable", that was the extent of it. If you went through the thread I posted the link to about NIST's scam, you would know the facts. So? Who is "we" anyway? You agreed that there is TV of Muslims flying into the towers and the Pentagon on 9/11, did you change your mind? Were the Muslims seen flying on film, TV, both or neither? What airliners vanished? That's what the OCT claims. Who is "we"? That's what the OCT claims. Ditto. Ditto. That's like saying a motorboat and an oil tanker both float on water. Really? That's pretty simple if it were true. Some real pilots say otherwise. (no comment on the rest of your post, it's irrelevant to me)
That's YOUR logic, you made the claim, it belongs to YOU not me. Don't apply your reasoning to me, I'm not you.
I don't own any evidence. I wasn't involved with 9/11 or the fake investigations. The evidence speaks for itself, it doesn't belong to me or anyone. It's up to you to do the research, I can only post what I've researched when I reference what I personally want to discuss. If you have a specific request and I can provide it, depending on the discussion, I can oblige.
Reasoning doesn't apply in your case; you're correct about that. No sir. You stated that "nobody saw" Muslims flying planes into buildings. The infantile argument is matched by "nobody saw" anyone land a plane today from the outside. Yesterday, "nobody saw" anyone land a plane from the outside either. And tomorrow at the end of the day, you'll be able to say "nobody saw" anyone land a plane as well. It is your logic. This is where 9/11 truthers wear out their welcome and why most refuse to give them the time of day. The Feds have proof that the hijackers took flight lessons. A recording shows one of them at the controls of AA11. And the "argument" being put out is that "you can't prove they were flying planes" because nobody saw it. It's a humorous attempt at a serious argument.
I see now what you did. I did not bring in NIST as the first to issue engineering studies on the tragedy. I did not name the firm that did the report. If I told you who we are, I would have to kill you. If you have presented all of your evidence, Let me make my case. 4 airliners departed several airports. This is of record. On the trip, as the Muslims planned, they shut off the Transponders. Those signal ground where the airplane is. Ground uses computers that are able to track airplanes and predict a future location. Though few people, even pilots have seem those computers, I happen to have seem them at the ATC in Fremont, CA, and towers at Hayward and Salinas, CA. I watched the operators use them. I have piloted aircraft with transponders and had flight following from time to time. Mostly over safety issues. So on 9/11 the take off positions of 4 airliners was well established. Part of the flights were equally known. Suddenly the transponders shut down so the men or women on the ground lost track of them. Naturally if one wants to intercept any or all of them, being unseen makes it ten times harder. Muslims plans included hitting both towers in NY City. Which they both did. Fuel spilled all over inside both buildings. Thousands of gallons made a very hot fire. Each tower had a unique construction, not normal for such buildings. Molten aluminum poured out, supplied by melting aluminum air frame and wings, etc. This was seen and photographed at ground level. When the steel got hot enough, it started failing by bending. This caused the floors to first slump then as the floors acted like a pile-driver hammer, the things collapsed. With me so far?
This might be the same person that pulls this just about every 6 months. Then he goes silent for a few months.
I appreciate good arguments. I don't appreciate silly ones. The 9/11 Truther Community (such as it is now) is basically reduced to silly arguments such as these. And it's a shame too because, as far as I can tell, if someone were to hijack a plane today; we'd be just as impotent in locating it and addressing it from the outside. We'd have to rely on "lets rollers" to address the problem. What the FAA should do is, just once, is contact United or Delta or American Airlines and tell them that one flight during the week of March 20-March 25, the FAA will buy every seat on one of their planes flying from Houston to Dallas and have a "real life" security drill. Have top management and the flight crews that are on those flights know about it in advance. What you're testing is how the FBI/NTSB/Air Traffic Controllers and other agencies handle the event; not the flight crews. Since the plane will have nobody but FAA personnel on board, there won't be any "lets rollers" endangering the plane or the crews. Truthers could play a very large role in demanding answers as to why we had this hole in our security. Instead, they pretend to be interested in chasing imagined ghosts
One who lies about seeing Muslims crashing planes into buildings on 9/11 on TV should not be explaining to anyone anything about "reasoning". I'm done with this stupidity, you SAW Muslims on TV, good for you, no one else did.
You're right, it was late last night and I misread your post. You said some mysterious engineering study that you forgot the name of explained it. My apologies. The problem is NIST is the official government agency that published the official statement on the "collapse" of the twin towers and they are the official party line, no one and no other entity is. And NIST never explained it. I have no clue wtf that's supposed to mean and I explained your fallacious concept with regard to MY evidence. The majority of the above is not YOUR case, it's the OCT regurgitated and sprinkled with some of your own personal opinion/imagination, it is not fact. No, I already explained to you in a prior post that there's nothing in the OCT that's reliable, it's all suspect. It's a mixture of facts, partial facts, large holes, reams of missing and destroyed data/evidence including ignored key eyewitness testimony, outright lies, obfuscations/deception, false pretenses, politically influenced preconceptions, failure to investigate and a lot more. In other words, it's a massive fraud that you're trying to peddle to me and I'm not interested. My interest lies in exposing the fraud, not peddling it as fact.
Absolutley you're wrong! That's why you keep avoiding my posts and questions asking you to elaborate. Let's go though this again. Point 1 You claim your "paper and washer" model was only to show mass, acceleration, and the strength to hold the static load. It was not, repeat NOT, a model of the towers. Below are two quotes that reinforce this claim. So all you wanted was a model structure that was able to hold up it's own weight, and then when a smaller portion of that structure was dropped onto the lower portion, you wanted to see the results as you said that it was impossible for that smaller, upper section to destroy the lower, larger section. So I bring to you Mick West's model which matches the criteria you set above in the two quotes perfectly. The entire structure was destroyed and now you want to whine about the conditions YOU ORIGINALLY SET because you don't like the results. Question 1: Why are you changing the criteria AFTER proof has been submitted? Question 2: Why did you bring up Mick's "floors" not surrounding the "core" when you yourself specified that the model was NOT supposed to be a representation of the WTC structure in any way? Question 3: IF you are now bringing up points where the models should be similar to the actual structure of the core, then explain why YOUR "paper and washer" model does not have a similar support structure as the WTC towers? Your "floors" are supported by paper loops BENEATH the "floors" above and resting on the "floors" below. The paper loops are not connected to the your core at all. If you expect Mick's model to be "accurate" then yours should be also. I am using Mick's model in the same fashion you are. To demonstrate a gravitational collapse of any type and show that what you claim to be impossible, complete destruction of a structure by dropping a smaller section onto a lower section, is possible. This was shown and you have no argument against it. Which is why you continue to play game and avoid addressing it. Point 2 To further show that your application of Newton's Laws to a complex structure to show how said structure should behave in a collapse scenario is COMPLETELY off base, I presented the following scenarios to you. I had two examples: Example 1 Example 2 You use Newton's Laws to say that a smaller upper section of a structure cannot destroy itself and the lower, larger section of the same structure in a gravitational collapse. I asked you to explain why both examples above would yield different results when you claim Newton's Laws say that both structures should NOT COMPLETELY collapse. You replied with this: Question1:Explain or show how Newton's Laws, when applying those laws to two objects composed of many interconnected pieces, takes into account the strength of the individual pieces and the strength of their respective connections. Question 2:Why can I not use example 1 above as a model for example 2 also? You use that simliar, simplified model for the twin towers don't you? You want to use a "smaller percentage" of the total structure to represent the object to be dropped (object 1) and a "larger percentage" of the total structure to represent the lower section to be impacted (object 2). You simplified the two "different structures" in solid objects, disregarding the components contained within each. Yet when I try and do the same thing, you want to play the "different structure" card to invalidate my model.
You are not aware of the historical perspective. Even before Bush took office Congress was aware of the missing funds. Before Rummy was SecDef, Congress was aware of the missing funds. It had been going on for many months, if not years. As we all know, congress acts very slowly. That the House had formed a subcommittee to investigate by September 2001 means that it had to have been going on for months, probably before Bush was even elected. Whatever flying object might have hit the pentagon that day, it was NOT AA77. The building had explosives planted in it, and the congressional auditors and records were located in the part with the explosives. I don't know which came first, the explosives or the auditors. What happened at the pentagon got rid of both the auditors and the records they were examining. A very neat solution.
And then you say: How can you claim AQ didn't do it and then claim that there's more information/details than anyone is privy to? That's like saying 2 + 2 DOES NOT equal 4, but the reasons are available only to mathematicians and you really don't know what those reasons are. So you're just guessing.
You have not posted any proof of this claim. Let me guess. Go find it, it's out there right? Is this how debates work in real life? You can make claims with no supporting proof? See my reply above.
Nor have you posted any proof of your claim that an airliner AA77 crashed at the pentagon. That makes us even. - - - Updated - - - Isn't the better question why you cannot prove that AQ did the attacks?
I have plenty that support what I believe. Do you? Are you willing to post evidence for belief if I do? We can discuss each as we go along. Are you game?
I'm questioning how you make a distinct claim yet turn around in the next breath and insinuate that "nobody knows any information". Can you answer that for me? Here's the quote you made: You distinctly say "AQ didn't do it" and then base that claim off the fact that there's information "you or I" don't know about that proves your claim. Are you going to address this or avoid it by asking more questions?
OK, you showed up. You told us your story. I think we (forum) gets the story. Thanks for coming. I believe you told your story very well. We here appreciate your time and effort. Unfortunately, I see no way we can be of more assistance than we have been.
I can't be certain, but I expect the FAA has conducted such drills. People show up to talk. And they tell us they accept something like two towers had explosives taken into the building. No witnesses mention this. No sign of explosions were at any the structures, from NY city to the pentagon and PA, no sign of explosions happened. Frankly,so far as i am concerned,they told their story. i am clear on their story. I don't think their story is a mystery. I read a collapse report around 2002-3 by an engineering firm that was called by one poster a mystery. ha ha But the fact is all airplanes are are aluminum tubes moving through the sky. An aluminum tube strong enough to be an airplane would not bring down the two towers. But the fuel in the tanks sure can heat up steel. And steel bends. As to was AQ the leaders? It is claimed they did. But if it was others, does that matter? Will new data reverse the damage done on 911? Can posters be trying to take off of AQ the blame and attention to put it elsewhere? No matter, factually buildings were damaged or destroyed. We can't fix the problem.
We never saw Captain Sully that i recall as he landed the airplane in the Hudson River. I can't recall seeing any pilot in the process of a crash. I never saw the passengers either. maybe no planes crashed and there never were passengers. And the towers still stand and never got hit.
Below is what you posted in your post #288 Bobby, but the fact is I never said it, you made it up! You're lucky I don't report you to the Holy Spanish Inquisition.. Originally Posted by Johnny Brady I can trash the "remotely-piloted" theory quite easily mate [because I bought the whole official enchilada, lock, stock and barrel and I automatically reject any contradictory research without reading any of it]..
The idea that the U.S. Gov. planned and carried out 9/11 had to come from planet X, and that is way way out there.
