This CIT image, suggesting that a 757 flew over the Pentagon, would never be shown on 9/11 Blogger.
November 17, 2010
By Craig McKee
I have to admit that when I started writing about the so-called terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 just three months ago, I was somewhat naive. I thought that everyone who doubts the official story about 9/11 would be working towards a common goal.
Now, I’m not so sure.
I am sure that there are thousands of sincere people around the world who feel we’ve been conned and who don’t want to let it happen. What has come to be known as the 9/11 Truth movement is made up of many educated and intelligent people who know that the official story is impossible on hundreds of different grounds. Without people like David Ray Griffin, Barrie Zwicker, Richard Gage, Mark Gaffney, Dylan Avery and others, we’d be nowhere.
But the online world of 9/11 discussion and debate has a dark side. And this comes in the form of web sites that censor certain views and online “contributors” who ridicule certain beliefs about what happened. They don’t refute them, they just dismiss. Reminds me of how the media has treated the 9/11 Truth movement.
I got a taste of this myself recently when I was banned from the largest 9/11 truth site in the world: 9/11 Blogger with its claimed 18 million hits. Apparently I’m not the first; many have been banished to voiceless purgatory. Or at least to other sites.
I had a article of mine posted on the site about three weeks ago, and I was pleased about this. I felt that if I could post my own articles there, my blog would gain readership. So I registered, was accepted, and posted two more articles. One, accusing USA Today’s Mike Walter of lying about what he saw at the Pentagon, was censored. I lived with it.
Some comments I did receive to the other posts were quite negative. Comments included words like “offensive,” “baseless,” “terrible,” “sad,” and “awful” (my favourite). It’s amazing I could pack all that into two articles.
Now, I’m not thrilled to get bad reviews, but I’m also not going to be dissuaded by people who don’t agree with me. But having this come from people who allegedly do agree that 9/11 was an inside job was a surprise.
The main thrust of the criticism, it appeared, was that certain “unacceptable” subjects found their way into my writing. Since I’ve only been writing about 9/11 for three months, I had not become familiar with what these subjects were. With apologies to Oscar Wilde, I’ll now call them “the topics that must never speak their names.”
The first taboo I broke was to write about how some of the witnesses, especially those connected to major media outlets, seemed to be lying about what they saw that day. I stand by that. No, Mike Walter did not see the wings of a Boeing 757 “fold in” as it entered the Pentagon.
The critical comments about my piece seemed to be saying that only scientific evidence was worth talking about, and that anything else was working against the truth.
On another post, I received a comment by someone called kdub who became “sick to his stomach” about my comments about witnesses. Really? He also seemed to hate the idea that anyone would suggest that a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon. Apparently this is considered a crazy idea. I thought the idea that a plane did hit the Pentagon was crazy.
Another contributor, SnowCrash, attacked “pseudo-science” of the “no plane” Pentagon theory. This theory takes its place alongside video fakery and the idea that nuclear devices may have been used to bring down the twin towers. These people actually believe they should be able to veto the subjects before they can be discussed. In fact, the site even tells you when you register that these two subjects are off limits.
But the final straw was when I posted a 2003 satirical article about conspiracy theories by Gerard Holmgren. I thought it was funny and provocative, but it mentioned the taboo subject of “missiles.” Here’s what kdub wrote:
“Just read this. Awful indeed. Both of these Craig McKee articles are offensive and baseless. It makes me sick to my stomach watching people accuse witnesses of lying. And of course just like CIT (Citizen Investigation Team) and the RCFP (Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press), the flyover theory is another big focus of these divisive individuals (Ranke, McKee) and groups. The fly-over and “fake witness” theories (and the groups I mentioned above) have simply been debunked and discredited.”
Divisive? Now I felt this was plain weird. Fake witness theories have been debunked? Really? This guy is a 9/11 truther? I’ve been a journalist for more than 23 years, and I have a pretty good sense of bullshit when I hear it.
I posted a response saying that I questioned the sincerity of kdub’s comment. That was the last thing I posted there. Next time I tried to log in, I was blocked, and I have been ever since.
He and SnowCrash can apparently call you every name in the book, but you can’t suggest that they have another agenda. And 9/11 Blogger reveals that it’s not a sincere vehicle for pursuit of the truth. At best it’s a club that is very fussy about whom it lets in; at worst it’s a vehicle for censorship and maybe even disinformation.
Instead of discouraging new truthers by mocking certain opinions in advance, it might be a better strategy to strengthen the case with views we hold in common. Then we can look at controversial opinions to see if they hold up to scrutiny. Let’s not forget that ALL of 9/11 truth was once highly controversial and still is with many people.
Ultimately, the 9/11 discussion is NOT a club, and it’s not for elitists. It’s a grassroots movement, and it must remain democratic. And unfortunately, it seems we have to deal with some people who claim they’re fighting for the cause – but aren’t.
Dear Mr. McKee,
Anybody in the 9/11 Truth Movement who has mustered their anonymous alias’s courage — fortified by superhero underwear, Toy Story pajamas, Cheetos, and beer in their mother’s basement — to step up onto their cyber soap boxes to enlighten their online world to the conspiracy truth has experienced not only the direct ridicule regarding these very aforementioned (real or imagined) issues but also the indirect after-the-fact embarrassment from having been led around by their noses and been mistaken on an issue or two.
“Pods on planes” comes to mind for me. A clever limited hangout I was once enamoured with. Today, I don’t think that. I think “planes on pods”, or rather, pixels representing planes covering over small military planes or cruise missiles on the video footage. Another good one is space based weapons & DEW. I don’t discount their existence, only their operational deployment on 9/11.
A propaganda trick I’m observing relates to spearheading the exploration into a theory, establish the legend base on a pile of substantiated truth, becoming the go-to expert, and then doing something that undermines credibility that serves to take both the theory and the underlying truths/evidence out of play in a guilt by association ploy. When all else fails, poor online behavior on either side of the debate can help it implode.
The taboo subjects are a knee-jerk reaction not just to the topics deemed collectively crazy upon some review. No, it is also kickback to the religious (or football) fanaticism to the subject, much of which was less than sincere, because its purpose wasn’t to shed light or enlighten or to demonstrate an open-mind that could be convinced it was wrong. Its purpose was to co-opt and divide the movement.
So having gone through those wringers, those who administer sites like 9/11 blogger are jaded. Imagine the “go-to” website on 9/11 infiltrated with a team of close-minded, misinformed, and often purposely obtuse (even in cases paid-to-post) fanatics. I’ve been there, done that. The first round is fun, but when you get dragged through the 2nd or n-th round covering the exact same dubious arguments, it gets old. Disinformation warriors never tire of such circles; it is their job, and they’ll gladly re-use entries from their database.
Our task becomes an exercise in re-framing.
We have to retrieve the indivisible nuggets of truth that made up the legends.
We don’t have to have direct access to the hallowed mainstream halls of 9/11 Truth. If what we write is the supported truth, we can do it indirectly drop-by-drop on our own blogs, in our postings elsewhere, in private email discussions, etc.
I have not been given access to 9/11 blogger, because I subscribe to two of the so-deemed whackiest fwinge twapics: that the media footage from 9/11 was tampered with and that milli-nukes pulverized the towers.
I can be convinced that these are wrong and that I’m just a duped useful idiot serving the purpose of dividing the 9/11 Truth Movement. However, not only has my own research not found sufficient evidence to debunk slivers let alone the entirety of these two topics, but my online discussions partners have also not made a convincing case that would address with a plausible explanation the very evidence that undergirds these theories.
Yes, I agree that we must constantly search for the nuggets. And I agree that unpopular theories should not be dismissed until they’ve been investigated. This idea I’m hearing in comments is that we need evidence of certain things before we will consider them. But we can’t look for that evidence because the subjects are considered too crazy.
Craig, what you don’t understand is that ideas that may be new to you are very very well known to us.
The notion of nukes at the WTC is dismissed because there is no evidence of associated radiation at Ground Zero, and to my knowledge no evidence has been provided that “clean” nukes exist.
The notion of video fakery is dismissed because the theory requires that the news media be totally complicit in a fraud, and we can’t expect the American people, hypnotized with the “liberal media” meme, to believe this. Also consider that probably dozens of amateur video cameras were trained on the south tower after the first strike. If there was no south tower plane and it suddenly blew up by itself, wouldn’t you expect some
amateur video showing same to surface?
Now as to your claim that Mike Walter lied about the wings folding up–what exactly is unbelievable about that claim? If a 757 hits a solid wall its swept-back wings are first destroyed inboard and forward–by the time the wingtips reach the wall they have no heft at all, and are only drawn in by the aftermost wing spar. I find nothing unbelievable about Walters’s observation at all.
Brian, I fully understand that there are people who have been doing research for years on things I am learning about every day. It is this body of research that helps people like myself to become informed and hopefully to advance the debate in some way. But I hope you’re not suggesting that the debate be restricted to some sort of inner circle of existing 9/11 researchers, and that new people need not involve themselves. This is part of why I object to what happened to me, and seems to have happened to numerous other people at 9/11 Blogger. What I don’t think many of the “informed” people realize is that it’s not enough for all of you to debate back in forth amongst yourselves. That’s why I said that the whole thing reminds me of a club. So I’m relatively new to writing about 9/11; what’s wrong with that? Isn’t the idea to convince more and more people that the official story is crap? How are we going to do that if every time someone questions something, you experienced guys just attack them so that they stay out of it in future. Fortunately for me, I’m not easily put off.
I’m sure you’ve studied the subject very extensively and that you know a lot, but does that mean that others who are newer to the debate should keep quiet? I hope not. It seems to me that some of the most respected 9/11 truthers came to the game a bit late, but they developed their own ideas anyway. And you know, one of the things I’m doing consciously is to write so that anyone might be turned on to the subject regardless of whether they know anything about it or not. I think that’s important; I think we need to convince more and more people.
On to specifics: the subject of nukes is new to me, but I won’t dismiss it just because others have. I believe in looking at the subject myself and keeping an open mind. But I won’t claim it’s true without being sure. The TV fakery issue is much more intriguing to me. I believe in looking at evidence, not making judgments because “it would be too hard to get away with.” The video evidence is very troubling in a number of areas. If we applied your reasoning to the whole 9/11 inside job theory, we’d rule it out because “too many people would have to be involved.” I do agree that it seems hard to imagine how it could have been done, but that’s not a reason not to look at it.
Finally, Mike Walter. Sorry, but I’ve been a journalist for more than 20 years, and I would stake my life on this guy being a complete bullshitter. The notion of the wings folding up is idiotic; you don’t have to be Isaac Newton to see that. No large pieces of wing or tail outside the building? Please.
And please explain to me why people who believe 9/11 was an inside job are so willing to back the story of someone who supports the official story???? Why are people so offended by the suggestion that his story is phony? Wings folding back? Are you kidding me? You discount nukes because there’s no evidence of clean nukes, but you don’t question the idea that wings will fold and not snap off?
The 9/11 truth movement will succeed if more and more people join it. And that will happen if all are welcomed and all points of view addressed. Time to open the doors of the club.
Craig, if the idea is to convince people that the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) is crap, it seems to me that the best course is to point out the clear impossibilities in the OCT, and not go around spreading easily-debunked alternative conspiracy fantasies.
I’m not suggesting that you keep quiet, but I would ask that you do a bit more fact-checking before mounting your soapbox. What is the point of getting people questioning if just a little bit of investigating shows them that your theory falls apart, or that your research is shoddy? I’m also not asking that you discard the mini-nuke notion without investigating it, but I’d suggest that your credibility would be better served if you first determine whether there is any evidence of unusual radiation and whether “clean” mini nukes exist before thinking out loud about them in public.
The notion of the wings folding up is not the least bit idiotic. If you examine the structure of the swept-back wing you see that the main longitudinal spar is severed at the fuselage end as soon as the wing hits the wall, causing the wing to lose most of its structural integrity. The outer wing structure is then dragged into the building by the trailing edge spar.
I am offended that a journalist of Mike Walter’s stature is accused, on poor evidence, of lying. I am also offended that the accusation comes from a couple of characters as shady as Craig and Aldo, but we can talk about those clowns later.
I’m not at all opposed to opening the doors of the club, and I welcome you to the movement. I just want to assert the principle that we must be as rigorously skeptical of our own bullshit as we are of the OCT bullshit or we will be led off into discrediting and unproductive paths.
First point, I have never pushed the nuke idea, and I made no comment about radiation levels. So that criticism is ill-founded.
I have said, however, that the nuke theory is interesting and would explain some things that are hard to explain with more traditional scenarios: molten metal that can’t be extinguished, cars melted as far as half a mile from Ground Zero. But I won’t ignore the idea simply because some people think it’s crazy. If we followed this way of thinking, people would not have been open back in 2001 to the idea that explosives might have been placed in the towers. But we don’t think that’s crazy now. And frankly, your phrase, “easily-debunked alternative conspiracy fantasies” concerns me. It suggests that there are acceptable “mainstream” conspiracy theories that we are permitted to entertain. I guess I’m an idealist; I believe that theories or beliefs will find their own level based on how well the facts support them. It’s not necessary to censor them.
Please let me know which facts you have come across that I have ignored in stating an opinion. If I’m proven wrong, I’ll admit it. But that’s not always so obvious, to me at least. Why is the “no-plane” theory so offensive to some people? I need to know why before I’ll even consider rejecting it. If I have to choose between the eyewitness accounts of the two Pentagon cops in National Security Alert and Mike Walter, I know what appears more reliable to me. Please explain to me why Walter has so many defenders in the 9/11 truth movement. I don’t get it. He says his view was obstructed, then he describes in detail the “folding in” thing. I’m sorry but I find this impossible to believe. The idea that a 757 hit that building is absurd to me. Where are your facts to back up your assertion that Walter is telling the truth? And why would you be “offended”? I think that the idea that flight 77 hit that building is based on poor evidence, or more likely no evidence.
Are you saying you believe the government account of what happened at the Pentagon? I’d love to hear your assessment of what happened at the Pentagon.
And the accusation that Walter is lying is coming from me; I didn’t get this from the CIT guys. And I don’t think it’s based on poor evidence.
Rigorously skeptical is fine. But are you applying that rigor to what Walters said? It’s the inconsistency that bothers me.
I wrote a post citing a paper on the wing folding theory (http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/09/26/missing-wings-at-the-pentagon-a-glimpse-into-911-truth/). Please tell me what facts these academics have misunderstood.
Mr. Good wrote:
“The notion of nukes at the WTC is dismissed because there is no evidence of associated radiation at Ground Zero.”
This is not completely true. From the research that I have done, the notion of nukes seems to have been dismissed from the mainstream 9/11 movement based upon the recommendation of nuclear physicist Dr. Steven Jones. Moreover, when you bore into his report, you’ll discover that he bases his conclusions on govt reports & measurements on radiation levels. A precedence was already set regarding 9/11 for various govt agencies to juke their reports as well as to withhold and suppress information & data, a fact that Dr. Jones laments in his own reports and presentations.
One form of juking was to change definitions with regards to what constitutes “background” or “trace” levels, so that these reports could conclude that measurements were below such.
To paraphrase Stalin, “It’s not the measured radiation that counts. It’s the people who write the reports about the measurement.”
As such, supposed radiation levels as per these reports have to be taken with a grain of salt, particularly when lots of other evidence including first-responder ailments, foundry-hot under-rubble fires, and massive yet unaccounted for energy sinks in the destruction like content pulverization.
Mr. Good wrote:
“The notion of video fakery is dismissed because the theory requires that the news media be totally complicit in a fraud.”
This isn’t true even before we lament how media ownership boils down to five today. All it took on 9/11 was one semi-live shot of the 2nd plane fed to CNN. This footage and even commentary has been proven to have been shared between networks. Even those anchors in the studio were duped by the footage they were fed.
Mr. Good writes:
“Also consider that probably dozens of amateur video cameras were trained on the south tower after the first strike.”
When you research most of the “amateur” footage of the 2nd strike that made it public, their “amateur” status is questioned both in terms of miracles of aim, zoom, and focus efforts, as well as what it depicts being in conflict with other footage.
I suspect that what happened to most truly amateur efforts resembles a parent filming their kids soccer game. After the first 5 minutes of filming, they tire of holding their cameras up and viewing the boredom of the action (smoke billowing out) causing their continued filming efforts to be rather sporatic. Without forewarning or foreknowledge, they’d be unlikely to catch the precise several seconds when the 2nd plane hits.
There was one piece of footage newly released long-form from a couple that was telling. It didn’t show the plane; they were too late or it was cut. But it did capture the reaction of the woman with her exclamation: “it was a small military plane!” This perception aligns with other eye witnesses, until the repetition of the fakery convinced even those it was a commercial plane, not a small military plane or cruise missile with wings.
Lots of other elements of how corporate media conspired to spin the story in the direction of the OGCT are proven within the same meme as fakery and cannot/should not be so easily dismissed.
To correct your assumption, the issue isn’t that there was no flying object that hit the towers. The issue is that the flying object was not a hijacked commercial plane. CGI was used to mask out what really hit the towers and replace it with the pixels of commercial plane for many reasons, like risk mitigation and higher probability of success. Couldn’t very well have it showing a military plane or cruise missile, which leaves very little wiggle room for who the true culprits were.
The issue with Mike Walter is that he was not in a position to make the exact observation that later creeps into his testimony. He first said his view was obstructed so he didn’t actually see the plane enter the building, so he couldn’t have seen the plane’s wings fold in.
Another issue is inconsistency between the supposed Pentagon plane and the (CGI) towers’ planes. If the Pentagon’s plane’s wings folded in upon contact with the (brick?) building as given by Mr. Walter, how come the towers’ planes’ wings weren’t observed folding in upon contact with the steel of the towers? This hints at a major issue with the various versions of the 2nd tower plane, namely, that it did not exhibit crash physics, like the body decelerating and deforming, like wings getting egg-cutter-sliced or bouncing while the engines broke free and into the towers. Why? Too complicated to model.
The 9/11 Truth Movement has indeed been led around by its noses on a detail or two over the last decade. Early dismissals of nukes and CGI fall into this category of the movement being led off course, because otherwise the evidence clearly leds there.
Brian Good is still on his obsessive anti-CIT crusade, now on this blog I see. FYI Craig- some ‘back story” on Brian Good, AKA “Watson,” “petgoat,” “truebeleaguer,” “Punxsawtawney Barney,” “anonymous”[1-15], etc.:
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=7782
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=7378
http://www.truthjihad.com/good.htm
Elonce, you spend many words trying to cast doubt on official reports about the radiation levels, but you present no evidence that there were elevated levels. USGS was lying, and everything is a big conspiracy, and you don’t have to provide any evidence?
Your claim that only one shot of the second plane strike was used by the media is contrary to the facts. I can think of four different media tapes right off the top of my head–the Fox News “Blue no-windows” tape, the shot from the north, the shot from the north-east, and the “nose-cone” shot from the west.
By attempting to cast doubt on the competence of amateur videographers who, in your world, don’t even own tripods, you sidestep the fact that any CGI-enhanced official video fantasy could potentially have its fraudulence shown by just one amateur, making a CGI-enhanced op impossibly risky.
The wings didn’t fold back in the towers because the perimeter columns were hollow box columns built (at that level) of 3/8″ or 1/4″ steel plate. the columns thus represented a negligible barrier, especially when you consider the fact that the fuel tanks in the wings carried 35 tons of fuel.
If the video shows, as the seems to, that the plane did not slow down when the wings hit the building, that does concern me and I think it’s worth investigating. But surrounding that issue with a bunch of other evidence-free speculations is not going to convince me to do it.
Mr. Good wrote:
True, I have scant evidence of elevated radiation levels to support milli-nukes, except in the deaths & ailments of first responders that other toxic mixtures (& poor health choices of the individuals) contributed to. On the other hand, the govt has no evidence of normal radiation levels, either. The metal and debris from ground zero were carted off in haste and under great security to be recycled & disposed of before it could be independently analyzed. They lead us to assume that they believed so forcefully in the meme of airplane impacts, jet fuel & office furniture fires, and gravitational collapses that standard operating procedures for suspicious fires & crime scenes were circumvented, like the testing for accelerants and plutonium.
Do I need to list the many examples of govt agency slow-walking, stone-walling, and scientific deceit with regards to 9/11 that should have us mistrust them across the board? Do I need to list all of the FOIA requests for information and data that haven’t been released, been released only in part or with massive redaction? The easiest piece of evidence to fake are the reports that supposedly analyze measurements or come to conclusions.
As I continue to cast doubt on official reports, here is a link and excerpt that are well worth exploring.
http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/rape-story-phillip-d-zelikow-911-myth-maker/
But this call to have me provide evidence of radiation levels to prove milli-nukes is a red-herring.
The evidence of milli-nukes does not depend on govt reports on radiation. The evidence ought to be obvious from the energy requirements of the totality of the destruction down to content pulverization and vaporization. The evidence is in the foundry-hot fires that burned under the rubble (without oxygen) for months. The evidence are the destroyed vehicles with anomalous burn patterns outside the radius of ejected or falling debris that no govt report has had the moxy to address. In fact, they let Dr. Judy Woods collect this evidence of EMP from milli-nukes on her website under the headings “space based weapons” or “directed energy weapons”, so that these truths can be buried with her DEW conclusions.
Mr. Good wrote:
Mr. Good, you are purposely skewing my claim. Whereas you can think of four different media tapes, I have probably seen a dozen used by the media. Were they all broadcsst live? No. They made it into the public sphere one at a time throughout the course of the day and week.
The point was that only one shot was close to being broadcast live, and it wasn’t without CGI errors. The other shots had more time to perfect the CGI, but have errors in terms of being inconsistent with one another as well as not representing the true modeling of crash & impact physics.
By your attempting to cast authenticity to the “amateur” videos, you discount the gatekeepers that the videos must go through in order to be aired (and what editing enhancements could be made.) If memory serves me, Evan had the shot looking up to a man and the tower behind him, and the man reacting to the aircraft’s impact & explosion. When interviewed, Evan had some weasel words that said he was surprised at what his aired footage contained as if something were inserted that he didn’t see before handing it over (but I won’t dwell on this.) Evan was not an amateur. The reflection of the plane off of the car windshield was a nice touch, but contrary to the optical physics laws regarding the angle of reflection; The cartoon impact itself with the plane showing no deceleration or deformation was also contrary to physics.
For the record, the only reason I suggested (as a Devil’s advocate) that the wings on the tower’s plane should have folded in was to make it consistent with the dubious Pentagon plane’s wings folding in when it hit brick and steel building face that was comparatively less strong than the towers.
For the sake of discussion, let’s assume commercial aircraft and let’s use your theory that the perimeter columns were hollow from 1/4″ steel plates. What were the plane’s wings made of? Aluminum and/or thin sheet metal. Thinner and weaker than 1/4″ steel, agreed? So why was the stronger material sliced like butter by the weaker material — all the way out to the wing tips like a road-runner cartoon? Owing to the window slits, why did the weaker material show no signs of being sliced up like a hard-boiled-egg-cutter? As for fuel tanks with fuel, sure, they added mass to the energy equation just like water in a water balloon, but if the wings and fuel tank themselves are made of light materials, that doesn’t give them extra physical properties to slice through steel.
A military aircraft is sturdier; a cruise missile is designed to penetrate hardened targets. Both can be guided in a precise manner. Other mechanisms can be deployed (by, say, Israeli performance artists) using computers to blast in the finished road-runner outline on the building. And this solves the very sticky problem of accurately modeling crash & impact physics, compounded by being real-time.
Evidence-free speculation? That is a bit harsh. Speculation? Sure.
Evidence-free? Quite the opposite.
In fact, the evidence has been there in plain sight, and you have already stated what concerns you and what you think is worth investigating. Namely, that the aircraft videos did not show accurate crash physics. The tail of the aircraft did not slow down when either the body or the wings hit the building. No parts of the plane, like even the tips of wings, tore from the plane and bounced off of the body. This, thereby being a decisive piece into validating speculation about CGI planes and how corporate media was complicit in duping us.
Or maybe your evidence-free phrase was aimed at milli-nukes? I’ve countered this above. Even without reports about radiation measurements, nuclear destruction is obvious, particularly in the video footage that they suppressed and are just now being made public. The destruction was a massive energy sink that a gravitational collapse could not explain. The video footage dispels pancaking from the get go.
If you haven’t already, you need to view these photographs from 9/11 FEMA Photographer Kurt Sonnenfeld.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_Day0y7Xa0&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py8A9nbc-UI&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD0FDna9kXs&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxMLQOMqM98&feature=player_embedded
Remember that this is not footage that was initially available.
When I, and I’m sure much of the world, see the vastness and completeness and thoroughness of the destruction, “nukes” has to come to mind. Look at how far those heavy box columns as complete sections were thrown and how deeply they were embedded in neighboring buildings.
When I look at the destruction, I speculate that the box columns were meant to contain the nuclear pulverization and vaporization of the internal content until they were separated by conventional (and unconventional) means and folded onto the pile. It is why little of the inside material is recognizable as anything at all.
It’s an intriguing concept, and you’re right, it would explain a lot. I hope to learn more about this.
Craig,
I fear you have been paying too much attention to elonce and have been led astray. Maybe if people who doubt the official story and assert that the imaginary planes and mini nukes theories are also tosh will have more sway on you.
As Brian says, the evidence simply does not exist. No matter how flowery his language elonce’s ideas of mini nukes and nonexistant planes are wrong. His inablity to see that is why I won’t enter discussion with him (and still won’t so it not worth him replying to me in a hope of engaging further discussion).
You have said on more than one occasion that you hope to learn more about what really happened. if that really is true, then I suggest you spend some time investigating why those ideas are wrong and make a post about your conclusions. Repeating the ideas and suggesting that they deserve some investigation is not the same. They don’t deserve any investigation because they are nonsense, the sooner you accept that the better.
You completely contradict yourself. You said, “…I suggest you spend some time investigating why those ideas are wrong and make a post about your conclusions.” So far, so good. Then you said, “They don’t deserve any investigation because they are nonsense, the sooner you accept that the better.”
But don’t you think ALL the “inside job” beliefs are equally wrong? Or are you saying that some ideas in this direction have more merit than others?
I think my approach is very reasonable. I admit I don’t know enough to either believe or disbelieve the nuke idea. And I don’t believe that I should reject something without knowledge either way. But notice I haven’t done a post on nukes? And the fact that I haven’t done a post on the video evidence also shows that I don’t want to speak without being more sure.
Regardless of which type of explosives were used, I believe more than ever that those buildings could not have come down without them. That`s the bottom line.
I will make this promise. I plan to look at any evidence I can find for or against these two controversial ideas. And if this indicates that they are as crazy as you say, then I will indeed write about it.
Fair enough Craig, in my enthusiasm I typed a contradiction. Of course I could wax lyrical about how investigation about why something is nonsense is not the same investigating it as fact :-). Either way, I am sure you understood what I meant, at least I hope you did.
Yes I do subscribe to the view that all the inside job beliefs are wrong, using equally depends on how you define it. I would say that some misconceptions are more understandable than others.
Re the milli nuke idea, its utterly wrong because the way a handful of nukes would decimate the building simply does not fit with the way the buildings collapsed. The explosives on each floor idea fits that better due to the regular rate of collapse. Both are of course wrong, the milli nukes idea is just easier to debunk.
Your statement about misconceptions is a point well taken. But when something potentially offers an explanation of an event on some level, I just instinctively rebel when someone tells me I shouldn’t even consider something. There are questions that no theories adequately explain for me. One is the melted cars blocks from the towers, and the other is the molten metal. No debunker has adequately explained this. So why would I reject a possible explanation without thought? I can always reject it later. I don’t believe the truth will be found if we let our biases block us from following interesting leads. That’s what having an open mind means.
Ah yes molten metal. The thing is, where does the idea of molten metal actually come from? Who said it and what were they talking about? Molten steel? I doubt that very much, molten aluminium, maybe, something else mistake? also maybe.
Certainly there were hot fires and yes making the steel hot enough to glow was possible. But hot enough to melt? I don’t buy it, not plausible at all. That machinery image you have with an orange glow on it is the single best image I have seen which purports to show molten metal (steel?). The thing is, molten steel is fluid, its can’t be picked up with a grabbing arm, it needs a bucket. Further more, steel that temperature would render the machine useless but boiling up the hydrolic fluid and melting bits of the machine itself. That machine pictured is simply not capable of picking up something as hot as molten steel.
Definitely think about something before ruling it out, that’s the essence of scepticism and being open minded. Yes I know I am very dismissive in my language, that’s because I’ve thought these things through and made my mind up a long time ago.
That’s fine as long as you allow others to think about them as well.
To the molten steel: you’re right that the picture does not show molten metal. I’m referring to numerous accounts, including one from Rudy Giuliani himself, that the site remained extremely hot for many weeks. He talked about workers boots melting after a few hours weeks after the event. The New York fire chief reported in December that the fires were finally out. As I pointed out in my post on the subject, among the people who reported seeing the molten metal pools was Leslie Robertson, a structural engineer who was involved in designer the WTC. I don’t think he, and all the firefighters who say they saw dripping molten metal in the sub-basements of the towers, were making it up. And don’t forget the aerial NASA thermal images that showed hot spots under all three fallen buildings two weeks after the collapse. There’s plenty of indication that something was going on under those buildings that hasn’t been explained. And they need to be.
Regarding Leslie Robertson, please see this link:
http://www.911myths.com/html/leslie_robertson.html
Some has gone to the trouble of trying to identify the source of that quote and even contact Mr Robertson himself.
This is what being open minded is about. Question the source and get to the facts.
If more people did that then there would be less of a problem. Instead this quote is banded about as though its true and holds some weight as evidence of molten steel, regardless of the lack of physical evidence.
Please please please question what the truth deniers say with the same veracity as you question what I say, otherwise you are not being open minded.
I agree about the essential need to check facts. I checked this link, and based on what I read I would have to agree with the author. This claim should be regarded with caution and should not be taken as definitive proof of molten metal. But it also shouldn’t be ruled out. It would be interesting to speak to someone else who was there. Based on this, I would refrain from referring to the alleged quote until the issue can be settled. That’s open-mindedness, too.
You keep saying there’s no physical evidence. Do you doubt that it took three months to extinguish all the fires? The fire chief said so. Do you disagree that there were temperatures hot enough to melt boots for weeks? Do you doubt that NASA took aerial thermal images that showed extreme temperatures two weeks after the collapse? Maybe you should do some fact checking.
If you read the post that you’re commenting on, you would see that I questioned the 9/11 truthers (sorry, I won’t adopt your judgmental nickname) aggressively, enough to be banned from 9/11 Blogger. And if you read my newest post, you’ll see criticisms of both sides.
People saying things is not physical evidence.
Of course I don’t doubt the longevity of the fires, nor that they were hot.
Please define ‘hot enough to melt boots’, where are the photos of said boots? Were peoples feet still in those boots when they apparently melted?
I suggest melted boots means that the part that was in direct contact with the hot surfaces got a bit soft and sticky as the heated surface of the boot soles melted a little. Hotter than that and the people wearing them would have suffered foot damage and I can find no mention of that at all.
Sometimes I can’t tell if you’re kidding or not. No evidence of foot damage?
No, people saying things is not proof, it’s just part of the picture. But there is footage (I’d have to figure out which documentary it was from) of firefighters talking about what I’ve described. Giuliani said boots melted. Why would he make that up? If you don’t doubt the fires, what difference does it make anyway.
The point is still that fires continued much longer than jet fuel or office supplies could possibly account for. And this was never mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. Why not?
What exactly do you think Giuliani meant by boots melted and on what basis do you think that?
Office supplies could not burn for that long? Is that your personal opinion or are you basing it on any evidence?
We’re not just talking about paper and pens here. There’s desks, chairs, ceiling tiles, carpets, blinds, some computer components, bedding (from the hotel suites) there is probably a long list of stuff in those towers that was flammable and it all came down into the pile. Tones and tones of the stuff.
I have no doubt that its possible that fires could have been maintained for that period of time from just the products in the buildings. This is stuff that burns a heck of a lot slower than thermite and people want me to believe that thermite kept it going for three months! The mountain of thermite that would be required to support a three month fire is significantly bigger than that required by the flammable items found in those buildings. The logic of thermite over the building contents as the fuel for the fires simply does not compute.
Note: I have tried to find some numbers for the volume of flammable materials likely to have been in the buildings and if there are any stats for length of fire based on that volume. I have failed, maybe you can do better.
I understand the doubts about thermite. This is one reason that elOnce has looked at the nuke idea. So far, his idea is looking better than either of ours. But I’m still uncommitted. The only thing I’m sure of is that we have not been told the truth.
I’m sorry, there’s no fact I can quote off the top of my head that would rule out the fire being office objects. Do you have any evidence that is WAS that? I just think it’s absurd to suggest that office materials burned for three months when they were being subjected to a steady barrage of water. This is so unlikely that I’m not prepared to spend any time researching it. If it were that, the 9/11 Commission wouldn’t have had to ignore the issue completely.
I don’t buy nukes for a couple of reasons. Firstly the collapse is too regular, its a steady bang bang bang as the floors fail. Something large like a nuke, yes even a suitcase nuke creates a large explosion, would create a noticable change in the collapse, both visibly and audibly. Even if the explosion didn’t expand past the building edge, there would be a noticeable change in the collapse dynamics.
Since there is nothing to indicate that sort of interruption to the collapse flow, nukes can be essentially eradicated.
The second reason is that you would hear the bang of the nuke, or see its flash or even feel the vibration, most likely all three. Nukes emit a pressure wave that goes further than the visible explosion. That would have shown up. I would even expect there to be seismic data to indicate a nuke.
Given none of the above, the nukes would have to be so small that even the pressure wave would have been contained within the building shell. Which means the nukes would be way too small to produce the other claimed effects of them, like fuel fires for three months, set cars on fire down the street etc…
So again, I can’t see where the logic of nukes can even remotely fit into any theory and remain credible.
Obviously, you know much more about “suitcase nukes” than I do. You know about how they would look in this case even though the people using these explosives would be trying to make it look like a pancake collapse. How you define “something large like a nuke” is beyond my knowledge. When you say “a noticeable change in the collapse dynamics” I don’t even know what you mean. I’m not sure you do, either. “Interruption to the collapse flow?” ??????
And now the nukes would be too small to account for the fires?
Bottom line: you have NO reasonable explanation for the fires. I’m not sure I do either, but I know we haven’t been told what happened.
Explain the melted cars!! I haven’t heard your neat and tidy explanation for that.
Thank you for the compliment on the levels of my knowledge but I am sure its unwarranted.
Large is in large explosion, not large physically. A nuke creates a huge explosion from a very small volume of source material. No I am not intimate with the inner workings of one, but I am logical enough to be able to work out that a large explosion of the type elonce advocates within a collapsing building will have a noticeable effect on the collapse which observers will be able to detect.
Its also worth noting that nuke material doesn’t burn like a fire, since its eradicated in the explosion, this was an unintended red herring. A nuke bringing down the buildings would still require something else to fuel the fires for 3 months, the nuke itself would not be the source of that. Since a significant part of the flammable insides of the buildings would also likely be vapourised as part of the nuke explosion(s), its unlikely that the fires would last as long. So even with nukes, you’re still left short of material to burn for those 3 months.
What melted cars? I’ve seen cars with melted alloy wheels in the basement car park (or was it a near by car park?) but yeah alloy wheels can melt when a car is on fire, all that pesky flammable stuff. I’ve also seen picture of cars with steel wheels that are not melted. Alloy wheels melt at a lower temp than steel wheel.
I’ve not seen pictures of melted cars though, just various stages of being burnt out.
Dear Mr. Limey,
You called me out by name and accuse me of leading Mr. McKee astray. To Mr. McKee and his readership: Please, if I am leading you, follow me only so far as I am right. Don’t let me lead you astray, and just as importantly, should I be in error, help this duped useful idiot get out the mire.
Possibly out of frustration with discussing 9/11 milli-nukes and media manipulation previously with me, Mr. Limey wrote on his blog:
The companion questions for Mr. Limey are: What if the incorrectly held view that refuses to be educated is your own? What if you are the one who continues to peddle nonsense to others?
I regret to inform him that his understanding of science has not improved since our last discussion. Case in point, Mr. Limey’s writes:
You should have doubts, Mr. Limey. The fires in question were under the rubble without sufficient supply of oxygen, which is a requirement of combustible materials typically found in the buildings. Were such air supplies present, such fires would not only burn slower than thermite, they would burn cooler, could have been extinguished much sooner, and would not have had the high thermal signature measured from satellites in space.
Mr. Limey writes:
It is true that a mountain of thermite would be required to support a 3 month fire. This is why thermite is beginning to look like a limited hangout that the 9/11 Truth Movement has been duped with. Of course, in comparing thermite with combustible building content (instead of milli-nukes), Mr. Limey has to ignore that the pile of combustible building content even with forced air and ideal conditions cannot burn at the temperatures needed to give us what was observed by satellite imagery as well as melted firemen’s boots. Remember, the fires in question had to heat a pile of assorted and in cases heat conducting material to the point that someone walking on the pile would melt their boots.
Mr. Limey wrote:
That is a misquote. Brian said that there was no evidence of radiation, and because of this milli-nukes was taken out of discussion by the 9/11 Truth Movement. The evidence of milli-nukes is very plentiful and does not rely on govt reports, which themselves have a precedence for being suspect.
Mr. Limey continues to peddle nonsense to others in his description of milli-nukes and the assumptions he assigns to it.
First of all, milli-nukes does not have to account for everything that was observed. If the culprits had the means to deploy any form of nukes, they had the means to employ redundant back-up demolition systems, possibly even involving thermite.
Point of fact: Construction efforts on an empty floor were heard by tenants below, who also observed construction dust on their furniture when they arrived at work in the mornings on the weeks leading up to 9/11. At some point, a curious tenant from below snuck a peek onto the floor with the construction and didn’t see anything (like offices or fixtures).
So, what was being constructed on those empty floors that resulted in so much commotion and dust yet yielded nothing? If it were related to milli-nukes, then I think it would have had two purposes. (1) Protect the nuke from whatever was going to strike the building. (2) Shield the nuke from other nukes. The nukes themselves would already be designed and positioned to direct their energies in useful directions, like in a narrow cone up and/or down.
Mr. Limey wrote:
Milli-nukes used individually are much harder to get to work than large nukes. They have a higher probability of fizzling rather than exploding. Due to the very long half life of these materials, they can fizzle a very long time. Milli-nukes used in tandem can cause neighboring nukes to fail (fracticide), fizzle, or otherwise not reach their explosive potential. Moreover, the blast from successful nukes in the series break up the material of fizzling nukes into many hot spots. This is where milli-nukes can logically explain the fires burning for three months: it was unexploded and fizzling material from fracticided nukes.
Mr. Limey acknowledges that cars down the street were set on fire, but says (erroneously) that milli-nukes couldn’t have done it. More interesting, is that Mr. Limey and the OGCT can’t explain how those cars burned. Later, Mr. Limey writes:
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html#toasted
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/moretoastedcars.html
Please ignore that the above website is an example of the limited hangout of spaced-based weapons and DEW. What is important are the pictures to the damage of cars. In particular on the first link, look at the sequence starting with Figure toast2a to toast4. It shows a parking lot at some distance from the collapsing towers and the cloud of dust rolling in. Then it shows fires starting to burn in various vehicles, but not all vehicles and not paper or other non-metallic debris.
Mr. Limey, how does the OGCT explain this? It doesn’t. It ignores this. Because DEW was discredited, the evidence of damage to cars kind of went with it.
How does milli-nukes explain it? Nukes have four destructive components: blast wave, heat, electrical magnetic pulse (EMP), and (long-term) radiation. The design of the weapon and where it is deployed allow these yields to be dialed in somewhat. Because the detonation happened within the structure, the EMP component was more or less constrained… except for the window slits on the building.
What does an EMP do? The EMP goes line-of-sight from the detonation and depends upon distance & duration. The EMP will generate extremely high currents inside of metal that it hits. The high currents produce high heat, which causes the paint to burn off and neighboring components (gaskets, door handles) to catch on fire. Gaps between car components (like doors, hood) helped electrically isolate components while the high currents were induced. Vehicle orientation to the EMP as well as partial blocking & shading from the line of sight EMP can account for the anomalous burn patterns.
Want more evidence of milli-nukes? Look at the following pictures. Ask yourself Occam Razor, whether milli-nukes can explain these (originally suppressed) images or whether gravitational collapses could?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_Day0y7Xa0&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py8A9nbc-UI&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD0FDna9kXs&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxMLQOMqM98&feature=player_embedded
If you want more information about milli-nukes, here is a good place to start:
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com
As I’ve said before, I agree that the explanations currently on the table (gravitational collapse and conventional explosives, with or without thermite) leave unanswered questions. The two most intriguing, as you point out, are molten metal (sorry Limey, but we know it was there) and burned cars. I’m still waiting to hear that explanation that would confirm the official story while explaining these two phenomena. I’m not holding my breath.
ElOnce, I’d love to read more about the science behind small nuclear devices of the kind that might have been used here. Any suggestions?
So now its molten metal instead of steel. I am fairly sure there was some molten metal, most likely aluminium, but its possible there were other metals too. Car alloy wheels is another possibility. Molten steel though, definately not, there simply were not any temps high enough to melt steel.
Cars could have easily caught fire from hot or burning debris falling onto them. After all there were still fires buring when the collapses started so its inevitable that further fires would have been the result of that burning debris falling from a long way up and going goodness knows where.
Here’s an interesting idea, on a map of the city, plot the spots where cars caught fire and then draw an outline of the extents of the dust cloud. See if there is any correlation.
Haven’t we been over this already? Your comments about “molten metals” like aluminum being responsible for what multiple witnesses have talked about is simply not to be taken seriously. In fact, nothing you say in this comment is to be taken seriously. Cars half a mile away having their door handles burned off? ElOnce gave you the link to see the photos. That’s not falling debris. But believe what you wish. It seems to me that serious examination of the evidence is something you’re not at all interested in.
Dear Mr. McKee,
Yes, indeed, Mr. Limey has covered it before, and better, than his lame attempt now. His purpose isn’t to convince you. His purpose is to wear you and your readership down with his wimpy-ass repetition of nonsense.
Notice how he always tries to put the onus on you to do research and substantiate your claims, or worse, to go after a wild-goose chase to refute something else, which is what his “plot the spots where cars caught fire and then draw an outline of the extents of the dust cloud” ploy is.
Mr. Limey, if there were particles on fire in the dust cloud, they would have affected the office paper that litter the streets as well as lots of other things (like people’s clothing), not just the metal in vehicles. What you haven’t answered is why it was just the metal in vehicles? And those toasty particles, aside from not having an explanation from a gravitational collapse with some remnants of an office fire ignited by jet fuel about 80 stories up that you doggedly champion like a good little Q-groupie, would have produced “speckled” burn marks on the cars, which they did not.
If you would have reviewed the evidence of the toasted cars that I provided for you 2 or 3 times in the links to Dr. Judy Woods’ website, you would have discovered that she did your plot suggestion one better. She used a Google maps street image and marked where the damaged cars were found so that you could see what buildings may or may have not been in the way to allow or block the electrical magnetic pulse (EMP) from the nuclear device(s) detonated in the towers.
Like I said, the links with the images and maps were provided. It does not speak well for you not to have addressed them, because it means either that you were too lazy or that you are purposely being obtuse. I’ve seen your ilk before, so I vote for the latter. How much do you Q-groupies get paid to post? And how much does it throw your game off that you can’t just run-at-the-mouth with a string of insults in this forum to run down your opponents? Without those ad hominem’s, it really kind of exposes the weakness of your arguments, doesn’t it?
Your blog and Mr. Rational’s blog appear to be nothing more than training blogs for Q-groupie disinformation that you had the misfortune of Mr. McKee and me stumbling upon. I feel sorry for you, because your performance evaluation this next period based on your comments and blog postings in comparison to your opponents’ logic and arguments is going to knock you down a pay grade or two. I hope you can still feed your family.
El Once
Yes, we have been through it before and again you have failed to come up with a reason for rejecting my comments or even a scientific justification. You have simply stated you can’t, or won’t, take them seriously. Try coming up with a scientific response please.
Look into the reasons seriously rather than rejecting what I say simply because I have a different opinion than yourself.
Of course there would be molten aluminium, its the dominant metal used in plan construction and it melts at the temperatures experienced.
You find it difficult to accept that hot or even firey debris found its way half a mile from the towers, having fallen quite a large distance? Gosh.
When you’re given scientific explanations, you just find a way to ignore them. You explain nothing with your account of what happened. And to say I reject your opinion just because it’s different is just dumb. I’ve given clear reasons why I question the official story, and all you come back with is speculation. Do steel buildings that fall because of fire usually have molten pools of aluminum that stay molten for months? Oh, I forgot, steel building don’t fall because of fire. Only this day. And your explanation for the melted cars so far away is pitiful.
I’ve not seen you give a scientific explanation yet.
You’re forgetting that these steel framed buildings had very heavy airliners crash into them, damaging much of the structure and removing the fire protection from large sections of the steel. Planes that were made from aluminium. Thats where the molten alumium came from.
Molten for months? Are you really sure about that? Are you certain that the person/people you quoting here said it had remained molten for months? Are you sure they were not recalling having seen evidence of molten metal that had since cooled and solidified into a mess? The latter would still be obvious that it had once been molten. Think very carefully and be very sure that if you persist in claiming that it was molten for months that you have more than just verbal quotes. Photos really do need to be presented to show molten metal 3 months later.
It wouldn’t matter what explanation, scientific or not, that I gave you; you’d keep your blinders on and keep repeating your mantra.
I assure you that I’m not forgetting about the “heavy” airliners. You have no science to explain why buildings designed to withstand multiple plane impacts would fall so easily and so quickly. It’s laughable how you state things like they’re fact when you have no idea. “That’s where the molten aluminum came from.”???? How do you know?
And it was the New York fire chief who pronounced the fires out in December. But he’s not probably a credible source, according to you.
“multiple airliners”? Are you sure? The only reference to impacts I can find that were considered during the design of the towers is that of a relatively low speed impact of the type suffered by the empire state building previously. The assumption, as far as I can tell, was of a plane lost in fog slowing to landing speed and low on fuel. I can find no assertion of designed for multiple impacts except on conspiracy websites.
This is not the type of impact the towers sustained. They took impacts at much higher speed and from planes with a fuller load of fuel.
The other point of note is that the buildings did survive very well from the impacts. Look how long they stood before eventually falling.
The opinion I read is that it was the fire proofing that was the Achilles heal of the buildings. It just wasn’t sufficient and if it that proofing hadn’t been damaged by the impacts the events of that day would have been very different.
Yes, I’m sure. Where do you get your information? It’s very easy to find this. Here’s a statement from Frank DeMartini, the manager of construction and product management for the World Trade Center until he died on Sept. 11, 2001.
He said: “The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door — this intense grid — and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”
The buildings survived very well? You call falling after 56 minutes surviving well?
“It’s laughable how you state things like they’re fact when you have no idea. “That’s where the molten aluminum came from.”???? How do you know?”
Well considering they didn’t pull of of the plane pieces out of the wreckage, the planes had to disappear somewhere. Melting of the planes aluminium is entirely plausible, given that it melts at the temperatures experienced. Of course there are other aluminium sources in the buildings, like ducting and lifts.
To repeat myself, I have no doubt at all that molten metal was seen, what I question is how long it was molten for. I doubt it was molten for the whole 3 months. Trying to find good evidence of how much molten metal and exactly where it was located is proving more difficult than I expected. I think knowing those two facts would be very helpful in working out what it was that was reported by eyewitnesses as molten metal.
You did it again. You support the molten aluminum idea by saying that the planes had to go somewhere. More circular logic. Once again, the three month time frame came from the New York City fire chief. But maybe he doesn’t know as much about fires as you do? I plan another post on this subject in the next few days, if only to respond to your repeated doubts on the subject.
Note how he said designed for a (singular) and that he believed they could withstand multiple. If you are going to quote mine get the context right. So again, where is the evidence that they were designed to withstand multiple impacts?
Also, fully loaded does not indicate speed, just how full. The design consideration was, as I already said, a plane on approach, that was slowing to landing speed.
But there was only ONE plane! I think your objections are getting beyond ridiculous, and I’m beginning to wonder whether there’s any point in continuing this line of debate. You seem to deliberately ignore common sense and reason at every turn.
Dear Mr. Limey,
I agree with Mr. McKee that you are being deliberately illogical. You continually make speculative statements without substantiation and expect Mr. McKee to do your legwork in proving it (or rejecting it).
And on more than one occasion, you have kicked up sand, an example of which is the heat conductivity of steel. Yes, other materials are more conductive, but steel is still damn good. Thus, if you were to attribute the collapse of the building to fires weakening the steel, you have to scientifically prove it, which you haven’t. The sticky points start with the fact that jet fuel and office furniture cannot reach the temperatures needed to weaken (or soften) steel. Entertaining this unscientific notion, though, the duration of the fires have to be sufficient to overcome steel’s capacity in this interconnected structure to wick heat away from the localized spot; we have video evidence and dead-firemen’s testimony to disprove this. In fact, this evidence disproves your theory that the fires were so hot that they melted the aluminum of the plane into nothing. Furthermore, asymmetric fires do not lead to symmetric weakening and collapse, which is what was observed.
Next, you try to twist that the energy from the impacts of the planes traveling at that high speed contributed significantly to the structural failure. How was it possible that the commercial planes could even physically fly at the speed you attribute to them? That max speed is at high altitude, not at sea level. At sea level, the air resistance would make the commercial planes impossible to control and target. How was it that the commercial plane exhibited no crash physics upon impact with the towers?
I am not saying that the towers were not hit by flying objects traveling at high speeds. I am saying that it was most likely a smaller & sturdier military aircraft (or cruise missile) that could fly at sea level at that speed and penetrate the building. We have ample evidence of media complicity and manipulation of footage and cheerleading for the OGCT from the word “go”. Pixels of a commercial aircraft were inserted to mask what really hit the towers.
You wrote:
So now you are saying that the commercial planes disappeared from the wreckage. You explanation seems to be that raging fires in the towers melted them to nothing in the 45-60 minutes before the towers collapsed, yet you can’t scientifically explain where the raging fires came and how they had the ability to vaporize a plane and weaken steel damn-near symmetrically.
Like the Thomas Pynchon quote:
Looking for commercial plane and explaining their disappearance from the rubble is asking the wrong question. Commercial planes [from the perspective of what hit the towers] probably never existed.
Trying to attribute symmetrical and complete destruction to fires from jet fuel and office furniture is asking the wrong question.
If you’ve got one or more milli-nukes deployed to clean up after yourself, everything that you dance around is easily explained, including the disappearance of any size aircraft.
El Once
An excellent dismantling of Mr. Limey’s “information.”
Yes there was only one plane, but that wan’t the point.
The point is you said the towers were designed to withstand multiple aircraft impacts. I have questioned that claim and asked for the evidence to support it. Since you accuse me of making statements without factual backing, its only fair that you don’t do the same.
Someone saying they believe they could withstand multiple impacts is not evidence of design criteria.
The best I could find on the design criteria of the buildings is that an impact was considered, though I have failed to find any documentary evidence of what exactly that criteria was. The internet speculation is what I have repeated above, which is a weaker impact than what was actually experienced.
So, to repeat myself, can you factually back up your claim that the towers were designed for multiple impacts?
Dear Mr. Limey,
My apologies for replying at a higher level in this thread to what I’m actually responding to.
You are an absolute wonder, Mr. Limey, and a stellar example. If readers had any doubts about the NSA Q-Group or Sunstein’s infiltration views put into operation, you seal the deal, baby.
I suspect that you are trying to be so obstinate and difficult that Mr. McKee will do a “9/11 Blogger” nasty by banning you from his blog or heavily moderating your comments. Won’t that be something great that you can write about on your own blog?
At this point, you need to confer with Mr. C. Plumber regarding special pleadings and cop a plea.
Because if I were to ask you to find the govt reports that explain the damage to 1400 vehicles from the gravitational collapse of the towers, you will come up empty handed.
Tell me. Of the pictures of toasted vehicles on Dr. Woods website (links provided multiple times), which ones impressed you the most?
Me? I like the fire truck that had its front end melted in but not anything from the cab backwards, because I think that part of the vehicle was somehow shaded or not oriented properly to the line-of-sight EMP. I also like the police vehicles, like the one that had such high induced currents that the resulting heat melted the thin supports connecting the roof to the body causing the roof to cave in. (How’d your wafty burning embers do that?)
The melted firetruck is my favourite, too. I can’t imagine what conventional heat source could have done that.
Dear Mr. Limey wrote in a very deje vu sense:
I pick up your quote and your very words and fling it back at you with regards to you explaining how an office furniture fire that was initiated with jet fuel 80 some stories up managed to heat the metal in vehicles, many out of the path of falling debris, to the point that plastic door handles were burned off and other anomalous burn patterns occurred.
Mr. Limey continues with:
Yes, I find that hard to accept, and in your scientific response you should explain why that supposed flaming debris was not evident in videos, why it didn’t get paper, why it didn’t get clothing or people, why it focused on metal (iron/steel) in vehicles, and why a nuclear EMP explains it Occam Razor. Appreciate it, Mr. Limey.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, here is an interesting quotation out of a censored 9/11 article about Increased Tensions with Unresolved 9/11 Issues.
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/14-increased-tensions-with-unresolved-911-issues/
Mr. Limey, say “hello” to Professor Sunstein the next time you see him.
El Once
Hmmmm…banned eh?
I assume the article by Gerard Holmgren is the “fruit loop” article.
I was just wondering if the Irish were really meant to consume their young?
However, in all seriousness, I agree that “Instead of discouraging new truthers by mocking(…)it might be a better strategy to strengthen the case with views we hold in common.”
I’ll reserve comment on the Irish thing, but we do need to find common ground. Some of those who attack others in the movement do so with less than benign motives, unfortunately.
curious…please elaborate on “less than benign”. do you mean: destroy from within?
that would make sense.
Yes, “destroy from within” is exactly it. Some people wish to splinter the movement so that it falls apart. They pretend to believe in the goal of exposing government complicity, but they try to take the discussion in directions that will ultimately discredit the truth movement.
Knowing about HAARP, one thing that can be certain is that during the 9/11 the two airplanes that nobody ever met (that supposedly the first fell into a field and the second that was going to crash into the Pentagon), were destroyed from space by the U.S. military from a secret satellite using HAARP’s technology, a laser ray or similar.
So only a few fragments were recovered in an area considerably larger than would be expected for a “normal” impact.
The ethical part is that at the Pentagon crash to protect their secret weapon, they pretended a crash killing “a few” civilians.