Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Evan Burton]

Jack,

I'm sorry but I'm not clear on what you said: not the same image? Not the same flight? Could you make your disagreement a little clearer? Thanks.

Ron, request you give your response on this as well, thanks.

[Ron Ecker]

Evan,

The photo that Jack posted looks like the pod extends along the whole length of the fuselage. But of course the photo is far from clear, and some kind of odd reflection cannot be ruled out. I wanted your opinion on this issue, but I agree with those who say that arguing about whether or not there was a pod, plane substitution, etc. detracts from the 9/11 debate, which is basically about the fact that the whole story of 9/11 has not been told, as attested by the many unanswered questions, which the commission refused to ask.

It's my guess that the aircraft were remotely controlled, because the conspirators would not depend on Atta and his ragtag bunch to hit the targets. (And Dov Zakheim's background in aircraft control systems is another one of those dadgum coincidences.) You have stated that it would take a lot of training or practice to fly these planes remotely. Well, I would imagine they had all the time in the world to train and practice this exercise.

[Maggie Hansen]

The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors.

Evan, This building was a concrete framed building as stated above from your article. I believe Jack and the Skeptosis blog are referring to steel framed buildings. The WTC 1, 2 & 7 were steel framed.

Edited April 25, 2008 by Maggie Hansen

[Evan Burton]

Evan,

The photo that Jack posted looks like the pod extends along the whole length of the fuselage. But of course the photo is far from clear, and some kind of odd reflection cannot be ruled out. I wanted your opinion on this issue, but I agree with those who say that arguing about whether or not there was a pod, plane substitution, etc. detracts from the 9/11 debate, which is basically about the fact that the whole story of 9/11 has not been told, as attested by the many unanswered questions, which the commission refused to ask.

It's my guess that the aircraft were remotely controlled, because the conspirators would not depend on Atta and his ragtag bunch to hit the targets. (And Dov Zakheim's background in aircraft control systems is another one of those dadgum coincidences.) You have stated that it would take a lot of training or practice to fly these planes remotely. Well, I would imagine they had all the time in the world to train and practice this exercise.

Ron,

It's quite true that in the correct circumstances they would have had the necessary time to train for such an event.

If we extend that, however, why is it not possible they could not have replaced a number of flights in case one failed? Why were there not multiple crashes (which might have been explained)?

You mentioned "the commision refused to ask"; just how many questions? Seriously, just how many are questions? If you think there are many, can you hypothesise why the numerous professional airline pilot groups are not asking questions? Why the professional aircraft engineering groups are not asking questions?

[Evan Burton]

The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors.

Evan, This building was a concrete framed building as stated above from your article. I believe Jack and the Skeptosis blog are referring to steel framed buildings. The WTC 1, 2 & 7 were steel framed.

Okay, so what is the point of all the articles?

That concrete is more resistant to fire? That steel framed building are more suscepible to collapse from fire?

I appreciate that you are not an expert on this subject, but neither am I.... but what is your take on the subject, based on the preceding articles? That steel framed buildings can collapse given fire heating them, or that concrete framed buildings are less susceptible to fire damage?

[Maggie Hansen]

The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors.

Evan, This building was a concrete framed building as stated above from your article. I believe Jack and the Skeptosis blog are referring to steel framed buildings. The WTC 1, 2 & 7 were steel framed.

Okay, so what is the point of all the articles?

That concrete is more resistant to fire? That steel framed building are more suscepible to collapse from fire?

I appreciate that you are not an expert on this subject, but neither am I.... but what is your take on the subject, based on the preceding articles? That steel framed buildings can collapse given fire heating them, or that concrete framed buildings are less susceptible to fire damage?

Well, my general take on it would be (from these articles and the NIST GCR 02-843 report. ) that steel framed building are stronger than concrete framed ones.

The NIST survey of 22 fire-induced building collapses from 1970-20021 identified a variety of conditions, materials, locations, and buildings. Fifteen cases were from the U.S., two from Canada, and five from Europe, Russia, and South America. The numbers of fire collapse events can be categorized by building material as follows:

* Concrete: 7 (1 in Pentagon 9-11 event)

* Structural steel: 6 (4 in 9-11 WTC events)

* Brick/Masonry: 5

* Wood: 2

* Unknown: 2

You will note that of the 6 structural steel buildings quoted above from the report 4 of them were the WTC buildings 1, 2, 5, 7. All of these buildings collapsed totally. Of the other two remaining buildings One New York Plaza (NY, NY, 08/05/70) and Alexis Nihon Plaza (Montreal, Canada, 10/26/96) these were only a partial collapse.

1. One New York Plaza (NY, NY, 08/05/70) - partial collapse

50-story office building. Fire caused several steel filler beams on the 33-34th floors to fall and rest on the bottom flanges of their supporting girders.

2. Alexis Nihon Plaza (Montreal, Canada, 10/26/96) - partial collapse

15-story steel-framed office building. Approximately five hours after the fire started, a section of the 11th floor collapsed onto the 10th floor.

Ergo WTC buildings 1, 2, 5, and 7 are the only steel (not reinforced concrete structures) ever to have completely collapsed due to 'fire'.

Edit: Building 5 of WTC was only a partial collapse not complete.

Edited April 25, 2008 by Maggie Hansen

[Maggie Hansen]

It might also be that reinforced concrete does expand more during a fire and that this may create structural weakness but that is my impression from the article also. In any case you need to compare apples with apples. Steel structure building are not concrete structure buildings any more than brick is the same as timber.

[Evan Burton]

Maggie,

My first impression is that you are wrong, that steel construction is more suscepible than concrete... but I don't have anythong more than my uninformed opinion to back that up at this stage.

I'll get back to you tomorrow night with some answers (I am at work tomorrow from 0800 CST on the help desk, so won't be able to spend time here - take note Jack).

[Ron Ecker]

You mentioned "the commision refused to ask"; just how many questions? Seriously, just how many are questions? If you think there are many, can you hypothesise why the numerous professional airline pilot groups are not asking questions? Why the professional aircraft engineering groups are not asking questions?

I'm not talking about aircraft questions, I'm talking about questions covering the whole gamut of events and coincidences that day. The family steering committee gave the commission a laundry list of questions that should have been answered, and the commission simply refused to ask them, such as, for example, why the Secretary of Defense and the the Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs were literally hiding in offices, incommunicado, until the attacks were over. What were they afraid of that prevented them from coming out and joining the curious with America under attack?

Edited April 25, 2008 by Ron Ecker

[Jack White]

The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors.

Evan, This building was a concrete framed building as stated above from your article. I believe Jack and the Skeptosis blog are referring to steel framed buildings. The WTC 1, 2 & 7 were steel framed.

Okay, so what is the point of all the articles?

That concrete is more resistant to fire? That steel framed building are more suscepible to collapse from fire?

I appreciate that you are not an expert on this subject, but neither am I.... but what is your take on the subject, based on the preceding articles? That steel framed buildings can collapse given fire heating them, or that concrete framed buildings are less susceptible to fire damage?

Well, my general take on it would be (from these articles and the NIST GCR 02-843 report. ) that steel framed building are stronger than concrete framed ones.

The NIST survey of 22 fire-induced building collapses from 1970-20021 identified a variety of conditions, materials, locations, and buildings. Fifteen cases were from the U.S., two from Canada, and five from Europe, Russia, and South America. The numbers of fire collapse events can be categorized by building material as follows:

* Concrete: 7 (1 in Pentagon 9-11 event)

* Structural steel: 6 (4 in 9-11 WTC events)

* Brick/Masonry: 5

* Wood: 2

* Unknown: 2

You will note that of the 6 structural steel buildings quoted above from the report 4 of them were the WTC buildings 1, 2, 5, 7. All of these buildings collapsed totally. Of the other two remaining buildings One New York Plaza (NY, NY, 08/05/70) and Alexis Nihon Plaza (Montreal, Canada, 10/26/96) these were only a partial collapse.

1. One New York Plaza (NY, NY, 08/05/70) - partial collapse

50-story office building. Fire caused several steel filler beams on the 33-34th floors to fall and rest on the bottom flanges of their supporting girders.

2. Alexis Nihon Plaza (Montreal, Canada, 10/26/96) - partial collapse

15-story steel-framed office building. Approximately five hours after the fire started, a section of the 11th floor collapsed onto the 10th floor.

Ergo WTC buildings 1, 2, 5, and 7 are the only steel (not reinforced concrete structures) ever to have completely collapsed due to 'fire'.

Edit: Building 5 of WTC was only a partial collapse not complete.

Maggie....contrary to your information, Building FIVE DID NOT COLLAPSE, but

had three holes punched in the roof. See below.

Jack

[Maggie Hansen]

Maggie....contrary to your information, Building FIVE DID NOT COLLAPSE, but

had three holes punched in the roof. See below.

Yes Jack, I stand corrected. I realised after I posted that there was some differences with building 5 and I tried to edit for that.

Evan My first impression is that you are wrong, that steel construction is more suscepible than concrete... but I don't have anythong more than my uninformed opinion to back that up at this stage.

The NIST survey of 22 fire-induced building collapses from identified a variety of conditions, materials, locations, and buildings. Fifteen cases were from the U.S., two from Canada, and five from Europe, Russia, and South America. The numbers of fire collapse events can be categorized by building material as follows:

* Concrete: 7 (1 in Pentagon 9-11 event)

* Structural steel: 6 (4 in 9-11 WTC events)

* Brick/Masonry: 5

* Wood: 2

* Unknown: 2

Evan, look again at this list. This is the list from the NIST survey of fire induced collapses from years 1970 to 2002. Even if you accept that the WTC towers were destroyed by fire that still only makes 6 steel structures destroyed versus 7 concrete ones. Last time I checked 6 was still less than 7. More concrete building were destroyed by fire than steel structured ones. If you take away the WTC and Pentagon buildings from consideration it comes down to 2 steel framed buildings and 6 concrete buildings ever destroyed by fire induced collapse.

The NIST report also goes on to list the many steel-framed buildings that have suffered extensive fire damage and NOT collapsed:

* One Meridian Plaza -

38 floors, no sprinklers, 18-hour fire, no collapse.

* Mercantile Credit Insurance Building -

12 floors, no sprinklers, fire burnout of floors 8-10, no collapse.

* Broadgate Phase 8 -

14 floors, mostly not fire protected, no sprinklers, 4.5-hour fire, temperatures up to 1000C, no collapse.

* First Interstate Bank -

62 floors, no sprinklers, 3.5-hour fire, no collapse.

[Len Colby]

Evan My first impression is that you are wrong, that steel construction is more suscepible than concrete... but I don't have anythong more than my uninformed opinion to back that up at this stage.

The NIST survey of 22 fire-induced building collapses from identified a variety of conditions, materials, locations, and buildings. Fifteen cases were from the U.S., two from Canada, and five from Europe, Russia, and South America. The numbers of fire collapse events can be categorized by building material as follows:

* Concrete: 7 (1 in Pentagon 9-11 event)

* Structural steel: 6 (4 in 9-11 WTC events)

* Brick/Masonry: 5

* Wood: 2

* Unknown: 2

Evan, look again at this list. This is the list from the NIST survey of fire induced collapses from years 1970 to 2002. Even if you accept that the WTC towers were destroyed by fire that still only makes 6 steel structures destroyed versus 7 concrete ones. Last time I checked 6 was still less than 7. More concrete building were destroyed by fire than steel structured ones. If you take away the WTC and Pentagon buildings from consideration it comes down to 2 steel framed buildings and 6 concrete buildings ever destroyed by fire induced collapse.

Maggie such a comparison is only relevant if we know the relative number of steel and concrete framed buildings. In Brazil at least steel framed buildings are in the over whelming minority. What the Windsor building fire showed is that stupid comparisons to Coleman stoves aside structural steel IS susceptible to fire and in relatively short time frames under the right (or should I say wrong?) conditions. Several smaller steel framed buildings other structures have collapsed or partially collapsed in fires.

Including:

The Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania(1)

The McCormick Center in Chicago (1)

A Toy factory in Bangkok (2)

A few other small buildings (1)

A highway over pass in Oakland CA (3)

You mentioned the Meridian building while it didn’t collapse the Philadelphia fire department and structural engineers feared it might (1).

I don’t think anyone on this forum is qualified to say whether steel or concrete franes are more fire resistant. The Windsor fire suggests the latter. Also a UC Berkley engineer who led one of the four major studies o fthe WTC collapses advocated coating steel elements of brides and overpasses to make the more fire resistant (3)

Dr. Mir M. Ali, a professor of architecture at the University of Illinois said. "It's better to build in reinforced concrete, If there is an impact, crash or explosion, it can absorb the energy better. That makes the building less vulnerable…The trend is toward more concrete…An all-concrete structure would have lasted longer [than the Twin Towers]." (4)

1 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/4358

2 http://web.archive.org/web/20070307071310/...h=0&ssect=0

3 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan...pass_05-10.html

4 http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/NYTimes91801.htm

Edited April 25, 2008 by Len Colby

[Evan Burton]

Ron,

I agree reference the pod distraction although we disagree on it's significance. I admit it would have been possible to have a 767 RPV, but I see no actual evidence of that. The "pod" is not required for the aircraft to become an RPV; all the necessary mods would be internal. Any large additional electronics could be mounted in the cabin area.

The USAF has been converting their superseded fighters to drones for some time. They normally use them for missile practice. Here is an image of one:

Can you see any pods or otherwise distinguishing it as a QF-4? The bulges on the spine are normal for the aircraft - not a drone mod. The aircraft looks exactly the same as a regular F-4. The two giveaways are:

- DayGlo orange on the wingtips and extremities; and

- No crew in the cockpits!

(Actually, I suspect there may be a small aerial somewhere underneath or possibly near the tail, replacing one of the regular UHF antennas. If you were very intimate with the particular version, you might notice)

So to my way of thinking, if you did substitute a drone aircraft for the real flight, you'd have to make sure that the drone was indistinguishable from a regular 767. The presence of a pod goes against this (different from the regular aircraft), and would not be required for a drone. A pod defeats the purpose of the drone.

Some have said it contained some type of missile. Why have a missile? Oh, to create that hole in the building.

But again - why? In case the aircraft missed? That's silly; if the aircraft missed hitting the building, then having a missile explode on the building would be HIGHLY suspicious.

To make a hole for the aircraft? Again, not backed up by facts. An aircraft hitting the building would contain FAR more energy than anything less than a bloody huge missile; far larger than could even be hoped to be concealed. It would be painfully obvious that it was an external store, and once again defeats the purpose of pretending to be a regular 767.

Plain and simple - it does not fit. The pod is a fantasy. It is explained by the light, shadow, aspect, film quality, etc. Trying to explain a pod on the aircraft, associated with some nefarious 9/11 plan, immediately defeats it's own existence!

Edited April 25, 2008 by Evan Burton

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Evan My first impression is that you are wrong, that steel construction is more suscepible than concrete... but I don't have anythong more than my uninformed opinion to back that up at this stage.

The NIST survey of 22 fire-induced building collapses from identified a variety of conditions, materials, locations, and buildings. Fifteen cases were from the U.S., two from Canada, and five from Europe, Russia, and South America. The numbers of fire collapse events can be categorized by building material as follows:

* Concrete: 7 (1 in Pentagon 9-11 event)

* Structural steel: 6 (4 in 9-11 WTC events)

* Brick/Masonry: 5

* Wood: 2

* Unknown: 2

Evan, look again at this list. This is the list from the NIST survey of fire induced collapses from years 1970 to 2002. Even if you accept that the WTC towers were destroyed by fire that still only makes 6 steel structures destroyed versus 7 concrete ones. Last time I checked 6 was still less than 7. More concrete building were destroyed by fire than steel structured ones. If you take away the WTC and Pentagon buildings from consideration it comes down to 2 steel framed buildings and 6 concrete buildings ever destroyed by fire induced collapse.

---------------------

Maggie such a comparison is only relevant if we know the relative number of steel and concrete framed buildings. In Brazil at least steel framed buildings are in the over whelming minority. What the Windsor building fire showed is that stupid comparisons to Coleman stoves aside structural steel IS susceptible to fire and in relatively short time frames under the right (or should I say wrong?) conditions. Several smaller steel framed buildings other structures have collapsed or partially collapsed in fires.

Including:

The Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania(1)

The McCormick Center in Chicago (1)

A Toy factory in Bangkok (2)

A few other small buildings (1)

A highway over pass in Oakland CA (3)

You mentioned the Meridian building while it didn’t collapse the Philadelphia fire department and structural engineers feared it might (1).

I don’t think anyone on this forum is qualified to say whether steel or concrete franes are more fire resistant. The Windsor fire suggests the latter. Also a UC Berkley engineer who led one of the four major studies o fthe WTC collapses advocated coating steel elements of brides and overpasses to make the more fire resistant (3)

Dr. Mir M. Ali, a professor of architecture at the University of Illinois said. "It's better to build in reinforced concrete, If there is an impact, crash or explosion, it can absorb the energy better. That makes the building less vulnerable…The trend is toward more concrete…An all-concrete structure would have lasted longer [than the Twin Towers]." (4)

1 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/4358

2 http://web.archive.org/web/20070307071310/...h=0&ssect=0

3 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan...pass_05-10.html

4 http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/NYTimes91801.htm

----------

Len writes:

The Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania(1)

The McCormick Center in Chicago (1)

A Toy factory in Bangkok (2)

A few other small buildings (1)

A highway over pass in Oakland CA (3)

Intending to conflate these in some ways with high skyscrapers. This is far beyone apples and oranges. Combined with these words "or partially collapsed"

we are in the realm of apples and Japanes-constructed street cleaners. Come on Len, we know your swimming downstream, but you could at least kick now and then!

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Postscript

The BBC broadcast occurred just as I have reported it. You can find it on YouTube, for example, where reporter Jane Stanley is stating that "The Solomon Brothers Building" has collapsed and over her left shoulder you can see WTC-7 in the background. No steel structure high-rise had ever collapsed before due to fire, yet we are supposed to believe that on 9/11 it happened three times!

Significantly, I returned to Madison only to discover a series of recent posts that confirm the themes of my presentation. One was a report of Benjamin Netanyahu telling an audience at Bar Ilan University that the 9/11 terror attacks “were good for Israel”. Netanyahu, by the way, just happens to be a close personal friend of Larry Silverstein. These relationships are important to understanding 9/11.

Disturbingly, there were also several reports about studies that have been done of the consequences of a nuclear attack on Washington, D.C. They suggest that an attack with a nuclear device near The White House would kill around 100,000 people and flatten federal buildings. The panel that called for these studies is chaired by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), Israel’s strongest ally in the Senate.

The New York Times (20 April 2008) has now published an extensive study confirming that the Pentagon and the mass media have used “independent military experts” with massive conflicts of interest to evaluate progress in Iraq. And, to my astonishment, The Times (24 April 2008) reported that General Michael Hayden, the Director of the CIA, will resign his commission but continue with his position during the coming summer.

Additional links:

Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel (16 April 2008)

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/975574.html

Nuclear attack on D.C. a hypothetical disaster (16 April 2008)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d.../556828862/1001

Risk of Nuclear Attack on Rise (16 April 2008)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8041502969.html

Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand (20 April 2008)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washingt...amp;oref=slogin

C.I.A. Director Announces He’ll Retire from Air Force (24 April 2008)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/washingt...rtner=BREITBART

MORE ABOUT THIS ARTICLE:

9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda (with links)

http://911scholars.org (scroll down the home page)

9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda (slightly edited with illustrations and links)

http://www.amfirstbooks.com/IntroPages/Too...Con_Agenda.html

The Real News James Fetzer, 15 April 2008 (video)

Prof. Jim Fetzer recounts Freedom Rally Speech, 15 April 2008 (audio)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=66...04816&hl=en

Thanks for that, Jan. I have no background in news / media, but know from experience that (in Australia at least) media reporting can be wildly wrong, especially when it comes to a chaotic situation. Caveats should be given, and sometimes are - but certainly not always.

I still rely on hard evidence for my views on 9/11. To date, no-one has produced any 'smoking gun' or any verifiable evidence that says it was an inside job, it was MIHOP, LIHOP, etc. Did the current US administration take full political advantage of it? Hell, yes. Did they use it as a pretext for further operations in Afghanistan and Iraq? Hell, yes. Are they covering up for failures in the system that day, systemic or individual, accountable or not? Hell, yes. Did they blow up buildings with controlled demolitions or fly unmanned aircraft / missiles into others? Hell, no. The only facet which might hold some truth is that Flight 93 was shot down by US forces in order to stop it attacking a target, and that the Administration now wants to cover up that incident (even though it would have been an understandable action in the chaos of that day).

I'll review my opinions when I see evidence - not people speaking on subjects which they do not have a background in, not professional giving opions on which the overwhelming majority of their professional peers disagree with, not innuendo and fairy tales.

Evidence. Facts.

(end rant)