Evan Burton

My apologies, Jack - you DID say that you thought it was not used for your "chemtrails". I was presumptuous and did not read your comments correctly.

We have, however, identified what it is and what it is used for.

I openly admit my ignorance of construction engineering principles - it's not my field. That's why I asked Nathaniel and Maggie, to seek their opinion.

They are not engineers (to the best of my knowledge) but we could discuss what we think would happen.

Likewise, you are not an engineer Jack, though your opinions are noted. They may well be correct.

Nathaniel, Maggie

The number of floors raises an interesting issue. Is a taller steel-framed building MORE or LESS susceptible to collapse if involved in a fire?

For instance:

Let's assume same building construction, same fire, only the number of floors in each building is different.

Building A: 3 storey building (ground floor, floor 1, floor 2), fire on floor 1.

Building B: 15 storey building (ground floor, floor 1, floor 2, ..... floor 15), fire on floor 1.

Which building is more likely to collapse? Building B has a greater load on it, so is it the more likely in the above example?

Make up your own mind:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926

As aviation experts, maybe Lewis and Burton will explain what this aircraft part does.

Jack

As always, Jack was wildly wrong.

The Air Force's spray tanker is a KC-135 aircraft equipped with a 2000 gallon water tank and used in trials, amongst others, at the Glenn Research Center in 1982. It was used in de-icing trials (resulting in the ATR-72 undergoing recertification because of icing problems), and also to simulate heavy rain on the Space Shuttle's tile system in flight.

Image No C-1982-5997, taken 13 OCT 82 by Donald Huebler.

Image No C-1982-5998, taken 13 OCT 82 by Donald Huebler.

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The USAF has been converting their superseded fighters to drones for some time.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!

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).

As aviation experts, maybe Lewis and Burton will explain what this aircraft part does.

Jack

At this stage, I don't know - but I think it could be a spray head which was used in airborne icing tests. That's just a guess, and may be wildly wrong, but it might be. Give me some time to look it up and see what it was.

Stanford University addresses Chemtrails...

http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/geomanhattan.pdf

Jack

Jack,

Can I ask you to quote what that quoted article had to do with what you are insist are "chemtrails"? I don't have the time to read through the whole thing (86 pages), so I did a word search instead. "Chemtrails" - zero results. "Contrails" - zero results.

Just what is it saying?

If I have not searched correctly, please point me to the section on "chemtrails". Thanks.

Once again, no actual fact - simply speculation without basis.

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?

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?

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.

Thread created and posts moved.

Sorry to disappoint you but i just got off a 20 hour flight (and I do have a life) and was unable to view your humor. Why would I think it was photoshopped? I've seen it happen too and it is perfectly predicted by science and able to be understood by any of those willing to take the time to learn.

(My bolding)

Operative word - WILLING.

This is the impass.

If it is the same pod I am thinking about, it is nothing but a part shadow and the normal landing gear nacelle. If you show me the particular one you are referring to, I'll know for sure and if you like, go into more detail why I formed that opinion.

It is pictured in the article I referenced. Here again is the link:

http://911review.org/brad.com/batcave/Dov_Zakheim_911.html

It does not look like shadow and normal landing gear to me. It looks like something attached to the aircraft. But I guess that refitted Boeing 767s can be in the eye of the beholder, especially if the beholder has reluctant eyeballs.

Ron, every time I go to that site it redirects me after about 5 or so seconds to another site. Sorry, it's a suspect site IMO. I did see the photo (I think) to which you refer. Is it this one?

If so, it's as I said - the normal nacelle where the main gear goes.

See here for more detailed information.

"So again, just to re-state the undebunkable truth, prior to 9/11, no steel-framed building

had ever fully collapsed due to fire."

Jack

That might be true for a full collapse - but sections above a fire have fully collapsed.

The Madrid Windsor Building is situated in the heart of the Spanish capital's financial district and was a distinct and familiar landmark on the city's skyline. Built between 1974 and 1978 by architects Alas Casariego, its occupants included high profile corporate clients including accountants Deloitte and Spanish legal firm Garrigues.

The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.

The tower was built using normal strength concrete and before modern fire proofing standards, without any sprinkler system. It was undergoing a complete refurbishment, including the installation of various active fire prevention and resistance measures, when the fire began at around 11pm on 14 February 2005. Fortunately the building was empty of people at the time.

The fire started on the 21st floor and quickly spread both above and below. Upward spread was by means of internal openings made as a result of the refurbishment and the failure of fire stops between the perimeter column and steel/glass façade. Downward spread is thought to have been caused by burning façade debris falling through windows on lower floors.

Because of the height of the structure and the extent of the blaze, firefighters could only mount a containment operation and ensure that neighbouring buildings were protected. The fire eventually finished 26 hours later, leaving a complete burn-out above the fifth floor. The steel-glass façade was completely destroyed, exposing the concrete perimeter columns. The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor. The insurance value of the total damage caused was €122 million.

Crucially, the building remained standing despite the intensity of the fire. An investigation is underway between Spanish technical agency Intemac and UK authorities including Arup Fire, the University of Edinburgh and the concrete industry including Cembureau, BCA and The Concrete Centre. Preliminary findings suggest that a combination of the upper technical floor and the excellent passive fire resistance of the tower's concrete columns and core prevented total building collapse.

The fire is significant in terms of its potential similarities between the collapse of the building's steel frame above the 17th floor and the experience seen at the World Trade Center. Notably, one of the recommendations of NIST's interim report on the World Trade Center disaster is for tall building design to incorporate 'strong points' within the frame.

http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

Does anyone know - is it normal to pay to have your paper published in a peer-reviewed journal? I ask because Dr Jones would appear to have paid $600 to have his article published in that journal. This might be normal procedures, but it sounds strange to me.

Did they blow up buildings with controlled demolitions or fly unmanned aircraft / missiles into others? Hell, no.

I would appreciate your comments on the article speculating that Flight 175 was a refitted Boeing 767 tanker (hence the pod on the side of the plane that won't go away, apparently a guidance device), a refitting program with which Dov Zakheim was connected (along with aircraft guidance systems), and why you think it is "hell, no" wrong.

Ron,

If it is the same pod I am thinking about, it is nothing but a part shadow and the normal landing gear nacelle. If you show me the particular one you are referring to, I'll know for sure and if you like, go into more detail why I formed that opinion.

Can aircraft like that be remote controlled? With the proper fitment, yes. The problem is flying it accurately, especially to hit the WTC. Remote control flying is surprisingly different from flying a normal aircraft; you tend to react differently (for lack of a better term). When UAVs first started to become popular in the late 1980s, they found that regular pilots were NOT best suited to fly these aircraft. RC flyers turned out to be far better at flying them. Flying a large remotely piloted aircraft is halfway between; a UAV pilot would find it a little different from normal Global Hawk / Predator flying, and an airline pilot would find it different from flying a normal heavy.

Could such a remotely piloted aircraft be flown into the WTC? With training, yes. They'd have to get used to flying such a large aircraft, and flying it accurately - but it could be done.

Is there any evidence that it was done? No.

There is only speculation. No-one has been able to prove that the aircraft that hit the WTC were not the aircraft they claimed to be. No mysterious bodies have turned up, no aircraft that were destroyed or parts thereof have appeared, no radar tracks of switching of flights have appeared, etc. At best it is speculation without a basis in reality.

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)

Well, it's not over 'til the fat lady sings.

If Obama does well in the rest of the states, he's still in with a good fighting chance, isn't he?

Not all chemtrails are horizon to horizon. Many are just short bursts of

spraying, as these two parallel planes demonstrate.

Not all air masses conducive to the formation of persistent contrails are horizon to horizon. Sometimes air conditions at altitude vary. Would you expect the air over a lake to always be the same as the air over a plain or the air over a forest, or the air over a city?

Quite correct. It is not uncommon to see a contrail stop and then restart.

I'm not generally familiar with peer-review procedures.

Is it normal to pay the publication to publish your work?

This is a link to the launch of a Delta II, carrying the Gravity Probe 2, in April 2004:

Image copyright 2004 by Anita Donohoe

A Titan II launch in October 2003:

The cone-shape at the top of the Carnicon images are reminicsent of rocket and jet engines in the higher atmosphere.

The first set of two remind me strongly of a rocket launch... but with no rocket shown in the images.

I'll see if i can find some examples to show what I mean.