Matthew Lewis

I don't think the multiple safety measures all failed simultaneously. That, to me, implies that this was the first time they all failed. I think many of the safety measures had been failing for quite some time. This is just the first time that the failures resulted in an incident like this. I think this quote from Steve Ulman sums up how I envision this happening.

Were they intentionally stored in the same room or was that another problem of inattention?

I don't see it as a coincidence that only involved this one day in question. Rather I see it as a culmination of people getting lazy, not following complete and correct procedures, and not following checklists. This is not to say that nukes were inadvertantly transported before this but the practices which led to the transportation were likely happening for a long time.

At least five officers will be relieved of command and criminal charges are being considered http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

They may not have specifically had armed guards around the plane but I doubt that it was completely unguarded. The parking ramps of air force bases are controlled areas. You are not allowed on without a controlled area badge. The entire area is guarded just not each individual plane. Certain planes requiring higher security may have individual guards but still the entire area would be guarded.

and more The light area get progressively more transparent as the cloud increases. In the video one can also see downward movement. There is no building there.

The frame on Jack's study showing the enhancement does not have the cloud on it. It is a different still and likely both towers were still standing then. Here are some more stills from the video found here http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109111134-1216 Starting at about 19:05 in the video with a different still taken about once a second.

Here is the same still. The green arrows point to the edges of WTC 1. The red circle is where WTC 2 should be but there is light showing through. How is that possible if the building is still standing like you say? How is my username (frenat) on UM relevant? What games are you implying that I played?

It is amazing that this is still being argued. It has been shown that the clip was not aired at 9:04 but rather at around 11:53 when they were talking to Tom Clancy. The link to the video at that time has been posted. It shows one tower standing as the dust cloud rises and and only dust in the place of the second tower. If you look closely you can see the dust in the area where the second tower was gets lighter and you can actually see light coming through from the other side. This would not be possible if there was still a tower there.

No they weren't still standing. As I showed in the post above, the footage was aired much later (not the 9:04 that was claimed) and the full clip clearly shows WTC 2 dropping.

Len's link to the CNN archive of 8:48 – 9:29 shows that the footage in question was definitely not from 9:04. Further, this page with the archive footage from 11:34 am - 12:16 pm shows that the footage in question is in fact from shortly after the collapse of the first tower. http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109111134-1216 Clancy was interviewed starting at 11:51 AM, they showed the collapse of the towers from multiple viewpoints. The footage in question starts at about 19:10 in the video. It was not aired at 9:04 as shown by the archive. It was aired much later when they interviewed Clancy. In the footage you can see WTC 2 dropping as the dust cloud in question rises.

Watched the video. Only one tower is in the clip. Both are not still standing. The dust cloud is from the first tower collapsing. It doesn't matter how many times they say both are still there, there is still only one. Len Colby's analysis is right on. Before either tower collapsed the smoke only came from higher up in each tower. The image in question shows only one tower and in the area where the second tower was, smoke and dust from far below where the impact zone was. This is dust suspended in the air shortly after the collapse. There is no tower there.

Jack, why don't you just post the source video that your CNN still is from? If you can't find the video and no other video shows it then isn't it possible that the still in question has been altered?

If you would study my studies .... (all of the pages) I clearly showed that BOTH WTC TOWERS WERE STILL STANDING AT THE TIME OF THE DUST CLOUD AT GROUND LEVEL. Therefore if neither tower had collapsed, it could not be from a tower collapse. Is that not logical? Check it out. Jack I did look at your studies. You have a few pages of the dust cloud from one of the collapses and you label it an explosion in building 6. Both towers are not still standing. The 9:04 time is false. Any image that shows both towers and a dust cloud in the location of building 6 has likely been doctored. That is why we would like to see the source video. Regarding your studies, have you fixed the erroneous claim that the engine on Murray St was small and light enough to fit in a wastebasket?

Do you have a link to the full video showing that dust cloud? I have seen this argument on other forums and it was shown that the stills that appear to show both towers still standing were altered. In the original video it was clear that the dust cloud came from the collapse of one of the towers. The 9:04 time was added later and is not in the original video. How do we know it is really from 9:04? All the following photos of dust clouds appear to be coming from a collapsing tower.

When they handled the building security "up until the building fell down" it didn't mean that the contract happened to expire that day. It meant that they no longer provided security because there was no building to provide security for.

Have we agreed on a size of the engine piece in the picture? Specifically an estimated diameter? The CFM56 claimed by the rense article has a 60 inch fan diameter so the central core would be about 20 to 30 (at most) inches in diameter. The various engines used on the 767 have a fan diameter of more than 90 inches (at least) making the central core about 30 to 50 inches in diameter. To me the part looks too big to be a CFM56. Even using the smaller estimate for the size of the square with length of 12 inches makes the diameter of the part (3 to 4 times the length of the square) at somewhere between 36 and 48 inches. Right where it should be for a 767 engine.

most of the modern jet engines I've seen when including the compressor vanes and housing are then 3 to 4 times the diameter of the central core. While the diameter of the part in the picture is unknown, from the clues we do have a low estimate of 3 or more feet does not seem unreasonable. This would make the complete engine around 9-12 feet in diameter. This part in the pictures then seems to be large enough.

Still not small enough nor light enough to deposit in a wastebasket though. And still not in the wastebasket. What would you estimate for the size of the street sign? Are you saying the engine is not large enough?

Jack, In your 911 photo studies, chapter 28, here http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies75.htm You say the engine was "small and light enough to deposit in a wire wastebasket". Where do you get that info from? Every time I look at the photo you provided, it looks like the engine is in front of the wastebasket and larger than it. I would also doubt it to be very light. Your study Here is a bigger, clearer version of the image in your study. Unfortunately it is not cropped the same as yours but It still doesn't appear to be in the wastebasket. Did you find some info elsewhere stating the size and weight? And another from a different angle. Note the carpenter's square placed on it to give a reference for size. Also note that it is not in a wastebasket but still in the same position as the picture in your study.

That and there were other photos posted in post number 8 by Craig Lamson that the shadows point away from the center. But Duane just needed to prove he hadn't read the thread.

I also only skimmed it as I mentioned already. There are a lot of misconceptions, inconsistencies and outright lies though that one might wonder if the article is disinformation or if it is just simply poorly researched slop.

Just a few things wrong in the posted article. I'm sure there are more but I only skimmed it and don't really care to get into a detailed discussion. One of the first things to catch my eye was this. It is totally invalid to make a comparison of those buildings. They are different buildings with different amounts and types of damage. If they were the exact same design and had the exact same damage then maybe the comparison would be valid but otherwise it is a red herring. Then there was this. To say it was not hit by debris is just wrong as there are photos and videos of it being hit. There are photos showing some of the damagae and eyewitness testimony of the damage. One may argue to the extent of the damage and that's fine but to claim it was not hit by debris is false. Further, just 6 paragraphs later it says this The article contradicts itself. I also noticed the erroneous claim that "pull it" is a demolition term for a controlled explosion. When a demolitionist implodes a building with explosives it is known as a "shoot" not a "pull". Note the red lined box in the lower left corner here http://www.thestateonline.com/news/pdfs/implosion.pdf "Pull" is only used if they bring something down mechanically (like they did with WTC 6) such as with a wrecking ball or pulling a chimney or tower over onto its side. Even then most companies speak of it as a "felling". Check this demo companies list of projects. Do you see a pull anywhere? How about a felling, or a shot? http://www.dykon-blasting.com/History/DemoJobList.htm Even this kids DVD review mentions that buildings are "shot". http://www.digitallyobsessed.com/showreview.php3?ID=395 with this quote, "they set a new world record for most buildings "shot" (industry term for bringing down a building or structure with explosives) at one time." There is the implication that Silverstein benefitted from the insurance. The last I heard his settlement was cut down( a few billion less than the 7 billion claimed), it had to be used for rebuilding, was less than the estimated cost of rebuilding, and he was still paying rent to the tune of $120 million a year for an area without a building and therefore without an income. Doesn't sound like a benefit to me. More info and a detailed analysis here http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html The claim that Marvin Bush handled the insurance is a new one. Never seen that one before. And the claim that Marvin Bush was in charge of the security at the time is false. He left the company more than a year before and even then was only one of many on the board. This one is interesting I don't remember where I saw it but the part of Rolls Royce that was contacted did not make the type of engines normally found on a 757. Small wonder they wouldn't be familiar with the piece or engine. I think this may have been brought up in Fahrenhype 911 but I could be wrong. There is this I believe they are referring to the photo found here. http://www.911myths.com/html/blue_box.html Seems to me that it is a tent and not a tarp covered box. Especially considering the other photos on the page showing other blue tents. And this Those videos have now been released. They were confiscated as part of the investigation and released after the trial. As expected, they didn't show much of anything because they were low frame rate cameras typical to security cameras and they were not pointed at the Pentagon because they were pointed were they were needed to do their job. Again, I just skimmed it and these were a few things that jumped out at me. As mentioned by Len Colby there is nothing new here just another parroting of various websites that had poor research to start with.

And again, with the longer mission needed for a trip to Mars and back, don\'t you think that makes a difference in the overall radiationthat would be acceptable? I noted that you also avoided commenting on the cosmic rays in Earth orbit.

Wrong again Matt ... The astronauts in low earth orbit ARE protected by the Van Allen belts , which do block cosmic ray radiation ... but here\\\'s what you don\\\'t know because all you ever read are self serving nasa sites ... Deadly cosmic rays , along with various other types of radiation , are the main reason no manned missions have ever flown through the belts to land on the hot , radioactive moon .. Scientists today are completely baffled as to how to build a craft to soft land humans on the moon , with the proper radiation shielding to keep them alive on the lunar surface.. .. In fact they are so puzzled that they are making journeys to museums where the Apollo LM\\\'s are on display , to try to figure out how those babies ever flew to the moon .. But what a surprise is in store for them when they discover that those babies never did , and never could have, flown and soft landed on the moon , even if God was the co-pilot ! Like I have stated many times before .. the future unmanned moon missions will prove once and for all that manned missions never landed there over 38 years ago , using the computing power of a Wallmart watch and slide rule , antiquated technology . Nope, sorry. The lower Van Allen belts are composed of particles from the decay of cosmic rays after they have hit the atmosphere. So those rays have already gone through the Van Allen belts and were only stopped by the atmosphere. Astronauts in Earth orbit are not protected from cosmic rays by the Van Allen belts, only by the relative infrequency of dangerous high energy cosmic rays. The same thing that would protect them on a short trip to the Moon. From here (which also shows that the cosmic radiation has a low overall intensity) http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Di...BELTS/DI160.htm or here http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/~rfitzp/teach...res/node22.html Did you actually do any research?