Jump to content
The Education Forum

Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

The CROPPED video shows one corner of the building collapsing, BUT DOES NOT

SHOW WHAT ELSE IS HAPPENING. Of course that corner collapsed when the whole building collapsed, but from this cropped video clip NO CONCLUSIONS MAY BE DRAWN about what else was happening. The point is irrelevant anyway, since it was impossible for the entire building to collapse AT FREE FALL SPEED as if there was NO RESISTANCE from the floors below. That is impossible. This is basic physics.

Jack

I'll concede that it does not show what else is happening; that much is true. I'm not sure if I would call it 'cropped' though, because the camera was zoomed towards that area at the time. Nothing has been removed from the original image / footage - it simply does not show everything that is going on.

What it does show at least is that the area in question buckled inwards, causing a collapse at that corner. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that the collapse continued in the same fashion that it started - especially when we see footage from other angles and see nothing that would lead us to believe the collapse would not have continued.

The claim of "free fall" is by no means supported - in fact, it is widely disputed:

In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

The NIST report analyzes the failure mechanism in detail. An early analysis explains that the kinetic energy of the upper portion of the building falling onto the story below exceeded by an order of magnitude the amount of energy that the lower story could absorb,[19] crushing it and adding to the kinetic energy. This scenario repeated with each successive story, crushing the entire tower at near free-fall speed.[20]

[19] http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/b.../Papers/405.pdf

[20] http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/b.../Papers/466.pdf

Main article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_t...ld_Trade_Center

Some conspiracy theorists are puzzled about why the WTC towers fell at almost free-fall speed on Sept. 11, 2001. They suppose that the speed of collapse is evidence that something or someone must have destroyed the structural integrity of the undamaged lower part of each tower.

After all, they reason, "only the upper floors of the building were damaged, so why did the lower floors collapse, and why did they fall so fast?"

This web page answers those questions, simply enough for even a conspiracy theorist to comprehend (I hope). I do use some simple math and some very basic physics, but even if you don't understand that part you should still be able to comprehend the basic reasons that the towers fell so fast.

http://www.burtonsys.com/staticvdyn/

Evan,

The collapse of WTC 1 and 2 have been thoroughly examined and evaluated by the NIST. The NIST has modeled WTC 1 and 2 and the behavior of the collapse has been verified as consistent with the effects from the impacts of fueled airliners and subsequent exposure to fire. These results have been peer reviewed within the engineering community (American Society of Civil Engineers) and validated.

Within the engineering community that I come into contact with, of those familiar with it, I have heard no tangible dispute with the NIST report (among the large number of engineers who I work with, as well as others I have been on contact with, esp. civil and structural engineers, both licensed and not. Also it’s difficult to avoid sounding silly questioning the veracity of the NIST report).

So far, all of the disputes with the NIST report, and the CTs proposing other than Tower collapse caused by jetliner impact and subsequent fire, have been soundly debunked in several venues. I don’t understand the momentum that these CTs have gained, which allows them to remain alive. Anyone investing the time, the effort, and who are interested in being objective, should already have reached the conclusion the WTC 1 and 2 collapsed due to the jetliner impacts and subsequent damage.

Those who refuse to review the facts objectively and opine along the tenuous avenues paved by the so-called “engineers, scientists, etc., or whatever, for truth” (or whatever they call themselves), will, I believe, never be dissuaded that WTC 1 and 2 collapsed due to a nefarious plot from within, and with that aim intended. Also, from what I have read there has been no serious study utilizing anything like a scientific method to further the theory that anything like controlled demolition, space weapons, etc., led to the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. The CTs with that at the heart of it are purely spurious.

There, IMO, are issues associated with 9/11 that might bear closer scrutiny. What bothers me, however, are those who benefit financially from the propagation of these ill founded theories (like the collapse of WTC 1 and 2). I can’t help but feel that those pandering to these theories, and who are paid to do so, are feeding off the suffering of others.

Edited by Peter McKenna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So far, all of the disputes with the NIST report, and the CTs proposing other than Tower collapse caused by jetliner impact and subsequent fire, have been soundly debunked in several venues.

I don't have experience in the area of building engineering, but this is what seems apparent. None of the 'other' theories are supported. In fact, many of the 'other than official 9/11 theory believers' seem to fight with each other over "protecting" their own theories (thermite / laser beams / no planers / etc).

There, IMO, are issues associated with 9/11 that might bear closer scrutiny. What bothers me, however, are those who benefit financially from the propagation of these ill founded theories (like the collapse of WTC 1 and 2). I can’t help but feel that those pandering to these theories, and who are paid to do so, are feeding off the suffering of others.

I agree about the side issues. My opinion is that the so-called 'truth movement' is doing more harm than good because it refuse to accept basic truths, and thus important questions like "why were warnings about possible attacks not given a greater status?" and "how big a part did the reduction in military / emergency response capability play in the events?" and "Were any of the reactions by responsible people on that day shown to be incompetent or severely lacking, and those people have not been held to account for their actions?". That last one does not include LIHOP claims; it means that some people may have been unable to be able to carry out their duties due to lack of ability or showed an unjustifiable dereliction of their duties for political or other reasons APART from LIHOP / MIHOP.

Just think - if these people were not so concerned with proving a fictional 9/11 conspiracy, how much more force could they be adding to the call to have US operations in Iraq reduced and eventually finalised?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just think - if these people were not so concerned with proving a fictional 9/11 conspiracy, how much more force could they be adding to the call to have US operations in Iraq reduced and eventually finalised?

Not unlike those Warren Commission critics and Jim Garrison prolonging the Vietnam war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There, IMO, are issues associated with 9/11 that might bear closer scrutiny. What bothers me, however, are those who benefit financially from the propagation of these ill founded theories (like the collapse of WTC 1 and 2). I can’t help but feel that those pandering to these theories, and who are paid to do so, are feeding off the suffering of others.

An inversion of near-perfect moral imbecility. You mean Bush et al didn't profit rather more tangibly from the tragedy? How many shares does the average 9/11 dissident have in Halliburton?

"Pull" the other one, Peter, it has WTC7 on the end of it. Er, you did remember three fell that day?

Larry Silverstein, the fireman's friend

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just think - if these people were not so concerned with proving a fictional 9/11 conspiracy, how much more force could they be adding to the call to have US operations in Iraq reduced and eventually finalised?

Not unlike those Warren Commission critics and Jim Garrison prolonging the Vietnam war.

Bullseye Michael!

Seconded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just think - if these people were not so concerned with proving a fictional 9/11 conspiracy, how much more force could they be adding to the call to have US operations in Iraq reduced and eventually finalised?

Not unlike those Warren Commission critics and Jim Garrison prolonging the Vietnam war.

A woefully inadequate analogy, the number of people who actively engaged in disputing the government’s account of the assassination never ever approached the size of the “truth movement” nor did they harass critics of the war who disagreed with them (about the assassination).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There, IMO, are issues associated with 9/11 that might bear closer scrutiny. What bothers me, however, are those who benefit financially from the propagation of these ill founded theories (like the collapse of WTC 1 and 2). I can’t help but feel that those pandering to these theories, and who are paid to do so, are feeding off the suffering of others.

An inversion of near-perfect moral imbecility. You mean Bush et al didn't profit rather more tangibly from the tragedy? How many shares does the average 9/11 dissident have in Halliburton?

Bush's cronies and some members of the "truth movement" benefiting financially aren't mutually exclusive

Larry Silverstein, the fireman's friend

Much more so than A-hole truthers like Alex Jones and Jason Bemas who claim the FDNY is "in on" 9/11

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There, IMO, are issues associated with 9/11 that might bear closer scrutiny. What bothers me, however, are those who benefit financially from the propagation of these ill founded theories (like the collapse of WTC 1 and 2). I can't help but feel that those pandering to these theories, and who are paid to do so, are feeding off the suffering of others.

An inversion of near-perfect moral imbecility. You mean Bush et al didn't profit rather more tangibly from the tragedy? How many shares does the average 9/11 dissident have in Halliburton?

Amen. I can't think of one critic who is making money off this...a few barely survive - none are doing it for money,

What about Alex Jones, the makers of Loose Change, Richard Gage and Michael Ruppert. The latter claimed to broke even though he was pulling in more than a million dollars a year in subscription fees not to mention ad revenue, product sales, donations, book royalties and possibly speakers fees. Gage asks for donations (don't know how many suckers he gets) that would far out strip his expenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush's cronies and some members of the "truth movement" benefiting financially aren't mutually exclusive

You mean the US taxpayer has shelled out trillions in support of, well, who exactly among the 9/11 dissident community? Do you think the poor taxpayer saps should be told?

Really, Len, that's nuts.

(Keep it up!)

Larry Silverstein, the fireman's friend
Much more so than A-hole truthers like Alex Jones and Jason Bemas who claim the FDNY is "in on" 9/11

Alex Jones and Jason Bemas merit more hostility than Silverstein? That moral compass of yours is functioning as efficiently as ever, I see.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just think - if these people were not so concerned with proving a fictional 9/11 conspiracy, how much more force could they be adding to the call to have US operations in Iraq reduced and eventually finalised?

Not unlike those Warren Commission critics and Jim Garrison prolonging the Vietnam war.

A woefully inadequate analogy, the number of people who actively engaged in disputing the government’s account of the assassination never ever approached the size of the “truth movement” nor did they harass critics of the war who disagreed with them (about the assassination).

Very well said. His bickering rhetoric notwithstanding, Colby has managed to analyze the situation with his customary acumen.

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The story...

The Silverstein group purchased the lease on the World Trade Center for $3.2 billion. With two claims for the maximum amount of the policy, the total potential payout is $7.1 billion, leaving a hefty windfall profit for Silverstein.

Our take...

As we write the insurance payments are not going to reach $7.1 billion. The current situation is $4.6 billion at a maximum, although this may be subject to change (up or down) as a result of court rulings.

And of course this isn't profit for Silverstein. The money is being provided for him to rebuild the WTC complex, and it turns out that's quite expensive ($6.3 billion in April 2006, see here).

$4.6 billion in insurance money, $6.3 billion in costs? Not such a great deal, then. What’s more, don’t imagine the insurance companies have handed over all of this money. As we write (June 2006) there are other problems:

Only a month after developer Larry Silverstein predicted it might happen, six World Trade Center insurance companies are making noises about whether they're going to fork over roughly $770 million in insurance proceeds meant to help rebuild the site.

On Friday, Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave the insurers a clear message – pay up.

“Nobody's going to walk away from billions of dollars, and they're not going to get away with not paying,” said the mayor.

The companies are pointing to a tentative agreement reached between Silverstein and the Port Authority in April divvying up ownership of the site's planned buildings, including the Freedom Tower, which would go to the Port Authority.

The insurers say since Silverstein would no longer own all the buildings at the site, they might no longer be responsible for paying the claims he was due as owner.

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?s...3&aid=60290

There have been other costs, too:

Silverstein Properties and the Port Authority continue to be guided by a lease each signed six weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The lease stipulates that should the complex be destroyed, Silverstein must continue to pay the $120 million a year rent in order to maintain the right to rebuild. Mr. Silverstein has tried to persuade the Port Authority that his closely held company is capable of rebuilding while meeting its massive rent payments. The rent is currently being paid from insurance proceeds, draining the amount available for rebuilding.

www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Larry-Silverstein-WTC6dec04.htm

$120 million dollars a year? So in the three years between the attacks and that article being written, Silverstein has paid out over $360 million on rent alone (and a three-year court battle implies substantial legal fees, too).

That was a 2004 article, but problems continued. Here’s part of a Time article from May 2006:

The original World Trade Center, completed in 1973, suffered under a similar real estate climate. "The argument back then was that downtown was losing to midtown," says Susan Fainstein, professor of urban planning at Columbia University. "They thought by building this impressive complex, it would make downtown a competitor. But so much space came up at once, and there just wasn't the demand to fill it." New York State even moved some offices there to help keep the rent rolls filled. The latest plans for ground zero call for the same 10 million sq. ft. of office space as the original World Trade Center, but the site's potential as a repeat target may repel business. "People don't want to work in a building with a bull's-eye on it," says Fainstein. "It doesn't matter if it's built like Fort Knox."

Even if he does find the tenants, Silverstein's methodical plan for development--one building at a time--has maddened his critics, convincing them that he simply does not have the cash to build out the site. The April agreement gives him about 60% of the $3.3 billion in public funding made available from Liberty Bonds to finish the site. He also has a $4.6 billion insurance settlement--it was ruled that the towers were hit by two separate attacks--although that is under appeal.

http://www.time.com/time/insidebiz/article...91836-3,00.html

There may be issues getting tenants, then, but at least he has 60% of the liberty bonds, taking him up to around $6.6 billion. Is that the profit? This article doesn’t seem to think it’s a windfall, and others agree. Here’s a March 2006 analysis from the New York Post, for instance (this is a lengthy excerpt but we’ve snipped more, so it’s best if you follow the link and read the whole thing):

Nearly $3.4 billion in these bonds remains, with the mayor and the governor each controlling half...

The mayor has put Silverstein in an impossible position. Legally, the developer has the right to rebuild. But financially, he needs the Liberty Bonds to do so...

It will cost $4.3 billion for Silverstein to rebuild the World Trade Center and maintain his lease once insurance is exhausted. Like any developer, Silverstein (and his potential lenders) must determine if the project is worth more than its cost: Over the remainder of the lease, will the WTC bring in enough in rents to repay this $4.3 billion investment and earn a profit?

Part of the answer depends on future commercial rents Downtown. Bloomberg says he believes rents won't rise above pre-9/11 levels (after inflation), while Silverstein thinks they'll rise to today's Midtown levels.

Either way, Silverstein's looking at earning $300 million to $400 million (in today's dollars) a year, after operating costs and taxes (but before interest costs), for about 80 years - that is, from the time he gets all five towers built to the time the lease ends.

Here is where Bloomberg's intransigence matters. If New York actually uses its 9/11 rebuilding money at Ground Zero, and Silverstein gets all the Liberty Bonds (with their low interest rate of about 6.5 percent), his future income from the towers would be worth $5.7 billion to $7.5 billion in today's dollars. At those values, the project is economical even if rents never rise to Midtown levels. Lenders would invest in the project, so it wouldn't run out of money, as Bloomberg claims it will.

But if Silverstein wins only half of the Liberty Bonds, the finances become murky. The deal wouldn't be economical unless rents rose quickly, so it might fall short of lenders.

With no Liberty Bonds, the WTC project is not economical unless rents rise stratospherically, because interest costs would consume too much of the project's future rents.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/61352.htm [broken, try...]

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_n...ng_downtown.htm

So this author says that Silverstein requires $4.3 billion more than the insurance money will provide, and so recommended he gets all the $3.4 billion Liberty Bonds. Actually he only got 60%, which pushes the deal closer to the “murky” side, as described here. Is this true? We don’t know: there’s a shortage of clear figures showing exactly who has to spend what. However, it does show that, even with the extra Government cash, not everyone believes Silverstein’s made big money here.

And those who want to believe Silverstein still had foreknowledge of the attacks, might want to consider this:

In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.

http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html

If this is true, then it appears that Silverstein tried to purchase as little insurance as possible, presumably to save money. He was talked up by his insurers, but still chose a figure well short of what he could have obtained. And that’s not the only problem. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph we’re quoting here:

After trying unsuccessfully to negotiate a lower bill, the biggest insurer of the World Trade Center went public with a conflict yesterday. The insurer, Swiss Re, sued to limit how much it will pay to half of what the buildings' managers are asking.

The real estate executive whose companies hold a 99-year lease on the property, Larry A. Silverstein, has said he will seek $7 billion from insurers. He argues that each of the two hijacked airliners that crashed into the towers constituted a separate attack covered by $3.5 billion in insurance.

Swiss Re, the insurer liable for the largest share of the claims, formally balked at that figure yesterday. It asked the Federal District Court in Manhattan to determine that it and the other insurers would be liable for only $3.5 billion because both crashes amounted to a single insurable incident.

The dispute involves Mr. Silverstein, who took over management of the World Trade Center just weeks before the attack; his lenders, who have committed many billions of dollars more than Mr. Silverstein and now have an investment collateralized by a set of buildings lying in rubble; the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the owners of the land that issued the lease, now suffering a disruption of income from the notes it holds from Mr. Silverstein; and Swiss Re, the reinsurance company providing more than a fifth of the overall insurance coverage for the trade center.

Complicating the picture is the fact that there was no insurance policy yet issued on the properties when they were destroyed. Since the Port Authority transferred management of the properties to a group of investors led by Mr. Silverstein shortly before the attack, the insurance policy was under negotiation at the time the buildings collapsed and final wording had not been completed. The insurers have agreed to be bound by the ''binder'' agreements on the coverage although differences of opinion emerged yesterday about their interpretation.

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricte...DA90994D9404482

Not only had Silverstein insured for too small an amount, he’d also failed to complete policy negotiations before the attacks occurred. As a result he’s been involved with legal fights with the insurers for years, and can only claim $4.6 billion instead of the $7 billion (with even that subject to appeal as of January 2007) he might have got if they’d all agreed to the same document. Does any of this really sound like the actions of a man who knew what would happen on 9/11?

http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush's cronies and some members of the "truth movement" benefiting financially aren't mutually exclusive

You mean the US taxpayer has shelled out trillions in support of, well, who exactly among the 9/11 dissident community? Do you think the poor taxpayer saps should be told?

Really, Len, that's nuts.

(Keep it up!)

Stooping the strawmen Paul? I thought better of you, point to where I (or Peter McKenna for that matter) said truthers were getting money from the US gov’t.

Larry Silverstein, the fireman's friend
Much more so than A-hole truthers like Alex Jones and Jason Bemas who claim the FDNY is "in on" 9/11

Alex Jones and Jason Bemas merit more hostility than Silverstein? That moral compass of yours is functioning as efficiently as ever, I see.

More straw Paul it's based on the false premise that I accept your delusional fantasies. What misdeeds, if any, do you have evidence (as opposed to idle speculation) that Silverstein is guilty of? Before you answer here note that the subject of WTC7 and the meaning of the word “pull” have been gone over more than once on this forum. There was even a thread dedicated to the latter where Ron made a valiant albeit unsuccessful attempt to find an example of the word being used to mean demolishing a building with explosives.

Just think - if these people were not so concerned with proving a fictional 9/11 conspiracy, how much more force could they be adding to the call to have US operations in Iraq reduced and eventually finalised?

Not unlike those Warren Commission critics and Jim Garrison prolonging the Vietnam war.

A woefully inadequate analogy, the number of people who actively engaged in disputing the government’s account of the assassination never ever approached the size of the “truth movement” nor did they harass critics of the war who disagreed with them (about the assassination).

Very well said. His bickering rhetoric notwithstanding, Colby has managed to analyze the situation with his customary acumen.

Once again Hogan shows that his inability to make a cogent point is more than made up for by his proclivity for snide sarcasm, as they say ‘go with what you got’. So did I miss some grammatical error in the quoted post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stooping the strawmen Paul? I thought better of you, point to where I (or Peter McKenna for that matter) said truthers were getting money from the US gov’t.

Not quite my point, Len. Peter sought to establish moral equivalence between the molehills of money made by even the most successful 9/11 dissident and the Everest cubed raked in by the US State Terrorism Establishment (USTE, henceforth). The comparison was, and remains, grotesque and about as intellectually dishonest as its possible to get on the subject. I note with interest your failure to condemn him for it. Just to be clear on the issue, is it seriously your position that the income derived by, let us say, David Ray Griffin is in the same league as, let us say, Blackwater?

What misdeeds, if any, do you have evidence (as opposed to idle speculation) that Silverstein is guilty of? Before you answer here note that the subject of WTC7 and the meaning of the word “pull” have been gone over more than once on this forum. There was even a thread dedicated to the latter where Ron made a valiant albeit unsuccessful attempt to find an example of the word being used to mean demolishing a building with explosives.

Your defensiveness on the subject speaks volumes. Quite right, too. Silverstein blew the gaff - literally - and his meaning was unmistakable within context: "Pull" meant controlled demolition. I'm not quite sure who you thought you convinced, but rest assured, it wasn't me.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A woefully inadequate analogy, the number of people who actively engaged in disputing the government’s account of the assassination never ever approached the size of the “truth movement” nor did they harass critics of the war who disagreed with them (about the assassination).

Funny thing, but I missed the 9/11 dissident march on the Pentagon; not to mention the riots on campus. More history from Len's parallel universe!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again Hogan shows that his inability to make a cogent point is more than made up for by his proclivity for snide sarcasm, as they say ‘go with what you got’. So did I miss some grammatical error in the quoted post?

I made my point with Evan. I have no obligation to defend or justify my statement to Colby's off-point offerings.

I will retain my right to respond to Colby's attempts at "bickering," as he and Evan call it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...