Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Guest Stephen Turner]

I cant speak for others, but I weigh each case on its individual merits. Many conspiracy theories simply betray the paranoia in the minds that concieve them, but the blind worshiping at the temple of Fox, whilst not paranoid are suffering from another psychological manifestation, denial. We live in tempestous times and it pays to remain alert. As Sherlock Holmes said(ok Conan Doyle) "The facts Gentlemen, and nothing else."

[Guest Stephen Turner]

All of this is pure speculation, of course, but I will not believe that AA 77 hit the Pentagon until I see substantial evidence backing it up.

And I repeat EYEWITNESSES, as you say the rest is purest speculation on your part, when you have something to back this up, like well researched facts, I will be glad to hear it, until then, I am afraid, the official version stands.

[Ron Ecker]

"Gravity" is not an answer to the implausible coincidence I'm talking about. Three buildings, three precedent-setting collapses, only two of which were hit by the so-damaging planes. The third was brought down by "debris" (hee hee) and some fire of unknown origin (jet fuel being unavailable, as one plane apparently didn't show up - Flight 93?). Add the coincidence that this just happened to be the most wonderful thing that could have happened for the terrorists. So the most wonderful thing happens, unforeseen!. According to the government, even bin Laden (as played by that fat-nosed actor in that October 2001 "confession" tape) was surprised by the collapses, they only expected to damage a few floors. But no, by grand coincidence both towers fell symmetrically (not partially or irregularly, as this layman would expect, considering 47 steel core columns that somehow just went poof for free-fall collapse), for maximum effect on a watching nation and the world, with a third building collapsing as an unexpected bonus!

That's my final word on the subject, so I'll let you coincidence theorists win. I don't buy your theory.

[Maarten Coumans]

Hi,

I saw a police-car drive throught the gates prior to explosion. Stayed out of picture till after explosion, and flash. Then suddenly drives allong the Pentagon, to curves to the right out of the picture. To me it looks odd, police leaving a scene, as well as arriving prior to one. But I am not American.

My guess is they wanted a car there to block traffic, to finish the make-up (lamppowls and stuff).

They would be a witness, one way or the other........ . My guess the latter.

At least there should be a record of this car's whereabouts.

Maarten

Edited September 21, 2006 by Maarten Coumans

[Ron Ecker]

http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictur...hard_8-8-06.pdf

Craig,

Thanks for the link. I forgot and didn't read it in the course of my responses to Len and Steve.

I have now read it, and basically as a layman I am not impressed. Why? Most notably because the Protec report completely evades a central problem for the official CT: the 47 steel core columns. In order for the towers to collapse as they did, with no core column left standing, those columns had to be taken out. The towers would then implode. Hence the thermite theory, starting with explosions heard in the basement, i.e. at the base of those core columns. Protec talks about the perimeter columns vis a vis controlled demolition, as if the core columns didn't exist. (According to the 9/11 Commission Report, they didn't! The cores were "hollow shafts.")

Protec also subscribes to the "pancake" theory of the collapse, which the government itself has rejected. Protec also fails to explain how the floors pancaked with "a lot of resistance" at virtually free-fall speed. To borrow a term from the report, it's "physically impossible." Just like its non-mention of the core columns, Protec makes no mention of the speed at which the towers fell. Why not?

Protec's assertion that no seismographs recorded any explosions would be impressive except for one thing. I don't take at face value any statements in a report that has destroyed its own credibility.

Ron

[Jack White]

http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictur...hard_8-8-06.pdf

Craig,

Thanks for the link. I forgot and didn't read it in the course of my responses to Len and Steve.

I have now read it, and basically as a layman I am not impressed. Why? Most notably because the Protec report completely evades a central problem for the official CT: the 47 steel core columns. In order for the towers to collapse as they did, with no core column left standing, those columns had to be taken out. The towers would then implode. Hence the thermite theory, starting with explosions heard in the basement, i.e. at the base of those core columns. Protec talks about the perimeter columns vis a vis controlled demolition, as if the core columns didn't exist. (According to the 9/11 Commission Report, they didn't! The cores were "hollow shafts.")

Protec also subscribes to the "pancake" theory of the collapse, which the government itself has rejected. Protec also fails to explain how the floors pancaked with "a lot of resistance" at virtually free-fall speed. To borrow a term from the report, it's "physically impossible." Just like its non-mention of the core columns, Protec makes no mention of the speed at which the towers fell. Why not?

Protec's assertion that no seismographs recorded any explosions would be impressive except for one thing. I don't take at face value any statements in a report that has destroyed its own credibility.

Ron

The cores were massive, of heavy gauge steel.

Jack

[Michael Hogan]

You didn't address the grand coincidence of the three collapses at all.

http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictur...hard_8-8-06.pdf

Here is how that link answered Ron's question:

"A steel framed building has never collapsed due to fire, yet three buildings collapsed on one day....therefore explosives must have been responsible."

Protec's response:

No, actually it means three buildings collapsed due to fire (and violent external forces) on one day.

Many unprecedented things happened on 9/11. To draw any specific relationship between how many buildings were destroyed and the reason for their collapse runs counter to reason and common sense.

The fact is, many steel structures have collapsed due to fire. And as with those failures, the collapse of all three buildings on 9/11 involved specific structural conditions. Each failure exhibited characteristics dissimilar to the other two, and in no case have we come across evidence of explosives being present or affecting any of those conditions.

Pretty convincing stuff. They managed to clear everything up in three short paragraphs. Almost as succinctly as the simple one word explanation: gravity.

Incidentally, the listed qualifications of Protec's employees that contributed to that article are most impressive.

Edited September 21, 2006 by Michael Hogan

[Craig Lamson]

You didn't address the grand coincidence of the three collapses at all.

http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictur...hard_8-8-06.pdf

Here is how that link answered Ron's question:

"A steel framed building has never collapsed due to fire, yet three buildings collapsed on one day....therefore explosives must have been responsible."

Protec's response:

No, actually it means three buildings collapsed due to fire (and violent external forces) on one day.

Many unprecedented things happened on 9/11. To draw any specific relationship between how many buildings were destroyed and the reason for their collapse runs counter to reason and common sense.

The fact is, many steel structures have collapsed due to fire. And as with those failures, the collapse of all three buildings on 9/11 involved specific structural conditions. Each failure exhibited characteristics dissimilar to the other two, and in no case have we come across evidence of explosives being present or affecting any of those conditions.

Pretty convincing stuff. They managed to clear everything up in three short paragraphs. Almost as succinctly as the simple one word explanation: gravity.

Incidentally, the listed qualifications of Protec's employees that contributed to that article are most impressive.

Yes it was pretty convincing stuff....imagine...folks who actually are in the business of documenting controlled demolition commenting on the ramblings of numerous CT"s with no experience in the field...

And the listed credentials of the company who employed the authors is pretty impressive as well.

http://www.protecservices.com/

Far more impressive that what you have to offer Hogan.

But please...play again sometime.

Edited September 22, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Steve Ulman]

Protec also subscribes to the "pancake" theory of the collapse, which the government itself has rejected.

Do you EVER read anything other than that material that simply confirms what you already believe?

The NIST report, which you obviously didn't read and which you wrongly characterize as "the government", states that the "pancake theory" as the initiation event was incorrect. The NIST report doesn’t address what happened after the collapse was initiated. This was discussed in great detail in the "An engineer speaks on radio about 911" thread, which you obviously didn't read or simply ignored.

[Craig Lamson]

http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictur...hard_8-8-06.pdf

Craig,

Thanks for the link. I forgot and didn't read it in the course of my responses to Len and Steve.

I have now read it, and basically as a layman I am not impressed. Why? Most notably because the Protec report completely evades a central problem for the official CT: the 47 steel core columns. In order for the towers to collapse as they did, with no core column left standing, those columns had to be taken out. The towers would then implode. Hence the thermite theory, starting with explosions heard in the basement, i.e. at the base of those core columns. Protec talks about the perimeter columns vis a vis controlled demolition, as if the core columns didn't exist. (According to the 9/11 Commission Report, they didn't! The cores were "hollow shafts.")

Protec also subscribes to the "pancake" theory of the collapse, which the government itself has rejected. Protec also fails to explain how the floors pancaked with "a lot of resistance" at virtually free-fall speed. To borrow a term from the report, it's "physically impossible." Just like its non-mention of the core columns, Protec makes no mention of the speed at which the towers fell. Why not?

Protec's assertion that no seismographs recorded any explosions would be impressive except for one thing. I don't take at face value any statements in a report that has destroyed its own credibility.

Ron

The cores were massive, of heavy gauge steel.

Jack

Gee, do you imagine that the mass of the high speed aircraft ( and more importantly the mass of the liquid fuel) simply bounced off of those massive steel beams after they tore trought the thin steel skin of the exterior and crossed the mostly open office spaces (lightly constructed )that surrounded the core? Or do you think it mig have caused some damage to the core?

http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/2006/0....Sozen.WTC.html

http://reports.discoverychannel.ca/servlet...DiscoveryReport

Edited September 22, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Steve Ulman]

The cores were massive, of heavy gauge steel.

Jack

Leave it to jack to post a misleading photo. His photo is indeed authentic, taken during construction of WTC-1, but the bulk of the steel seen within the core is the support scaffolding to support the erection cranes, which was removed once the building was constructed.

I don’t why I bother, those who blindly follow the CT’s won’t believe me or bother to do any independent research.

[Ron Ecker]

Gee, do you imagine that the mass of the high speed aircraft ( and more importantly the mass of the liquid fuel) simply bounced off of those massive steel beams after they tore trought the thin steel skin of the exterior and crossed the mostly open office spaces (lightly constructed )that surrounded the core? Or do you think it mig have caused some damage to the core?

It's my understanding that the towers were designed to withstand the mass of high speed aircraft. And I'm sure that damage to the core was taken into consideration.

As for the mass of the liquid fuel, in the case of the south tower most of it apparently exploded outside the building. Spectacular show. But then the south tower falls first?

[Craig Lamson]

Gee, do you imagine that the mass of the high speed aircraft ( and more importantly the mass of the liquid fuel) simply bounced off of those massive steel beams after they tore trought the thin steel skin of the exterior and crossed the mostly open office spaces (lightly constructed )that surrounded the core? Or do you think it mig have caused some damage to the core?

It's my understanding that the towers were designed to withstand the mass of high speed aircraft. And I'm sure that damage to the core was taken into consideration.

As for the mass of the liquid fuel, in the case of the south tower most of it apparently exploded outside the building. Spectacular show. But then the south tower falls first?

Please show me anything that says the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a "HIGH SPEED" aircraft.

Any proof anywhere that " in the case of the south tower most of it apparently exploded outside the building."?

[Michael Hogan]

Yes it was pretty convincing stuff....imagine...folks who actually are in the business of documenting controlled demolition commenting on the ramblings of numerous CT"s with no experience in the field...

And the listed credentials of the company who employed the authors is pretty impressive as well.

http://www.protecservices.com/

Far more impressive that what you have to offer Hogan.

But please...play again sometime.

Very impressive what you had to offer, even though it had nothing to do with the issue. You always want to turn every thread into an ugly situation. Did you forget to take your Prozac?

[Ron Ecker]

Protec also subscribes to the "pancake" theory of the collapse, which the government itself has rejected.

Do you EVER read anything other than that material that simply confirms what you already believe?

The NIST report, which you obviously didn't read and which you wrongly characterize as "the government", states that the "pancake theory" as the initiation event was incorrect. The NIST report doesn’t address what happened after the collapse was initiated. This was discussed in great detail in the "An engineer speaks on radio about 911" thread, which you obviously didn't read or simply ignored.

From the NIST:

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

BTW, NIST is an agency of the Commerce Dept. That is not "the government"?