Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Craig Lamson]

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?

No it had everything to do with the "issue". The issue was you . Try again next time.

[Ron Ecker]

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

From NIST:

As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”

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

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

[Len Colby]

the Protec report completely evades a central problem for the official CT: the 47 steel core columns.

This is a silly objection this is question outside the scope of the paper which was to crtically examine what are said to be signs of controlled demolition. Their expertise is CD not forensic, fire or structural engineering.

"In order for the towers to collapse as they did, with no core column left standing, those columns had to be taken out."

Please cite evidence that the damaged cores should have survived as free standing structures after the rest of the towers collapsed around them.

"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."

1) thermite doesn't explode

2) As already pointed out elsewhere on this forum only three or four people, all now suing the government for billions in damages, claim to have heard these explosions. None of them said anything about the supposed subterranean (homesick blues errr) explosions until moths later. One of them gave a different version on September 11.

3) Why would they set off explosives in the basement an hour and a half before demolishing the building?

4) If this theory is true why didn't the North Tower collapse bottom to top?

5) If this theory is true why was there no sign of structural failure until a few minutes before collapse? (In that case BTW it was the perimeter columns not the core.)

6) If this theory is true why didn't any of the thousands of other people who were in the building and made it out alive report the pre-crash basement explosions?

"Protec talks about the perimeter columns vis a vis controlled demolition, as if the core columns didn't exist."

No the core columns were not relevant to the questions he was looking at i.e. the claims that "the collapses looked like CD" and "the towers collapsed into their own footprints

"(According to the 9/11 Commission Report, they didn't! The cores were "hollow shafts.")"

Irrelevant the commission didn't carry out it's own investigation into why the towers collapsed that was up to the ASCE and NIST. The ASCE and NIST reports discussed the cores in great detail.

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

As already pointed out NIST only studied what happened till the towers were "poised for collapse". Their recent fact sheet seems to be poorly written and they were probably talking about collapse initiation. They can't reject something they didn't study, if you had actually read the NIST report you would know that. So me where in the report it says there weren't any signs of pancaking.

"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?"

The speed of collapse, like the core columns was not relevant to the issues they tackled.

The towers didn't collapse at "at virtually free-fall speed" a claim debunked not only by sites that back the CD theory but by all the videos that show falling debris out racing the collapse wave.

"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."

This like you other criticism of the report is spurious are you saying the author is lying? Provide evidence that he is wrong or that he has lied on other occasions.

Edited September 22, 2006 by Len Colby

[Steve Ulman]

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?

a - In case you forgot - both Towers withstood the impacts - just as designed. The design did not account for full fuel loads, the loss of fireproofing, and fires burning out of control for an hour or more.

b - The reason for WTC-2 falling first is two fold. 1- Estimates are that WTC-2 lost significantly more fireproofing than did WTC-1. The second you should be able to figure out because your eyes never lie - WTC-2 had an equlivant of a 30 story +/- building above the impact zone where WTC-1 had a 20 story+/- building above its impact zone.

BTW - if you did some actual research you'd already know that while WTC-1 suffered significant damage to its core, several columns in the core of WTC-2 were also damaged.

[Len Colby]

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

From NIST:

As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that "… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…"

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

I missed the part where they said anythig about the speed of the plane Leslie Robertson the lead structural engineer for the Trade Center said they carried out studies that the towers could withstand the impact of "a low flying slow flying 707" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/filmmore/pt.html

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

Yes everyone knows there was a big fireball, now show us your calculations citing standard reference works as to how many gallons were consumed by it

b - The reason for WTC-2 falling first is two fold. 1- Estimates are that WTC-2 lost significantly more fireproofing than did WTC-1. The second you should be able to figure out because your eyes never lie - WTC-2 had an equlivant of a 30 story +/- building above the impact zone where WTC-1 had a 20 story+/- building above its impact zone.

Also the plane that hit WTC was flying faster and less building to go through to hit the core. The floors of the towers were square the cores rectangular the 1st plane crashe through the long side the second through the short side .NIST calculated that WTC lost one of its corner columns which held a disproportionate share of the load.

[Steve Ulman]

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

Sigh,

That paragraph discusses the initiating event - NOT what happened after the buildings started to collapse.

The Protec paper doesn't even attempt to address what the actual mechanics were that initiated the collapse, they just say it wasn’t explosives.

And you are correct about NST - my mistake - in haste I was thinking of the ASCE report - my apologies.

[Jack White]

The ardent defenders of the crime of 9-11 continually cite

"OTHER" skyscraper collapses...without being specific.

Here is a website that addresses collapses (other than

controlled demolition) of all known skyscrapers. Let the

crime defenders talk specifics like these:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/c.../collapses.html

Photos show GRAVITY COLLAPSES of various causes. None

is symmetrical; none shows the pulverization present in

the WTC buildings; most are still recognizable as buildings,

not powder.

Jack

Edited September 22, 2006 by Jack White

[Ron Ecker]

Yes everyone knows there was a big fireball, now show us your calculations citing standard reference works as to how many gallons were consumed by it

Ha ha ha ha ha. I wish I had that kind of free time. I quote the above as an example of why I am not going to spend more time quibbling on the subject of controlled demolition. I said before that I had spoken my last word on the subject. I then spoke more because I had missed the link that Craig posted, and I commented on it. Now I've commented, and so again I'll let you grand coincidence theorists win.

[Maarten Coumans]

Hi,

Anyone knows what is in the cloth rapping around the steel collums, laying in front. Seems to be wet, the steel is darker right from the edge of the wrapping. Cannot imagine Isolation. And it is nowhere near Christmas. (for Silverstein, maybe. And who knows else...)

Here it is:

I have some ideas. But like to ask first. Since I am not new with construction, but do not recognize at all for a finished building. Only from docu's with explosives, and that is to take down. But even then I think it is too thin. So combined with steel I would go for thermite, and blanket contains heat, and sparks (from view). I have the idea that the steel got real hot. But no sign of that on the cloth. Some cloth.

Are there people who have an explenation for this? Or an explonation, or implonation, or maybe a thermi(te)nation.

Thanks in advance.

Maarten

[Craig Lamson]

The ardent defenders of the crime of 9-11 continually cite

"OTHER" skyscraper collapses...without being specific.

Here is a website that addresses collapses (other than

controlled demolition) of all known skyscrapers. Let the

crime defenders talk specifics like these:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/c.../collapses.html

Photos show GRAVITY COLLAPSES of various causes. None

is symmetrical; none shows the pulverization present in

the WTC buildings; most are still recognizable as buildings,

not powder.

Jack

Uh Jack, in reviewing the web page you have offered, I have failed to find the examples of buildings that have collapsed after being struck by aircraft flying at high speed and carring a near full fuel load. When you find the examples please get back to us.

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

From NIST:

As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”

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

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

Yes they did analyse the impact of a 707 during the design stage...I watched a show where the designers said the same thing...an impact from a 707 flying at low speed like it was lost in the fog during a landing..Ill search for the exact quote. However I've yet to see anything that saod the building was designed to withstand the impact of aircraft at the speeds the occured on 9/11

And thanks for the image of the second impact. It shows us that the fuel mass...PASSED THROUGH the building and EXITED the other side.

Edited September 22, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Guest Stephen Turner]

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.

Hi Maarten, I guess police cruisers are present at the Pentagon nearly all the time, and unless you know where the car was heading after it left the picture, I fail to see how any conclusions can be drawn, perhaps they were doing the natural thing and witdrawing to a place of saftey, until they were sure of the situation, ie no further jets were headed their way.

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

Literally dozens of witnesses saw the plane fly into the pentagon, and reported it clipping the tops of poles, and causing extensive damage to a taxi, how the conspiritors could have got away with causing the damage themselves in plain sight of all these witnesses I for one cant fathom.

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 22, 2006 by Stephen Turner

[Len Colby]

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

The most probable explanation was that the road didn't continue along the side of the building. As can be seen in this aerial shot of the Pentagon (zoom in) the road does not always run that close to the wall.

As Steve stated there is nothing suspicious about a patrol car driving by the Pentagon. I presume patrol cars can be seen driving by Dutch military HQ and other government offices on a regular basis

Edited September 22, 2006 by Len Colby

[Maarten Coumans]

Hi,

All I can say is what I described earlier. Go check for yourself. Look at the 3m30sec take. See a police car. Driver +passenger pull up. There is not time added in the pictures, so a bit of guessing (they say 1 frame per .5 second I believe). But the position of the sun did not seem so differend to each other. Making it a short timespan (even when cut). They disappear out of the picture.

Well this is extremely odd. The 2 camera's filmed nearly the same angle/scene. One has an orange/yellow explosion with a white flash incorperated (during initial explosion), the other does not show that flash, only later. Very VERY intense. This flash does not show up on the earlier recording I talked about.

After that the police-car can be seen driving to, what I believe to be the heli-pad. (not entirely allong P, "..curves to the right out of the picture"

If he had nothing to do with it, he has the best timing in the world. And can they testify. Any testifimoties from on-duty police-men at the Pentagon?

I am having a real hard time with those lamppowls. One of them has a strange thing. Where the powl is seperated, I see the metal flower in all directions. More consistand with an explosion, than with a high speed impact. IMO.

Furthermore I see a corbonised (tatally burned black) tree in front of the Pentagon. That has not even been trimmed by the wings. Next point: what wings, where?

Brings me to another. There are xxxxLOADS of camera's over there. Not all of them are military secret, or -owned. Yet no images are released from them.

I am not sure wheather the Police guards the Pentagon, since it is military. I would say MP. Just a guess.

To me the Official Story ...... not proven.

Maarten

[Len Colby]

Hi,

All I can say is what I described earlier. Go check for yourself. Look at the 3m30sec take. See a police car. Driver +passenger pull up. There is not time added in the pictures, so a bit of guessing (they say 1 frame per .5 second I believe). But the position of the sun did not seem so differend to each other. Making it a short timespan (even when cut). They disappear out of the picture.

Well this is extremely odd. The 2 camera's filmed nearly the same angle/scene. One has an orange/yellow explosion with a white flash incorperated (during initial explosion), the other does not show that flash, only later. Very VERY intense. This flash does not show up on the earlier recording I talked about.

Yourtube has copies of both tapes with timestamps

1) Security gate

=

2) other -

=

Please show us side by side stills or say in exactly which frames you see this "anomaly"

"After that the police-car can be seen driving to, what I believe to be the heli-pad. (not entirely allong P, "..curves to the right out of the picture"

If he had nothing to do with it, he has the best timing in the world. And can they testify. Any testifimoties from on-duty police-men at the Pentagon?"

The patrol car is from the "Defense Protective Service" http://www.dtic.mil/ref/Emergnc/Emergnc.htm a special police force to protect "the Pentagon, Pentagon Utility Plant and Navy Annex" and perhaps other DoD installations. The DPS's phone number 703 697 – 5555 can clearly be seen in the other video

(FF to 1:04). I don't understand why you find the presence of security at a highly secured building odd. The car drove by the gate and turned away from the helipad a few seconds before the crash and only can be seen racing towards it a minute after. No spectacular timing I would presume there was more than one DPS car patrolling the Pentagon that morning.

But even if there was only one car there is nothing surprising. Each wall of the building is 921 feet (280 meters) long (source http://pentagon.afis.osd.mil/facts-area.cfm ) for a total 'circumference' of 4605 feet/0.87 miles (1400 meters) lets presume the road going around it is more than double that 2 miles (3.2 K) long and the car averages 20 mph (50 kph). The car would make one loop every 6 minutes. The chances of it being within a few hindered feet or meters of a particular point in a one minute timeframe (30 sec before or 30 after an incident – the car passed the security gate about 24 seconds before the crash) are quite high. Even if the road was 3 miles long the likely hood is quite high.

Any testimony they could give wouldn't be helpful in this regard because they were driving away from the impact zone at the time of the crash.

"I am having a real hard time with those lamppowls. One of them has a strange thing. Where the powl is seperated, I see the metal flower in all directions. More consistand with an explosion, than with a high speed impact. IMO."

Please show us a copy of this image. Do you have any experience studying what happens to 30 foot (8 meter) tall 260 lb (120 kilo) metal lamppoles when struck by jetliners at 500 MPH (800 KPH)?

There are numerous witnesses who said the posts were knocked down by what ever hit the Pentagon.

"Furthermore I see a corbonised (tatally burned black) tree in front of the Pentagon. That has not even been trimmed by the wings."

Again please show us the image. There was a huge fireball that was probably wider than the wingspan of the plane. An the Pentagon itself burned for a few hours

"Next point: what wings, where?"

Presumably pretty much destroyed by the force of impacting the 6 foot (1.8 meter) thick blast proof reinforced concrete limestone fronted wall at several hundred MPH as part of a 100 ton aircraft. Most of what ever was left of them probably would have entered the hole.

"Brings me to another. There are xxxxLOADS of camera's over there. Not all of them are military secret, or -owned. Yet no images are released from them."

Careful your "smutty language" may offend some of the more prudish members of the forum LOL! provide evidence to support your claim. The VDoT cameras were presumably aimed at the roads the much touted Citgo tape was too far away. The "no planers" pin their hopes on the tape from the camera at the Sheraton which was about 3x further away and who's line of sight was probably blocked (see posts above)

"I am not sure wheather the Police guards the Pentagon, since it is military. I would say MP. Just a guess."

The DPS does that (see above)

"To me the Official Story ...... not proven."

Nothing can be proven 100 % but in this case the evidence is very strong and the complaints of skeptics almost entirely spurious

[Maarten Coumans]

Well,

This is a picture from Loose Change 2nd. Where I said it flowered in every direction

To me more consistant with an explosion, than a collision at 500Mph, or 800 km/hr. The other part is just a couple of feet away. Collision at 800km/hour... A couple of feet away......

Actually the same collision should be with this one:

<<no more web-space>> I'll describe. The taxi with broken windshield. Wheels to his left turned. A main piece of lamppowl in front of bumper. To the left.

In front of the right bumper lies a half lamp. The other half + a length of the powl lies on the passenger-side.

Now I find it suspicious to find that amound of glass in front of the car, next to the iron rail. That could not have happened at 800 km/hr impact with lamppowl glass against wing. If a cut, that would look differend.

The alternativ thing I come up with is: they unbolted/exploded the base, let the powl fall. It breaks the glass of the lamp in a not to big area.

Next is the lamppowl cut or exploded, and spread around. And I assume then was the car skid into place.

I was not there.

Furthermore compare to the lamppost the Bush Sr's flight had hit on approach. No sign of the lamp itself. That was slower than 800km/h.

Next the tree:

Loose Change again 2nd, 11 minutes+ I came across:

It is the tree in front of the fire truck. In the moving images it is more clear. It can even be seen in Jack's picture, but takes real work. I would recomend the moving pictures. Better because of the smoke.

With regards to smutty language, I would like to rephrase. There were a lot of camera's, not all in the property of the Pentagon. Nothing to do with Pentagon. Not even AIMED at the Pentagon. But would provide footage to substanciate their findings.

I consider it injust to hang on to an official story, because they say it is the only story. That is upside down.

For the flashes I saw from Camera 1 (file 1/2) at 1.28. Camera 2 (File2/2) at 0.34. The times are taken from the player. Cannot miss.

Maarten

Edited September 23, 2006 by Maarten Coumans