Jump to content
The Education Forum

FBI, the mob, and 9/11


Recommended Posts

Hahahahahahahahaha...I'm still laughing!

Jack

Funny this coming from the guy who claimed:

what was clearly a sculpture in front of WTC 7 was flames in the building and

an engine part that was clearly in front of a trash can was inside it

etc etc

I still stand by that the cooling fins are partially obscured by the metal ring which was missing in the 2nd photo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Kerosene, or diesel fuel either, do not melt steel...from an expert:

Steel Ignores Jet Fuel

by Edward Mitchell

I am not a scientist, nor a physicist, nor structural engineer.

<snip>

This is a strawman argument that has been exposed a LONG time ago. The author is absolutely correct. Kerosene does NOT "melt" steel, i.e. it does not liquefy it. However, the temperatures created in a building fire started by kerosene are sufficient to dramatically reduce the tensile strength of steel, WITHOUT melting it.

As Colby would say, please cite your references. Your statement is anti-scientific.

A wood fire will not melt steel, or even cast iron...which Ben Franklin used to

invent his famous wood burning stove. My mother used her cast iron skillet

to cook breakfast every morning and it never melted. You hope nobody will notice

a convenient untruth.

Tell us why JET ENGINES do not melt from the heat of the kerosene they burn.

Jack

Jack, read my post again. I'm AGREEING with the author of the article you posted that a kerosene fire does NOT burn hot enough to melt steel.

However, nowhere in the NIST report does it state that steel was melted. It does, however, state that the fires burned at temperatures up to 1000 celsius, at which point steel loses 90% of its tensile strength, WITHOUT melting.

Since you demand references, here's the relevant portion from the NIST Report FAQ published August 2006.

7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?

OR

7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

That's why the article you posted employs a long-refuted strawman argument. The "official version", i.e. the NIST report, does NOT state that steel beams melted: quite the opposite, as pointed out above. I don't know when the author wrote that article, but if he reads the relevant sections of the NIST report, he'll realise that he actually AGREES with that part of the official version (i.e. steel beams were NOT melted).

The NIST report is a work of fiction.

Jack

Jack, I'm confused. Please help me out.

You post an article by Edward Mitchell who claims that steel can not melt due to kerosene fires. I point out that this is in agreement with the NIST report that steel did NOT melt. You claim the NIST report is a work of fiction. All of it, or some of it? If some, which parts?

Please tell me in your own words, were any of the steel beams in either WTC1 or 2 heated sufficiently to MELT them, rather than weaken them?

My own words: NEITHER.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack, I'm confused. Please help me out.

You post an article by Edward Mitchell who claims that steel can not melt due to kerosene fires. I point out that this is in agreement with the NIST report that steel did NOT melt. You claim the NIST report is a work of fiction. All of it, or some of it? If some, which parts?

Please tell me in your own words, were any of the steel beams in either WTC1 or 2 heated sufficiently to MELT them, rather than weaken them?

My own words: NEITHER.

Jack

Neither melted NOR weakened? Well, at least you agree with the NIST report that the steel didn't melt. I find it puzzling that anyone would claim there was no weakening of the steel, regardless of whether they subscribe to the controlled demolition theory or not. Do you have any evidence to support the theory that there was no weakening of any steel beams? Is there any evidence that proves all the fire protection foam remained intact after the planes hit? Or do you subscribe to the theory that no planes hit the towers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack, I'm confused. Please help me out.

You post an article by Edward Mitchell who claims that steel can not melt due to kerosene fires. I point out that this is in agreement with the NIST report that steel did NOT melt. You claim the NIST report is a work of fiction. All of it, or some of it? If some, which parts?

Please tell me in your own words, were any of the steel beams in either WTC1 or 2 heated sufficiently to MELT them, rather than weaken them?

My own words: NEITHER.

Jack

Neither melted NOR weakened? Well, at least you agree with the NIST report that the steel didn't melt. I find it puzzling that anyone would claim there was no weakening of the steel, regardless of whether they subscribe to the controlled demolition theory or not. Do you have any evidence to support the theory that there was no weakening of any steel beams? Is there any evidence that proves all the fire protection foam remained intact after the planes hit? Or do you subscribe to the theory that no planes hit the towers?

I have no theories.

Study of the videos and other photos shows fakery. When I see a video of

an airplane hitting a steel structure and entering into the building effortlessly

and without wreckage or immediate explosion, I KNOW BEYOND DOUBT that

the images are faked. If the images are obvious fakes, one has to ask the

questions HOW? WHY? WHO?

The answers to those questions have not yet been discovered. Form your

own theories. What the faked images tell me is that THE OFFICIAL STORY

IS FALSE. That is not a theory. It is a fact.

The amount of fuel involved would fill a cube 11x11x11...certainly not enough

to consume a building a quarter mile high. My swimming pool holds more

liquid than that. And photos show MOST OF THE FUEL EXPLODED IN A

FIREBALL OUTSIDE THE BUILDING.

Sorry about your CONFUSION. The facts are clear.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack, I'm confused. Please help me out.

You post an article by Edward Mitchell who claims that steel can not melt due to kerosene fires. I point out that this is in agreement with the NIST report that steel did NOT melt. You claim the NIST report is a work of fiction. All of it, or some of it? If some, which parts?

Please tell me in your own words, were any of the steel beams in either WTC1 or 2 heated sufficiently to MELT them, rather than weaken them?

My own words: NEITHER.

Jack

Neither melted NOR weakened? Well, at least you agree with the NIST report that the steel didn't melt. I find it puzzling that anyone would claim there was no weakening of the steel, regardless of whether they subscribe to the controlled demolition theory or not. Do you have any evidence to support the theory that there was no weakening of any steel beams? Is there any evidence that proves all the fire protection foam remained intact after the planes hit? Or do you subscribe to the theory that no planes hit the towers?

I have no theories.

Study of the videos and other photos show fakery. When I see a video of

an airplane hitting a steel structure and entering into the building effortlessly

and without wreckage or immediate explosion, I KNOW BEYOND DOUBT that

the images are faked. If the images are obvious fakes, one has to ask the

questions HOW? WHY? WHO?

The answers to those questions have not yet been discovered. Form your

own theories. What the faked images tell me is that THE OFFICIAL STORY

IS FALSE. That is not a theory. It is a fact.

The amount of fuel involved would fill a cube 11x11x11...certainly not enough

to consume a building a quarter mile high. My swimming pool holds more

liquid than that. And photos show MOST OF THE FUEL EXPLODED IN A

FIREBALL OUTSIDE THE BUILDING.

Sorry about your CONFUSION. The facts are clear.

Jack

Given your track record at "spotting faked images" which appears to be zero percent, it's pretty clear you know very little about the subject. In other words when it comes to the images of 9/11 you don't know ANYTHING, and nothing "BEYOND DOUBT".

PLease get back to us when you have purchased a clue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is another comparison suggestive of CGI. For the anticipated replies of

DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT, there is a 6 degree difference, provably too little to

say the plane is hidden by a building.

Jack

Jack,

Would you mind posting the proof they are taken at the exact same time? I don't think that is correct, so would like to see what evidence there is to say they are.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no theories.

Study of the videos and other photos shows fakery. When I see a video of

an airplane hitting a steel structure and entering into the building effortlessly

and without wreckage or immediate explosion, I KNOW BEYOND DOUBT that

the images are faked. If the images are obvious fakes, one has to ask the

questions HOW? WHY? WHO?

The answers to those questions have not yet been discovered. Form your

own theories. What the faked images tell me is that THE OFFICIAL STORY

IS FALSE. That is not a theory. It is a fact.

The amount of fuel involved would fill a cube 11x11x11...certainly not enough

to consume a building a quarter mile high. My swimming pool holds more

liquid than that. And photos show MOST OF THE FUEL EXPLODED IN A

FIREBALL OUTSIDE THE BUILDING.

Sorry about your CONFUSION. The facts are clear.

Jack

How many times does this have to be explained to you? The jet fuel was not theorized to be the primary fuel source but rather that it acted as an accelerant. Most arsons burn down buildings with an amount small enough to be carried inconspicuously, as in the case of the WTC the flammable contents in them does the rest. It should also be noted that single liters of vodka or gasoline were sufficient to disable WW2 era tanks struck by Molotov Cocktails.

Your claim that most of the fuel exploded outside the buildings but failed to provide any evidence for that claim.

You have also failed to reconcile your contradictory positions that the 767s should not have penetrated the WTC towers but the smaller 757 should have made a hole equal to its wingspan in the side of the bomb-proofed wall of the Pentagon. Sorry but you can’t have it both ways.

As for the wheels, the cooling fins are visible in both photos but are partially obscured by the metal ring not seen in the one on the left.

Sidebysidewheels2.jpg

Sorry about your CONFUSION. The facts are clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no theories.

Study of the videos and other photos shows fakery. When I see a video of

an airplane hitting a steel structure and entering into the building effortlessly

and without wreckage or immediate explosion, I KNOW BEYOND DOUBT that

the images are faked. If the images are obvious fakes, one has to ask the

questions HOW? WHY? WHO?

The answers to those questions have not yet been discovered. Form your

own theories. What the faked images tell me is that THE OFFICIAL STORY

IS FALSE. That is not a theory. It is a fact.

The amount of fuel involved would fill a cube 11x11x11...certainly not enough

to consume a building a quarter mile high. My swimming pool holds more

liquid than that. And photos show MOST OF THE FUEL EXPLODED IN A

FIREBALL OUTSIDE THE BUILDING.

Sorry about your CONFUSION. The facts are clear.

Jack

How many times does this have to be explained to you? The jet fuel was not theorized to be the primary fuel source but rather that it acted as an accelerant. Most arsons burn down buildings with an amount small enough to be carried inconspicuously, as in the case of the WTC the flammable contents in them does the rest. It should also be noted that single liters of vodka or gasoline were sufficient to disable WW2 era tanks struck by Molotov Cocktails.

Your claim that most of the fuel exploded outside the buildings but failed to provide any evidence for that claim.

You have also failed to reconcile your contradictory positions that the 767s should not have penetrated the WTC towers but the smaller 757 should have made a hole equal to its wingspan in the side of the bomb-proofed wall of the Pentagon. Sorry but you can’t have it both ways.

As for the wheels, the cooling fins are visible in both photos but are partially obscured by the metal ring not seen in the one on the left.

Sidebysidewheels2.jpg

Sorry about your CONFUSION. The facts are clear.

Len, you expect Jack to admit an error? Heck he can't even admit he was wrong about how much fuel the different aircraft held....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no theories.

Study of the videos and other photos shows fakery. When I see a video of

an airplane hitting a steel structure and entering into the building effortlessly

and without wreckage or immediate explosion, I KNOW BEYOND DOUBT that

the images are faked. If the images are obvious fakes, one has to ask the

questions HOW? WHY? WHO?

The answers to those questions have not yet been discovered. Form your

own theories. What the faked images tell me is that THE OFFICIAL STORY

IS FALSE. That is not a theory. It is a fact.

The amount of fuel involved would fill a cube 11x11x11...certainly not enough

to consume a building a quarter mile high. My swimming pool holds more

liquid than that. And photos show MOST OF THE FUEL EXPLODED IN A

FIREBALL OUTSIDE THE BUILDING.

Sorry about your CONFUSION. The facts are clear.

Jack

Jack

I agreed with the author of your previous article that kerosene would not melt steel, because that is not what happened.

I agree that the amount of fuel involved with an aircraft strike would not consume a building 1/4 mile high, because that is not what happened.

MOST of the fuel may well have exploded outside the building itself. However, if a passenger jet struck either tower, I would expect to see major damage around the face that was hit that corresponds with the size/shape of the jet (which is what we see), I'd expect to see huge fireballs outside the building caused by the exploding jet fuel (which is what we see). Since elevator shafts run the height of the building, and to other lobbies, I would not be surprised if other areas were damaged by burning fuel or debris falling down the shafts (which is what we see - damage to the lobby). I'd expect the burning jet fuel to set fire to office equipment and consumables, to enable the fires to continue to burn once the kerosene had all burned off (which is what we see). I'd expect to see lots of black smoke from incomplete combustion due to reduced oxygen levels (which is what we see).

I'd expect the relevant video and photographic evidence to provide supporting evidence that a plane struck both buildings (which it does). Evidence for this happening to the North tower is limited, but there is a wealth of evidence from many different sources that shows a jet crashing into the south face of the south tower. The only ones where we don't see this happening is where the viewpoint means that the plane is obscured for part of it's journey by other buildings. For example, look at your latest study. There is an object in mid-air to the left of the south tower that is very probably the plane, being viewed from a slightly different angle. For you to be right, every single video and photo of the plane crashing into the South Tower must have been faked or altered. How can this be possible, since there are countless sources not only from different news groups, but also many independent and amateur photos and videos that would have to be tracked down, falsified, and the people who were aware of the material somehow silenced. The chances of this happening are vanishingly small.

What I can't see is the fireproofing being dislodged from steel beams, simply because the video footage can't see that level of detail. However, since it's basically a foam that's sprayed on and sets, I don't think it's surprising that in the areas where the plane struck, much of that fireproofing would have been damaged or destroyed. I don't find it surprising that fires burned at temperatures of 400-800 celsius, with hotspots reaching as high as 1000 celsius. If steel is being exposed to temperatures that high, I can research how much it's going ot be weakened, as much as 90%. If structural elements lose that much strength, I don't find it surprising that there was a catastrophic failure in each building. The exact nature of that failure is beyond my ken to prove or disprove. NIST states it wasn't a pancake collapse, who am I to know otherwise. I can't test anything stated in the NIST report, but I can look at their conclusions, how they analysed the evidence, what assumptions they made. I can try and find anomalies that aren't explained by the evidence. In the case of WTC 1 and 2 I haven't found any yet. (The NIST report isn't available on WTC 7 so I can't really comment on its conclusions.)

So on the one hand, I've got plenty of hard evidence that is in agreement with the conclusions of the NIST report that both towers were struck by jets. On the other hand, there are your studies and your belief that planes didn't strike the buildings. Since I can falsify your studies (and others) to my own satisfaction, all I'm left with is a lot of evidence supporting the fact that planes struck the buildings, and zero evidence that they didn't.

There are other theories, for example many people believe that explosives or thermite was used to bring the towers down after the planes struck. I can't falsify these theories, so I have to leave them as a possibility. My own opinion is that it's exceedingly unlikely, but since I can't falsify it, I don't rule it out 100%. My belief that the towers weren't brought down by explosives certainly isn't proof that they weren't. I'm 100% certain that planes truck both towers, regardless of whether there was a subsequent controlled demolition, due to the overwhelimg body of evidence that supports it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no theories.

Study of the videos and other photos shows fakery. When I see a video of

an airplane hitting a steel structure and entering into the building effortlessly

and without wreckage or immediate explosion, I KNOW BEYOND DOUBT that

the images are faked. If the images are obvious fakes, one has to ask the

questions HOW? WHY? WHO?

The answers to those questions have not yet been discovered. Form your

own theories. What the faked images tell me is that THE OFFICIAL STORY

IS FALSE. That is not a theory. It is a fact.

The amount of fuel involved would fill a cube 11x11x11...certainly not enough

to consume a building a quarter mile high. My swimming pool holds more

liquid than that. And photos show MOST OF THE FUEL EXPLODED IN A

FIREBALL OUTSIDE THE BUILDING.

Sorry about your CONFUSION. The facts are clear.

Jack

Jack

I agreed with the author of your previous article that kerosene would not melt steel, because that is not what happened.

I agree that the amount of fuel involved with an aircraft strike would not consume a building 1/4 mile high, because that is not what happened.

MOST of the fuel may well have exploded outside the building itself. However, if a passenger jet struck either tower, I would expect to see major damage around the face that was hit that corresponds with the size/shape of the jet (which is what we see), I'd expect to see huge fireballs outside the building caused by the exploding jet fuel (which is what we see). Since elevator shafts run the height of the building, and to other lobbies, I would not be surprised if other areas were damaged by burning fuel or debris falling down the shafts (which is what we see - damage to the lobby). I'd expect the burning jet fuel to set fire to office equipment and consumables, to enable the fires to continue to burn once the kerosene had all burned off (which is what we see). I'd expect to see lots of black smoke from incomplete combustion due to reduced oxygen levels (which is what we see).

I'd expect the relevant video and photographic evidence to provide supporting evidence that a plane struck both buildings (which it does). Evidence for this happening to the North tower is limited, but there is a wealth of evidence from many different sources that shows a jet crashing into the south face of the south tower. The only ones where we don't see this happening is where the viewpoint means that the plane is obscured for part of it's journey by other buildings. For example, look at your latest study. There is an object in mid-air to the left of the south tower that is very probably the plane, being viewed from a slightly different angle. For you to be right, every single video and photo of the plane crashing into the South Tower must have been faked or altered. How can this be possible, since there are countless sources not only from different news groups, but also many independent and amateur photos and videos that would have to be tracked down, falsified, and the people who were aware of the material somehow silenced. The chances of this happening are vanishingly small.

What I can't see is the fireproofing being dislodged from steel beams, simply because the video footage can't see that level of detail. However, since it's basically a foam that's sprayed on and sets, I don't think it's surprising that in the areas where the plane struck, much of that fireproofing would have been damaged or destroyed. I don't find it surprising that fires burned at temperatures of 400-800 celsius, with hotspots reaching as high as 1000 celsius. If steel is being exposed to temperatures that high, I can research how much it's going ot be weakened, as much as 90%. If structural elements lose that much strength, I don't find it surprising that there was a catastrophic failure in each building. The exact nature of that failure is beyond my ken to prove or disprove. NIST states it wasn't a pancake collapse, who am I to know otherwise. I can't test anything stated in the NIST report, but I can look at their conclusions, how they analysed the evidence, what assumptions they made. I can try and find anomalies that aren't explained by the evidence. In the case of WTC 1 and 2 I haven't found any yet. (The NIST report isn't available on WTC 7 so I can't really comment on its conclusions.)

So on the one hand, I've got plenty of hard evidence that is in agreement with the conclusions of the NIST report that both towers were struck by jets. On the other hand, there are your studies and your belief that planes didn't strike the buildings. Since I can falsify your studies (and others) to my own satisfaction, all I'm left with is a lot of evidence supporting the fact that planes struck the buildings, and zero evidence that they didn't.

There are other theories, for example many people believe that explosives or thermite was used to bring the towers down after the planes struck. I can't falsify these theories, so I have to leave them as a possibility. My own opinion is that it's exceedingly unlikely, but since I can't falsify it, I don't rule it out 100%. My belief that the towers weren't brought down by explosives certainly isn't proof that they weren't. I'm 100% certain that planes truck both towers, regardless of whether there was a subsequent controlled demolition, due to the overwhelimg body of evidence that supports it.

Interesting that you are a hundred percent certain that

an aluminum plane can fly through a wall of steel columns

without breaking up or exploding, against all known laws

of physics. Or maybe I misunderstood your phrase..."I'm 100%

certain that planes truck both towers..."

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no theories.

Study of the videos and other photos shows fakery. When I see a video of

an airplane hitting a steel structure and entering into the building effortlessly

and without wreckage or immediate explosion, I KNOW BEYOND DOUBT that

the images are faked. If the images are obvious fakes, one has to ask the

questions HOW? WHY? WHO?

The answers to those questions have not yet been discovered. Form your

own theories. What the faked images tell me is that THE OFFICIAL STORY

IS FALSE. That is not a theory. It is a fact.

The amount of fuel involved would fill a cube 11x11x11...certainly not enough

to consume a building a quarter mile high. My swimming pool holds more

liquid than that. And photos show MOST OF THE FUEL EXPLODED IN A

FIREBALL OUTSIDE THE BUILDING.

Sorry about your CONFUSION. The facts are clear.

Jack

Jack

I agreed with the author of your previous article that kerosene would not melt steel, because that is not what happened.

I agree that the amount of fuel involved with an aircraft strike would not consume a building 1/4 mile high, because that is not what happened.

MOST of the fuel may well have exploded outside the building itself. However, if a passenger jet struck either tower, I would expect to see major damage around the face that was hit that corresponds with the size/shape of the jet (which is what we see), I'd expect to see huge fireballs outside the building caused by the exploding jet fuel (which is what we see). Since elevator shafts run the height of the building, and to other lobbies, I would not be surprised if other areas were damaged by burning fuel or debris falling down the shafts (which is what we see - damage to the lobby). I'd expect the burning jet fuel to set fire to office equipment and consumables, to enable the fires to continue to burn once the kerosene had all burned off (which is what we see). I'd expect to see lots of black smoke from incomplete combustion due to reduced oxygen levels (which is what we see).

I'd expect the relevant video and photographic evidence to provide supporting evidence that a plane struck both buildings (which it does). Evidence for this happening to the North tower is limited, but there is a wealth of evidence from many different sources that shows a jet crashing into the south face of the south tower. The only ones where we don't see this happening is where the viewpoint means that the plane is obscured for part of it's journey by other buildings. For example, look at your latest study. There is an object in mid-air to the left of the south tower that is very probably the plane, being viewed from a slightly different angle. For you to be right, every single video and photo of the plane crashing into the South Tower must have been faked or altered. How can this be possible, since there are countless sources not only from different news groups, but also many independent and amateur photos and videos that would have to be tracked down, falsified, and the people who were aware of the material somehow silenced. The chances of this happening are vanishingly small.

What I can't see is the fireproofing being dislodged from steel beams, simply because the video footage can't see that level of detail. However, since it's basically a foam that's sprayed on and sets, I don't think it's surprising that in the areas where the plane struck, much of that fireproofing would have been damaged or destroyed. I don't find it surprising that fires burned at temperatures of 400-800 celsius, with hotspots reaching as high as 1000 celsius. If steel is being exposed to temperatures that high, I can research how much it's going ot be weakened, as much as 90%. If structural elements lose that much strength, I don't find it surprising that there was a catastrophic failure in each building. The exact nature of that failure is beyond my ken to prove or disprove. NIST states it wasn't a pancake collapse, who am I to know otherwise. I can't test anything stated in the NIST report, but I can look at their conclusions, how they analysed the evidence, what assumptions they made. I can try and find anomalies that aren't explained by the evidence. In the case of WTC 1 and 2 I haven't found any yet. (The NIST report isn't available on WTC 7 so I can't really comment on its conclusions.)

So on the one hand, I've got plenty of hard evidence that is in agreement with the conclusions of the NIST report that both towers were struck by jets. On the other hand, there are your studies and your belief that planes didn't strike the buildings. Since I can falsify your studies (and others) to my own satisfaction, all I'm left with is a lot of evidence supporting the fact that planes struck the buildings, and zero evidence that they didn't.

There are other theories, for example many people believe that explosives or thermite was used to bring the towers down after the planes struck. I can't falsify these theories, so I have to leave them as a possibility. My own opinion is that it's exceedingly unlikely, but since I can't falsify it, I don't rule it out 100%. My belief that the towers weren't brought down by explosives certainly isn't proof that they weren't. I'm 100% certain that planes truck both towers, regardless of whether there was a subsequent controlled demolition, due to the overwhelimg body of evidence that supports it.

Interesting that you are a hundred percent certain that

an aluminum plane can fly through a wall of steel columns

without breaking up or exploding, against all known laws

of physics. Or maybe I misunderstood your phrase..."I'm 100%

certain that planes truck both towers..."

Jack

Boeing engineer wonders "how stupid" people like Greer are"

.......

Last year, Morgan Reynolds interviewed Joseph Keith.

"Joseph Keith is a retired 76-year-old software engineer who worked in the aerospace industry and just resigned from a professional group known as the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE) founded by Canadian scientist, A.K. (“Kee”) Dewdney. The website is www.physics911.net. Curious about why he resigned (I’m still a SPINE member), I interviewed him from his home in southern California."

http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=..._planer_resigns

Jeff of Pumpitout.com recently interviewed him:

http://www.pumpitout.com/

http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/joseph_keit...1607_planes.mp3

Especially from about midway through the interview, Mr. Keith talks about how absurd it is to think the planes would have disappeared inside the buildings rather than grind to pieces against the buildings. He says he was lead engineer for Boeing on its "Shaker System," designed to simulate resonant frequencies of a plane in flight. He says that from that work he knows very well how fragile the planes are, and compares them to a beer can.

He also says that the planes would have shaken themselves apart at that altitude at over about 220 mph, and also something to the effect that the thicker air would also have stalled the engines. The government claims that the videos show the North Tower "plane" ("Flight 11") travelling at about 450 mph, and the South Tower "plane" ("Flight 175") travelling at over 500 mph. (...and in a dive of 10,000 feet descent per minute)

Keith asks "how stupid do you think people should be?" to believe this stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is another comparison suggestive of CGI. For the anticipated replies of

DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT, there is a 6 degree difference, provably too little to

say the plane is hidden by a building.

Jack

Jack,

Would you mind posting the proof they are taken at the exact same time? I don't think that is correct, so would like to see what evidence there is to say they are.

Thanks.

Here is the evidence. I left out all the frames in bewteen.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no theories.

Study of the videos and other photos shows fakery. When I see a video of

an airplane hitting a steel structure and entering into the building effortlessly

and without wreckage or immediate explosion, I KNOW BEYOND DOUBT that

the images are faked. If the images are obvious fakes, one has to ask the

questions HOW? WHY? WHO?

The answers to those questions have not yet been discovered. Form your

own theories. What the faked images tell me is that THE OFFICIAL STORY

IS FALSE. That is not a theory. It is a fact.

The amount of fuel involved would fill a cube 11x11x11...certainly not enough

to consume a building a quarter mile high. My swimming pool holds more

liquid than that. And photos show MOST OF THE FUEL EXPLODED IN A

FIREBALL OUTSIDE THE BUILDING.

Sorry about your CONFUSION. The facts are clear.

Jack

Jack

I agreed with the author of your previous article that kerosene would not melt steel, because that is not what happened.

I agree that the amount of fuel involved with an aircraft strike would not consume a building 1/4 mile high, because that is not what happened.

MOST of the fuel may well have exploded outside the building itself. However, if a passenger jet struck either tower, I would expect to see major damage around the face that was hit that corresponds with the size/shape of the jet (which is what we see), I'd expect to see huge fireballs outside the building caused by the exploding jet fuel (which is what we see). Since elevator shafts run the height of the building, and to other lobbies, I would not be surprised if other areas were damaged by burning fuel or debris falling down the shafts (which is what we see - damage to the lobby). I'd expect the burning jet fuel to set fire to office equipment and consumables, to enable the fires to continue to burn once the kerosene had all burned off (which is what we see). I'd expect to see lots of black smoke from incomplete combustion due to reduced oxygen levels (which is what we see).

I'd expect the relevant video and photographic evidence to provide supporting evidence that a plane struck both buildings (which it does). Evidence for this happening to the North tower is limited, but there is a wealth of evidence from many different sources that shows a jet crashing into the south face of the south tower. The only ones where we don't see this happening is where the viewpoint means that the plane is obscured for part of it's journey by other buildings. For example, look at your latest study. There is an object in mid-air to the left of the south tower that is very probably the plane, being viewed from a slightly different angle. For you to be right, every single video and photo of the plane crashing into the South Tower must have been faked or altered. How can this be possible, since there are countless sources not only from different news groups, but also many independent and amateur photos and videos that would have to be tracked down, falsified, and the people who were aware of the material somehow silenced. The chances of this happening are vanishingly small.

What I can't see is the fireproofing being dislodged from steel beams, simply because the video footage can't see that level of detail. However, since it's basically a foam that's sprayed on and sets, I don't think it's surprising that in the areas where the plane struck, much of that fireproofing would have been damaged or destroyed. I don't find it surprising that fires burned at temperatures of 400-800 celsius, with hotspots reaching as high as 1000 celsius. If steel is being exposed to temperatures that high, I can research how much it's going ot be weakened, as much as 90%. If structural elements lose that much strength, I don't find it surprising that there was a catastrophic failure in each building. The exact nature of that failure is beyond my ken to prove or disprove. NIST states it wasn't a pancake collapse, who am I to know otherwise. I can't test anything stated in the NIST report, but I can look at their conclusions, how they analysed the evidence, what assumptions they made. I can try and find anomalies that aren't explained by the evidence. In the case of WTC 1 and 2 I haven't found any yet. (The NIST report isn't available on WTC 7 so I can't really comment on its conclusions.)

So on the one hand, I've got plenty of hard evidence that is in agreement with the conclusions of the NIST report that both towers were struck by jets. On the other hand, there are your studies and your belief that planes didn't strike the buildings. Since I can falsify your studies (and others) to my own satisfaction, all I'm left with is a lot of evidence supporting the fact that planes struck the buildings, and zero evidence that they didn't.

There are other theories, for example many people believe that explosives or thermite was used to bring the towers down after the planes struck. I can't falsify these theories, so I have to leave them as a possibility. My own opinion is that it's exceedingly unlikely, but since I can't falsify it, I don't rule it out 100%. My belief that the towers weren't brought down by explosives certainly isn't proof that they weren't. I'm 100% certain that planes truck both towers, regardless of whether there was a subsequent controlled demolition, due to the overwhelimg body of evidence that supports it.

Interesting that you are a hundred percent certain that

an aluminum plane can fly through a wall of steel columns

without breaking up or exploding, against all known laws

of physics. Or maybe I misunderstood your phrase..."I'm 100%

certain that planes truck both towers..."

Jack

Boeing engineer wonders "how stupid" people like Greer are"

.......

Last year, Morgan Reynolds interviewed Joseph Keith.

"Joseph Keith is a retired 76-year-old software engineer who worked in the aerospace industry and just resigned from a professional group known as the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE) founded by Canadian scientist, A.K. (“Kee”) Dewdney. The website is www.physics911.net. Curious about why he resigned (I’m still a SPINE member), I interviewed him from his home in southern California."

http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=..._planer_resigns

Jeff of Pumpitout.com recently interviewed him:

http://www.pumpitout.com/

http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/joseph_keit...1607_planes.mp3

Especially from about midway through the interview, Mr. Keith talks about how absurd it is to think the planes would have disappeared inside the buildings rather than grind to pieces against the buildings. He says he was lead engineer for Boeing on its "Shaker System," designed to simulate resonant frequencies of a plane in flight. He says that from that work he knows very well how fragile the planes are, and compares them to a beer can.

He also says that the planes would have shaken themselves apart at that altitude at over about 220 mph, and also something to the effect that the thicker air would also have stalled the engines. The government claims that the videos show the North Tower "plane" ("Flight 11") travelling at about 450 mph, and the South Tower "plane" ("Flight 175") travelling at over 500 mph. (...and in a dive of 10,000 feet descent per minute)

Keith asks "how stupid do you think people should be?" to believe this stuff.

The complete interview of Keith by Reynolds:

..........

from www.nomoregames.net

Morgan Reynolds — August 1, 2006

Joseph Keith is a retired 76-year-old software engineer who worked in the aerospace industry and just resigned from a professional group known as the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE) founded by Canadian scientist, A.K. (“Kee”) Dewdney. The website is www.physics911.net. Curious about why he resigned (I’m still a SPINE member), I interviewed him from his home in southern California.

Q: Why did you resign from SPINE?

A: Well, I was a founding member in 2002 but I have little patience. With all the arguments I have gone through with Kee, I’ve spent so much time with Kee, it’s led nowhere. A plane never hit the second trade center tower, WTC 2, that’s what started our disagreement about 4 years ago.

Leonard Spencer first came out with what I thought was a smoking gun, the pod. I thought that pod must be a smoke screen device to hide the fact that a real airliner flew by but did not hit the building. And then editors doctored the tape after the fact.

Later on I decided the pod was a distraction since I determined that the video was fake. Case closed.

Q: Why is the video phony?

A: The video is phony because airliners don’t meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them!

Q: Why would the establishment elite pull off a phony video?

A: The video had to be phony because the Illuminati, or whatever we want to call them, had to eliminate all possibilities of a foul up. They needed the hijacking scam to implicate the Muslims, but they couldn’t afford any risk. They had to Keep-It-Simple-Stupid so they faked the crashes.

Since we know that the rich will always hang together, have their children intermarry, and do anything to protect their wealth, they must have an organization, an interlocking directorate, if you will, that is compartmentalized. I could have done a better job, but they faked the video in an amateurish way. A friend of mine could have done a much better job of faking an airplane crash—break a wing off, break a part of the body, throw some fluff in and then I wouldn’t have noticed anything wrong.

Q: When did you realize something was amiss about 9/11?

A: I watched 9/11 on TV that day and my next-door neighbor is a pilot for SkyWest Airlines. We were good friends and when 9/11 happened I called up right away and said, “Turn on the TV.” He came over to my house. I said, “It’s fake.” “Yes, it’s fake,” he said. Later, we decided that the networks did not get the real-time feed of the crash and simulated it instead. In about a week we were convinced by neighbors that the networks were displaying the real thing. His wife is an American Airlines flight attendant and she’s very outspoken. Every 9/11 anniversary they put out a big display about praying for 9/11 flight attendants and all that. She thinks I’m a stupid conspiracy nut. Kee used to ask David, through me, airline questions, but now David is not allowed to talk to me. I don’t know if Kee is personally contacting him now.

Q: You knew right away it was an inside job because the WTC hit was faked?

A: I have spent lots of time trying to figure out how the New World Order could screw up so badly, and the only conclusion I can come to is that there must be some high-ranking insider, or possibly group, that is trying to warn the world of the danger of allowing such a powerful force to rule. In another era, the most powerful force in the World was the Holy Roman Empire and it was brought down by an insider who exposed the document that gave it its power as a fraud. I can’t go into the details now but it later led to the Reformation. I wrote a paper on it 50 years ago.

Q: You say anyone can prove the video is fake. How?

A: First get any video. They’re getting harder to find. A good example is “In Memoriam, New York City 9/11/01” from HBO, narrated by Rudy Giuliani, because the plane crashes at the beginning. Start the DVD and as the plane comes into view, hit the pause on your remote and then go frame-by-frame until the plane goes into the building, step by step.

Carefully watch the plane go into the building: it’s like a hot knife cutting through butter. Marvel at how a plane can meld into a steel-concrete building. A plane should crash against the building. It makes one curious! It should make you think about how a plane would enter a steel-concrete building.

Q: One argument we hear is that all the videos can’t be fake.

A: Well, get all 30 of ‘em and run ‘em, I have four. One of mine doesn’t show the actual crash, two of them show a plane banking, one doesn’t.

Every video that shows impact shows a plane flying through the tower wall the same way it flies through thin air: no cratering effect, no pushing parts of the building in, no crunching of the airframe as it hits resistance, no reaction from the heavy engines and hidden landing gear, no parts breaking off, no outer 30 feet of the wing breaking off, no bursting, shredding or bending of the wing. No nothing.

Q: Isn’t that impossible in reality?

A: Yes. Then after absorption of the plane, you see the building closing up and then an explosion. Meanwhile, nothing fell from either the building or the plane.

Q: That’s compelling evidence of video fakery. What else?

A: One more test is to pause with the plane on the screen. Take a magic marker or tape and mark the nose of the plane and then count frames until the tail passes the mark. You’ll find that the number of steps the plane takes while the plane is in thin air is the same as the number of steps the plane takes as it melds into the building.

Q: So there’s no deceleration?

A: Right. It violates all Newton’s laws of motion. I’ll state them:

1. An object at rest remains at rest and an object in motion remains in motion until a force is applied.

2. When a force is applied to an object, the object accelerates in the direction of the force. When an object in motion hits stationary resistance, the force acts in the opposite direction of the object and therefore the object decelerates.

3. Newton said, “For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction” but I say, every action produces an equal and opposite reaction.

Q: So, for example, a diver speeds through thin air but slows in the resistance of the water unless he has a new energy source to maintain speed.

A: Right. It’s like this TV show I was watching called Myth Busters. They dumped this dummy from 100 feet and it registered 16 G’s when it hit water. That can kill you, we can only take about 10 G’s. Then think about hitting steel and concrete.

Q: Believers in Boeing 767s hitting the twin towers always bring up kinetic energy as the big explanation for how an aluminum plane could fly right through the wall of a steel and concrete tower. Speed squared is supposed make us believe the plane-like outline of the holes in the towers.

A: The more kinetic energy, the more damage the speeding object will do when it hits, but they’re claiming that it punched right through. The plane should have continued right through the building like a bullet through paper. Sure, in the bullet case, little kinetic energy is lost. No plane deceleration also means the plane never lost kinetic energy. Victor Thorn and the others, even though they’re good on demolition and no plane at the Pentagon, are afraid to come out for the No Plane Theory (NPT).

When Jerry Longspaugh, an aerospace engineer and SPINE member, saw a photo of a hole in one of the towers and thought he saw the core, he wrote to Kee and me, “It looks like the NPT is true.” Maybe Kee said something to him, I don’t know.

Kee’s got to be a phony. He’s been saying how sorry he was about the hassle I’m suffering from the plane huggers. That kind of thing is not unusual in my life.

Q: Why won’t Kee do the video test?

A: His university won’t let him.

Q: But he’s done a lot exposing 9/11 lies like proving the cell phone calls were impossible.

A: Kee is allowed some freedom but NPT is the key to the kingdom. It would topple the kingdom, so he won’t go there. Physics911.net has this “What may have happened” and “What did not happen” and he won’t use ‘em. He won’t run your article. They have to have Arab hijackers, so they have to have airplanes.

Q: So do you believe there were no planes?

A: Logic tells me there were no airliners involved. They never showed any wreckage, the hole was empty, and the government showed a few parts but no serial numbers, no part numbers.

Q: The government could have crashed a plane, say, in Pennsylvania, by remote control.

A: Too many problems. Somebody could pick up a part with a serial number.

Q: What about the controversy over high-energy explosives at the WTC?

A: Well, I tend to agree with those who believe they were used but my problem has always been the video. It was fake and that was the end of it for me. Case closed!

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

×
×
  • Create New...