you know what's astonishing?

[runningman]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

you guys Florida and Miro don't have a clue what you are talking about.. The pancake theory has been deemed impossible by many scientists because the steel core should have still been standing.

Why don't you guys ask yourself what these conspiracy theorists have to gain?? Fired, ridiculed, Ohhhh sounds like a great time to me.. really worth pursuing.

[yesme]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Sigh. Wow... Let me try to give you one final example - a very simple one.

Let's say you're a company that recorded $1000 in transactions in your accounting system during a given time period. Now what does that $1000 in transactions really mean from your perspective? Is it all cash that is available to you for stealing? Not necessarily at all, because let's say:

a. $350 of the transactions represent money YOU OWE OTHERS. It's a cash outflow.

b. $400 of the transactions represent money YOU GET FROM OTHERS. It's a cash inflow.

c. $250 of the transactions have NO CASH IMPACT AT ALL; they are income statement-to-balance sheet moves of past cash inflows or outflows such as accruals, prepaids, etc.

On an ABSOLUTE TRANSACTION BASIS, it's $350 + $400 + 250 = $1000

On a NET CASH BASIS to your company, it's -$350 + $400 = $50.

"$1000 in transactions" over a period of time does not at all necessarily mean "$1000 in cash" available to you during that time! Comprende?

And the military is not a for-profit organization, so it's safe to assume that most of the transactions are cash outflows to other military members and vendors, or non-cash transactions. So how are you going to steal the cash outflows? Well, I supposed you could just not pay your bills... but vendors tend to notice when you don't do that and they make a big public stink and sue you. You could steal some of the money coming in, but notice that it's much smaller than the total volume of transactions recorded. And the non-cash transactions...well, there's no cash there to steal.

wow, your really not getting it are you?

you steal the money by directing it to a company that you will hired on the board of directors, or have a stake in some way. you then pay 25 billion for a plane only worth 1 billion.

maybe you missed some of those great stories comming out of the pentagon?

no one is suggesting otherwise, funny i had to point out exactly what happened.

Furthermore, if those guys were stealing $2.3 trillion, do you think they would be so stupid as to announce it in a speech?? They would just shut up about it and fake the accounting records forever.

hahaha,right, so instead of paying 25 billion for a plane that costs 1 billion, you tell them you bought 25 planes @ a billion each, cause they wont want to know where yo hide these extra 50k planes needed to hide your real accounting errors...lol

good one bro.

You know...I can for instance show you testimony of a very experienced commercial pilot who says that executing that maneuver would not require any sort of "top gun" skills... but what's the point?

so your really going to argue that it was easier for a non commerical pilot to make that turn instead of flying str8 into the top brass office's?

are you going to also say that after 8 years planning, they decided to hit the reinforced, accounting offices of the pentagon instead of the top guys unreinforced part, that would of been easier to hit in the first place?

thats your storey?

It's not implausible. After all, you ignore the majority opinion of thousands of experts who have studied the 9-11 events and focus on the few ones like Steven E. Jones who say what you want to hear.

1. thousadns of experts have not studied 9-11, what you have is experts that offer their opinion without evidence, which i will be happy to show you where they go wrong.

2. did i bring up jones?so why did you?lets stick with what i'm talking about, ok strawman?

Look, this is all going nowhere fast... We started saying that you'd not speculate on how this happened and would just show evidence, and now we've seen you suggest all sorts of highly questionable, unsubstantiated speculative theories based on extremely bad reasoning of how the government announced in a speech that it is stealing 1/6th of the nation's GDP in cash and that the only way they could keep the word from getting out is to cook up a very visible, complex scheme to blow up a part of the Pentagon... Sorry, but I can't take that seriously.

fear not, we will get to the physics soon enough, i just wanted to bring up some other issues that need looked into, and the missing 2.3 trillion was not the reason for 9-11, but just a nice bonus for them to not have to give back the money.

I'm getting that you're not getting that it was less than 1% of the steel and therefore impossible to conclude a whole lot from it

so in other words the government should not of shipped off the evidence before the investigation began, and you think we need a new investigation because this in itself is highly suspect is what your saying?

but what could we find out about the steel with only 1% of it to test?

well we could put it thru strength and fire tests to see how it would perform.

D. Laboratory Tests


Laboratory tests conducted by NIST included:

• Tests to prove loss of fireproofing
• Workstation burn tests
• Tests by UL to test failure in floor assemblies

The floor assemblies tests were important because they were supposed to prove the pancake theory. Yet, despite NIST using less fireproofing on the assemblies than was known to be on the steel in the Twin Towers, and despite their loading the floors with double the weight known to have been on the actual floors, it could not get an assembly to collapse. The tests showed:

• Minimal floor sagging
• No floor collapse
• "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."

now that is from the GOVERNMENT tests, lots of experts for you to choose from there partner.


also, i'm still waiting for a half way decent reason why they would only save 1% of the crime scene.


make it a good one brother.

And I'm not confusing air temp with steel temp...I know that the jet fuel itself only burned briefly (as I said)...and I also think that your opinions on how the combustible load of the fires changed is highly speculative.

well you will be glad to know, it's not my opinion, but that of your thousands of experts in the majority, including nist(sucks when the guys theory your trying to back stabs you in the back eh?)

FEMA's report quotes Culver (1977) stating that typical office-type
occupancies contain fuel loads (described in terms of the equivalent weight
of wood) of 4 to 12 pounds per square foot, with the mean slightly less than 8. However, NIST's reports of June and October 2004 by S. Shyam Sunder state that the typical (WTC) floor contained an average of 4 psf of
combustible materials.

But here we note from the recent NIST report that: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location. (NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added.)

so, yeah, no need to take my word for it.

so lets say that the fire under steel column a was 600c for 20 mins, do you think that is hot enought to raise the temp of that column to 600c knowing it is connected to 50k tons of heatsink?

But what you maybe didn't recognize about my argument is that it doesn't require super high temperatures to explain the building collapse. It more importantly requires uneven temperatures between different parts of the building.

This MIT guy wrote one of the best summaries of it that I've read...my parting gift to you:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

lol i see, so now it dont matter that you cant prove temps were that high, because, magically they did not need to get that hot, because low temps are what really caused the collapse now?

lol.

maybe, maybe this might work, if i was not certified in arc,mig and tig welding and have worked with steel for the last 20 years...lmfao.

Read that last paragraph several times and note that it does not call form extremely high temperatures throughout the floors to "melt" anything. And it is actually quite consistent with the ability to discover fairly low temperatures in the steel samples, particularly if your sample covers less than 1% of the area's steel.

so in parting, nists tests done on the steel could not get collapse to happen because they were to high and not uneven enough?

also, what you keep skipping over, and over, is how all the supports failed at the same time.

you do know the difference between an symmetric collapse and a Asymmetric collapse?

you also realize that for the building(s) to fall str8 down they would need to lose support in the impact area, on all the supports at the exact same time, correct?

in all 3 buildings correct?

do you know the odds of that just happening?

it reaches into the impossible.

but, since this guy said it is so, it must be.

i like your research skills, find someone who agrees with you, and copy paste his/their info.

now if your ready for some real research i suggest you start with understanding how fire affects buildings/steel etc.

the cardington fire tests is a good starting point(btw they have NOTHING to do with 9-11, except for the fact that their science proves the government(and your buddy up there) wrong........again)

http://www.civ.ed.ac.uk/research/fire/cardington.html

^ So, essentially once the integrity of the 1% of steel gave way, the weight of the top of the building collapsing forced the floor below it and the floor below it, and so on, to collapse.
This specific part of the debate seems like a moot point now.

no thats not what he is saying., he is saying since the government only kept 1% of the steel, they cant prove their theory, so lets just take their word for it.

thats what he is saying.

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Oddly Leslie Robertson claims that the impact of the planes broke the fire retardant off the columns causing the fire to become directly in contact with the columns, which sounds plausible in certain areas of the impact but not the whole building or even the whole floor.

Mayor Bloomberg, a former engineering major, was not concerned about the destruction of the evidence:

If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do. Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn't tell you anything.

[Miroslav]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

wow, your really not getting it are you?

you steal the money by directing it to a company that you will hired on the board of directors, or have a stake in some way. you then pay 25 billion for a plane only worth 1 billion.

maybe you missed some of those great stories comming out of the pentagon?

hahaha,right, so instead of paying 25 billion for a plane that costs 1 billion, you tell them you bought 25 planes @ a billion each, cause they wont want to know where yo hide these extra 50k planes needed to hide your real accounting errors...lol

good one bro.

Seriously...I still don't get how does a reasonably intelligent, sane adult automatically goes from Rumsfeld's statement of "our infrastructure is so outdated that we can't propoerly track $2.3 trillion of transactions through the accounting system" to "I up and stole $2.3 trillion in cash?" And I'm the one who doesn't get it??

And how do you even have the gall to present yourself as an objective, evidence-based expert who criticizes me for lack of evidence...and then you try to sell me this kind of a nutty bullshit story with exactly ZERO real evidence behind it?

You don't know anything about military pricing and expenditures, and suddenly you're the "expert" whistleblower on rampant government emblezzlement? Whatever.

so your really going to argue that it was easier for a non commerical pilot to make that turn instead of flying str8 into the top brass office's?

Me? Nah, I'm not going to argue. I'm not an expert on Boeing 757 maneuverability. But these experienced commercial pilots are and they will.

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/print.html

http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf

Look, you clearly like speculative theories, so how about this one:

The hijacker decided to arrive at the target at a safe 7-8k feet (from like 30+ miles away) and then circle down and come in at a very shallow angle, which is easier and more conservative than trying to swoop down into the thing from a larger height (see articles). He picked which ever side of the Pentagon was easiest once he had decreased altitude and turned towards the building...no particular reason, he just wanted to hit the damn thing. Oh, and perhaps in addition to the I-395 freeway that provides a handy guide right towards the building (get a map) maybe it was easy enough for him to use this as a navigation aid:


I dunno.... just a hypothesis from a non-expert. It seems to explain the general situation just as well.

Look, bottom line: I'm all for the investigation of 9-11 to be reopened as many times as you want. But until I see clear and compelling evidence, I will stick with experienced pilots who suggest that the turn does not require Top Gun status and the bulk of field experts who say that the best explanation for the fall of the towers was some form of unsustainable redistribution of load as a combination of the impacts and fires. Even though the conventional explanations certainly have holes that desire better explanation, they make a lot more sense and have more credibility than jumping to extreme and unfounded conclusions about how the government stole $2.3 trillion, how they needlessly demoed a bunch of skyscrapers, how they fired cruise missiles into the Pentagon, etc. End of story until some real evidence comes along.

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Me? Nah, I'm not going to argue. I'm not an expert on Boeing 757 maneuverability. But these experienced commercial pilots are and they will.
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/...186/print.html
http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf

And so are these

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

[runningman]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Miro the guy couldn't fly a cessna? What evidence are yo ulooking for? God coming down and telling you himself. You have video, you have heard testimony that it wasn't an inferno in the buildings, you have evidence of thermate, You have molten steel in pools at the bottom, the buildings fell at near free fall speed, first time in history that a building fell by fire (3 times that day), you have mixed opinions on the Pentagon (Where is the plane)..

[Miroslav]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

"Inferno" issue is subjective and misleading; there was obviously a significant fire, and best explanation is that this layered on top of the initial impact provides the best explanation for why the buildings fell. No one says steel was melting out the windows except for you.

Molten steel at the bottom is highly uncertain, although some may have developed in certain insulated pockets. At any rate, it is completely inconclusive and probably highly unlikely that it has nothing to do with the fall of the building - especially if you are a proponent of the "no inferno" argument.

Thermate is more speculative than anything the government has said - all Jones found on one tiny sample that he had mailed to him was residue of certain things like sulfur that could be from thermate, but that is also quite normal to expect from tons of other non-thermate things.

The free fall thing is silly since every really tall building that lost structural integrity like that is extremely likely to fall "near free fall speed" and "look like a demolition" to every couch potato "expert" with an internet connection. It doesn't tell you much, especially from a Youtube video.

Buildings never felled by fire is a pointless argument since you never had some of the tallest skyscrapers in the world hit at full speed by modern jetliners.

The "no plane at the Pentagon" argument is beyond retarded, since obvious components of the plane were recovered, lots of people saw it, and DNA evidence confirmed the remains of the plane passengers.

None of these things are sufficient and reasonable evidence to contradict what was witnessed, and some of them are just flat-out asinine and clearly wrong.

I haven't even heard a logical, coherent argument as to why the government would even have to resort to something as complicated, needless, and stupid as to first ram big buildings with airliners and then demo them later in broad daylight or to shoot missiles into the Pentagon.

If I see some real evidence some day and not the same tired arguments, I'll change my tune.

Toodles.

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

"Inferno" issue is subjective and misleading; there was obviously a significant fire, and best explanation is that this layered on top of the initial impact provides the best explanation for why the buildings fell. No one says steel was melting out the windows except for you.

Molten steel at the bottom is highly uncertain, although some may have developed in certain insulated pockets. At any rate, it is completely inconclusive and probably highly unlikely that it has nothing to do with the fall of the building - especially if you are a proponent of the "no inferno" argument.

Thermate is more speculative than anything the government has said - all Jones found on one tiny sample that he had mailed to him was residue of certain things like sulfur that could be from thermate, but that is also quite normal to expect from tons of other non-thermate things.

The free fall thing is silly since every really tall building that lost structural integrity like that is extremely likely to fall "near free fall speed" and "look like a demolition" to every couch potato "expert" with an internet connection. It doesn't tell you much, especially from a Youtube video.

Buildings never felled by fire is a pointless argument since you never had some of the tallest skyscrapers in the world hit at full speed by modern jetliners.

The "no plane at the Pentagon" argument is beyond retarded, since obvious components of the plane were recovered, lots of people saw it, and DNA evidence confirmed the remains of the plane passengers.

None of these things are sufficient and reasonable evidence to contradict what was witnessed, and some of them are just flat-out asinine and clearly wrong.

I haven't even heard a logical, coherent argument as to why the government would even have to resort to something as complicated, needless, and stupid as to first ram big buildings with airliners and then demo them later in broad daylight or to shoot missiles into the Pentagon.

If I see some real evidence some day and not the same tired arguments, I'll change my tune.

Toodles.

Sounds to me like a bury my head in the sand post. I don't think you will accept anything other than the official story unless its broadcast on CNN or ABC as fact and then you probably still wouldnt believe it. All you have done is regurgitated your arguments from earlier in the thread even after being shown contradicting arguments. You certainly haven't watched much of the footage shown in this thread.

[Miroslav]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Sounds to me like a bury my head in the sand post. I don't think you will accept anything other than the official story unless its broadcast on CNN or ABC as fact and then you probably still wouldnt believe it. All you have done is regurgitated your arguments from earlier in the thread even after being shown contradicting arguments. You certainly haven't watched much of the footage shown in this thread.

Not all of it, to be honest. I also have a career and it takes up a lot of time right now.

As I said before, I'll admit that there are lots of areas that are still unsatisfactorily explained in the conventional explanation. But do you really think that you have sufficient evidence that the WTC buildings were all detonated via controlled demolition? I just don't think that you have sufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that.

And if you want to talk about contradictions...sure, I've been wrong about certain things and I don't have all of the answers. But I've also pointed out and corrected some of runningman's false statements about "molten steel" pouring out of the building while it was still standing. And I've pointed out and corrected some of yesme's false statements about Rummy saying he "stole $2.3 trillion cash" (which he continues to maintain with no earthly evidence). And I've pointed out and corrected some of your false statements about using a picture of the wrong hole in the Pentagon to try to "prove" that it wasn't a plane. So now what do you have to say to that? Not a peep out of any of you guys when I point those things out.

It's a bit tough to talk about burying one's head in the sand when one disregards clear and obvious evidence about certain things that don't fit the conspiracy agenda, such as DNA records, eyewitness reports, phone calls from passengers, and wheel/engine/fuselage remnants of a large aircraft at the Pentagon, don't you think?

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

And I've pointed out and corrected some of your false statements about using a picture of the wrong hole in the Pentagon to try to "prove" that it wasn't a plane. So now what do you have to say to that? Not a peep out of any of you guys when I point those things out.

It's a bit tough to talk about burying one's head in the sand when one disregards clear and obvious evidence about certain things that don't fit the conspiracy agenda, such as DNA records, eyewitness reports, phone calls from passengers, and wheel/engine/fuselage remnants of a large aircraft at the Pentagon, don't you think?

You talk about the eye witnesses but most of these eye witnesses stories don't add up. Floridaoranges news anchor man claimed the the wings folded up on impact which obviously doesn't correspond with your picture. All the witnesses who where interviewed in runningman's video, who where very clear on what they saw regarding the plane and the route it took before hitting the Pentagon (some of them would not of seen the plane if it took the official route). On realising the ramifications of their accounts no longer wanted to discuss it any more.

[Miroslav]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

You talk about the eye witnesses but most of these eye witnesses stories don't add up. Floridaoranges news anchor man claimed the the wings folded up on impact which obviously doesn't correspond with your picture. All the witnesses who where interviewed in runningman's video, who where very clear on what they saw regarding the plane and the route it took before hitting the Pentagon (some of them would not of seen the plane if it took the official route). On realising the ramifications of their accounts no longer wanted to discuss it any more.

Most eyewitnesses not adding up, my ass... I will repost the eyewitness accounts and even an aggregate analysis of the results that shows a lot of consistency in things reported. And by the way, virtually NO ONE that I am aware of saw a cruise missile or anything else of that sort. You'd be trying to sell me this exacts same story about the WTC too, if the planes there hadn't happen to have been caught on video.

And just by the way...eyewitness accounts always have some variation. Shit happens fast, some people have bad memories, some people are fricken idiots who also claim to see Jesus in their pancake syrup...get the picture? What does one idiot news anchor know about what actually happened to the wings? They repeatedly say dumb shit. But there is reasonable consistency in what the eyewitness reports say.

But eyewitness reports aside, there is of course all of the other evidence of the plane crash at the site including DNA reports, detailed analysis of plane components...but go ahead and bury your head on the sand on that stuff, too (and keep looking at the wrong "entry hole").

[floridaorange]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Variation is putting it lightly, the fact that they say they saw a plane hit the pentagon is enough for me...of course their stories are going to be different and of course they are going to be confused weeks or months or more after it occurred.

Plus, the fine folks that were interviewed were not exactly scientists if you get what I'm saying.

[yesme]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

one of the main give aways against the pentagon tail, is the story of floyd banks, cab driver.

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Plus the fact some of the eye witness could not of possibly seen the plane had it used the route in the official story.

I don't know where you got the cruse missile from Miro, but had the pentagon been hit by a cruise missile I would imagine there would be a lot more damage.

[runningman]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Why is it always whoever comes out of the loud speaker is credible? Those cops in my video are credible on what they saw. They are trained in that area so good luck trying to disprove that one.

Miro Toasty Florida you give your gov't to much credit that they are good and honest people when we see how fucked up their personal lives are. Not to mention how crooked they are either. It always comes down to making money.. That's it.