Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: openedeyesandears

I would suggest stop listening to individuals who make a living solely pushing conspiracy fantasies. You too kwakakev. Learn to branch out and find ALL the information and ALL the arguments from ALL sides on any subject concerning 9/11. Your the ones blinding yourselves by cherry picking what information you expose yourselves to. It is quiet evident you have hearts set conspiracy fantasies and facts be damned.

On the video tapes

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate
By John D. Wyndham | Oct 7, 2016 | Editor's Picks, Essays, Science, US | 285

Pentagon Security Videos: Recent work on the video from two Pentagon security cameras shows that they captured images of the approaching, low-flying plane. In his paper “The 85 Pentagon Area Surveillance Cameras,” Ken Jenkins explains the images, how the date error came about, and the likely origins for the trailing white smoke. There is no evidence at this time that the government is withholding other images of the event captured by the surveillance cameras.

Ken Jenkins and David Chandler also recently took pairs of sequential images from the Pentagon surveillance video cameras, putting them together as you would see them in what is called a blink comparator. In this way, the image of the plane “pops out.” If you watch the image cycle a few times, the details of the plane are clearly visible. You can find the blink comparisons on David Chandler’s website, 911SpeakOut.org.

Blink Comparator Views of
the Plane at the Pentagon

By David Chandler, based on prior work by Ken Jenkins

One feature of the plane image helps us identify it as an American Airlines plane. Note the purple stripe along the side of the plane. American Airlines planes have parallel red and blue stripes. At the small scale of the original image it is quite likely that this purple stripe is a merger of the color information from a red and a blue stripe.

**********

NEW: Wayne Coste's analysis of the security camera videos extends what I have shown on this page. The blink comparator images below establish that a large plane approached the Pentagon. Wayne's analysis supports the authenticity of the videos and provides an independent assessment of the speed of the plane based on the security camera footage.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: mrthumpy

Spot on as it turns out

I have tried hard to take emotion out of it. But how can we resolve a problem without addressing the emotional side of things? Maybe if you do not have any emotions you can, but for the rest of us that do it is another piece of the the problem.

So. Then no citable evidence the WTC was brought down by planted pyrotechnics?

a reply to: NWOwned

You answer your own question or demand.

The lateral ejection of massive structural pieces IS one piece of evidence that CD was employed, and it is just one fact out of many supporting CD.

I would say that 3 months worth of molten iron, hot spots visible from space, are even more compelling evidence supporting CD.

a reply to: neutronflux

If you are comfortable with the official story that is fine. You are allowed to support these conclusions and rally behind these justifications for conflict. If you want to support the reasons the public has been told for a policy of perpetual war you can. If you want to blame Osama Bin Laden for the destruction of the towers you can do that too. You have a right to think for yourself and accept what makes sense for you.

Thank you for concern with the questions I have about the official story. Dammed I shall be.

a reply to: kwakakev

I am not comfortable with people exploiting 9/11 by pushing conspiracies that are nothing but fantasies for personal gain/fame along with government agencies glossing over their 9/11 mistakes.

Your the one who seems to be comfortable with con artists as long as they preach your fitted biased views.

a reply to: neutronflux

I am comfortable with how I understand the 9/11 events. I am not comfortable with how this world works. I know I cannot change everything, I can only change how I respond to it.

Deception has been a part of this world for a long time. It is up to each of us to find our own way through it as best we can. If you want to deny the evidence I provide you can. If you want to change my view then give me reason to.

a reply to: kwakakev

I am comfortable with how I understand the 9/11 events.

But your not comfortable postings “evidence” you have faith in to support your faith in WTC CD?

Because your the one that cannot handle reality in there is zero evidence of planted pyrotechnics bring down the WTC.

You are the one that cannot come to terms with reality.

a reply to: neutronflux

You are only comfortable talking about CD which cannot be proven either way. But I know that if building 7 was damaged on 1 side by one of the towers then caught fire, that building 7 would never fall strait down but would tip over.I don't care what you say or think as I don't fall for that foolishness. BTW, have a look (again) at building 7 falling, the near corner of the building on video is not on fire so why is it that corner just collapse STRAIGHT DOWN. Yeap, fire... foolish



Also you never discuss as to why the USA went to war in Iraq ( on false claims) and after OBL when most of the "terrorists" were from Saudi Arabia.
You never talk about that 9/11 Commission Report that was heavily doctored by Henry Kissinger... oops no, Bush's other buddy (you get it?)
You never talk about why there was never any military planes protecting the Pentagon and the towers when they had plenty of time to do so and don't tell me because of confusion due to that exercise... it was meant to be.
You never talk about your expert terrorist pilots that couldn't even fly a Cessna let alone an airliner and fly better that any professional pilots out there.
You never talk about the PNAC document a year before 9/11 mentioning " Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event- like a new Pearl Harbor...". They got their new Pearl Harbor and went after the countries mentioned in that document written by most of the ones in power on 9/11.
You never talk about...
You never talk about...
I could go on all day but if you want to be blind and try to brainwash ATS members, well good luck. We know better.
I know you won't answer half of what is mentioned here and I don't care. Stop your bull# and name calling, wake up and smell the coffee.

a reply to: neutronflux

the OS is BS. there's the reality. believing otherwise is delusional. promoting it is duplicitous.

a reply to: openedeyesandears

You are only comfortable talking about CD which cannot be proven either way. But I know that if building 7 was damaged on 1 side by one of the towers then caught fire, that building 7 would never fall strait down but would tip over.I don't care what you say or think as I don't fall for that foolishness. BTW, have a look (again) at building 7 falling, the near corner of the building on video is not on fire so why is it that corner just collapse STRAIGHT DOWN. Yeap, fire... foolish

Tip over? Like a boat?

Hahahahahahahaha


Do you understand gravity pulls straight down, the building was mostly hollow, and buildings don’t fall over like a boat tipping over.

How did the Plasco high rise fire collapse and the Brazilian high rise fire collapse fall? Like a boat tipping over? No. Why would WTC 7 “tip over”.

a reply to: neutronflux

Because the near side of the building wasn't damaged and the beams weren't damaged so there would be resistance on this side of the building. We all know how it should fall but you and a couple others don't, just to follow the OS. Ignorance to the core...
Now, can you address all the other points I brought up or as usual you are going to ignore them and start on something else and come up with names to instigate animosity again?

You're one of a kind, the only one in the world who's got all the answers because...You're blind, pushing the OS for some reason or you must've witnessed it all...

a reply to: openedeyesandears

You really need to read this post.

pgimeno

www.internationalskeptics.com...

I've run a simulation with the Box2D physics engine as implemented in the Love2D framework. I created a 2D box and two 2D sticks holding it, then with the space key I moved one of the sticks away. The trajectory of the centre of mass of the box was traced. Here's the result

As you can see, the centre of mass of the box does barely move from the vertical; not even by one pixel in this simulation.

Deeper explanation why WTC 7 would not tip over

By pgimeno

www.internationalskeptics.com...

I agree with Hellbound, skyscrapers have a lot of mass and the relatively thin columns make it harder for the structure to tip over than e.g. in the Las Gladiolas example shown by Redwood. See Bazant and Zhou, 2002 Appendix II: Why Didn't the Upper Part Pivot About Its Base?

Basically, the first attempt at pivoting over the base makes the top section gain rotational momentum. The columns can't stand the lateral reaction force exerted by the part of the structure situated below the CoG, and the result is that the top pivots mostly over its CoG instead of over its base.

a reply to: openedeyesandears

In simpler terms. Skyscrapers don’t fall over like tress because the are not solid. Skyscrapers are mostly hollow. Gravity always pulls straight down to the center of the earth. As soon as a skyscraper’s center of gravity of its load is misaligned” from perfectly perpendicular to the vertical columns, the columns cannot handle the dynamic lateral loading. They buckle, then with nothing to no longer “pivot” on, the structure falls straight down.

Simpler yet. For WTC 7 to “tip over” it would need pivot points. The pivots points will buckle before WTC 7 would ever tip over.

Again.

How did the Plasco high rise fire collapse and the Brazilian high rise fire collapse fall? Like a boat tipping over? No. Why would WTC 7 “tip over”

a reply to: neutronflux

I was right, you only answered about WTC 7 falling and I still think you're wrong.
Next, what about ALL the other points I brought up? With blinds over your eyes, it's hard to see the truth.

originally posted by: openedeyesandears
a reply to: neutronflux

I was right, you only answered about WTC 7 falling and I still think you're wrong.
Next, what about ALL the other points I brought up? With blinds over your eyes, it's hard to see the truth.

You think I am wrong because I can cite sources and form a logical explanation why WTC 7 would not tip over? And you think your right because you didn’t provide squat, and you said so?

I have read and examined both sides of the issues of WTC CD and no jets.

There is zero evidence the WTC was brought down by pyrotechnics. Flight 77 did hit the pentagon. Flight 93 did crash in a field.

Funny how someone like me did questing both sides. Then I found the truth movement uses right out lies. Like trying to say pictures of WTC columns cut by cleanup crews by thermal lance was proof of thermite.

Or the falsehood of Richard Gage saying the Twin Towers fell through the path of least resistance, when the floor systems failed first, leaving the vertical columns still standing in the wake of the floor system failures. With the vertical columns toppling from loss of lateral support. Not the floor to floor CD system of cutting vertical columns.




And you dare call me blind when you blindly follow the proven con artists of the truth movement. You follow them without question?

Do I trust the government. No. Do I trust truth movement talking heads that evidence shows they are willing to give right out falsehoods to exploit 9/11 for personal gain. Hell no.

Since the WTC buildings really were hit by jets, the WTC buildings really were not brought down by planted pyrotechnics, flight 77 did hit the pentagon, and flight 93 really did crash, your whole 9/11 belief system is based on lies. Your the one that is blind and supporting con artists. And the rest of your argument becomes a moot point based on nothing but innuendo and lies for profit.

a reply to: openedeyesandears

If WTC 7 fell straight down, how did this happen?

When 7 WTC collapsed, debris caused substantial damage and contamination to the Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall building, located adjacent at 30 West Broadway, to the extent that the building was not salvageable.[47] A revised plan called for demolition in 2009 and completion of the new Fiterman Hall in 2012, at a cost of $325 million.[48] The adjacent Verizon Building, an art deco building constructed in 1926, had extensive damage to its east facade from the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, though it was able to be restored at a cost of US$1.4 billion.[49]

en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: neutronflux

I was right, you only answered about WTC 7 falling and I still think you're wrong.
Next, what about ALL the other points I brought up? With blinds over your eyes, it's hard to see the truth.

You just proved to me and all other members on ATS what you're all about.

Enjoy arguing with yourself because I don't want to hear your foolishness

originally posted by: openedeyesandears
a reply to: neutronflux

I was right, you only answered about WTC 7 falling and I still think you're wrong.
Next, what about ALL the other points I brought up? With blinds over your eyes, it's hard to see the truth.

Sigh

Conspiracists are sad one dimensional animals.

I think the cover up was basically the incompetence of the government, the “inside job” was the good old boy club used by people in the Saudi Arabia to get the terrorists in under false pretenses, and why the WTC building minimized cost by minimizing concrete usage.

As far as your comment...
Classic conspiracist stating something out of context.

Again....

And you dare call me blind when you blindly follow the proven con artists of the truth movement. You follow them without question?

Do I trust the government. No. Do I trust truth movement talking heads that evidence shows they are willing to give right out falsehoods to exploit 9/11 for personal gain. Hell no.

Since the WTC buildings really were hit by jets, the WTC buildings really were not brought down by planted pyrotechnics, flight 77 did hit the pentagon, and flight 93 really did crash, your whole 9/11 belief system is based on lies. Your the one that is blind and supporting con artists. And the rest of your argument becomes a moot point based on nothing but innuendo and lies for profit.


So. When you make blatantly false argument broadening on right out lying like:

....and still no evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon...

Why would I give a crap about your BS

And funny. You claimed I “you only answered about WTC 7 falling“, when I right in this thread was more than willing to debate the pentagon.

Oh no. Anther blatantly false and contradicting statement from a conspiracist.

And I think I mentioned something about Richard Gage and his false statement on Twin Tower columns.

Some posts in this thread about flight 93 by who?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kwakakev

Might read this...

www.metabunk.org/ethiopian-airlines-flight-302-and-9-11s-united-flight-93.t10552/

www.metabunk.org...

It is sad that it took another tragedy to bring focus to the spaciousness of the 9/11 Truthers' arguments. And sadly another tragedy, the crash of Ethiopian Flight 302, may fill the same role this year in the arguments surrounding the fourth plane on 9/11: United Flight 93

Flight 93 crashed into a field on 9/11 after some of the passengers attempted to regain control. Inverted and at high speed, it buried itself in the dirt, leaving only a roughly plane-shaped crater and some scattered debris. The Truther refrain is "where's the plane", with the argument being that when planes crash you can see the plane.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kwakakev

You do understand at the flight 93 crash site the recovery crews excavated an area 70 feet by 70 feet, and 40 feet down to recovery the bulk of the aircraft?

Comparing truth movement websites, vs “debunking” sites, vs the documented facts might be a good start. Knowing all sides of the argument would be a good start.

a reply to: neutronflux

Why did you add Mick West's picture to the other picture?