Popular Mechanics 911 Debunking was Dismantled & Dismembered

pavil

The question remains. What cleared the mass below in order for the mass above to fall at near free-fall speeds?

When I speak of 'ejecting' outward, take a look at any video footage and you will clearly see a huge amount of debri being ejected outward.

The Question of NIST failing to make STEEL fail under heavy load and heat.


You speak of DNA as a sideshow? Then how exactly were the hijackers identified? From what? They used DNA which brings in many questions. How did they get the names of the hijackers so quickly?

Then there is Building 7.

CNN video where you can hear an emergency worker saying 'the building is about to BLOW UP'.

He says 'keep your eye on that building'.

The tape proceeds, 'get back'. "the building is about to blow up".

Then you add the BBC telling the story of the collapse of building 7 20 minutes before it happened!

The list goes on.

I can see no logical reason why the Pilots left Boston to fly planes in NEW YORK BTW, that is ludicrous. IF this was planed as such, one would expect them to leave at a much more closer point i.e JFK.

The hijackers must have had some assurance to fly over an hour, they must have known they would be able to get to NEW YORK, without interception.

That is highly suspicious. Whomever did this, knew the Military wouldn't be able to respond.

Like I said, watch 9/11 Press For Truth its well worth it, cause it takes this from a different perspective and follows a compelling timeline.

AT the end of the day, one could also argue that there is NO PROOF that the OFFICIAL STORY is true either, since the evidence you seek is not there either.








[edit on 11-4-2007 by talisman]

Sometimes thread will get derailed because of the nature of 911 and the passion in beliefs regarding 911, but Cashlink is 100% correct and everyone should respect his request so the thread doesn't get shut down or go astray.

Originally posted by cashlink
Like I said you, are posting in the wrong thread for your Topic.
This thread is about a radio show, Host Debunking an editor who resurch
and edit the Popular Mechanics debunking 911 book.
Have a nice day.

Realtruth

Your right, the thread is getting de-railed and it is due to the nature of anything related to 9/11 and the passions involved.

I will try and keep myself on target


[edit on 11-4-2007 by talisman]

I will keep to the topic if I post again.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by numb99
One or two seconds of error can make a large difference.

Not when talking about a 110 story building falling.

It’s the same if your talking about a 110 story building or a penny.

g=2*d/t^2
if d=415 meters then
if t=9 sec, acceleration = 8.6 m/sec^2
if t=11 sec, acceleration = 6.8 m/sec^2

A collapsing building should fall close to freefall speed.

How's that again? I guess we need to get rid of demolition companies then since they all fall at freefall speed with no resistance. I guess there was no use in getting my engineering degree because we all know now that buildings don't give any resistance when they fail. Damn, wasted years of my life learning how to make buildings give resistance. I want my money back.

I meant close to the numbers calculated above which is what the towers fell at. With all the debris flying out, obviously there was resistance. I keep hearing that they fell to fast. I would like to know how fast they should have fallen. Use that degree of yours to work that out and show use the math.

Flying an airplane really is not the hard. These hijackers did not do anything impressive.

Also, personal experience or opinion?

No 767 experience, but I am a private pilot.

Originally posted by cashlink

WOW!! So you are now an expert in journalism, and you clearly juge other people writing skills.

No, just my worthless opinion.

Tell me something, what dose an idiot sound like?

You have just answered your own question…. Just a joke..

You dont have a degree in anything,

Bachelors in Engineering.

Anyway I think you have stray off my REAL topic here, its Popular Mechanics 911 Debunking was Dismantled & Dismembered.

You are right. I will keep to the topic if I post again.





[edit on 12-4-2007 by numb99]

Originally posted by numb99
It’s the same if your talking about a 110 story building or a penny.

g=2*d/t^2
if d=415 meters then
if t=9 sec, acceleration = 8.6 m/sec^2
if t=11 sec, acceleration = 6.8 m/sec^2

That's acceleration disregarding air resistance and a 90+ story building's resistance.

I meant close to the numbers calculated above which is what the towers fell at. With all the debris flying out, obviously there was resistance. I keep hearing that they fell to fast. I would like to know how fast they should have fallen. Use that degree of yours to work that out and show use the math.

I thought you were an engineer? Didn't you study physics yourself then? Why do I have to prove it to you then? Even if the lower building didn't have enough strength to halt collapse, the collapse should have been slowed.

No 767 experience, but I am a private pilot.

So, you're a private pilot and have never flown a commercial jet? You do know that some of the so called highjackers couldn't even fly a cessna?

Bachelors in Engineering.

What type of engineering?

What was the thread topic again? I'll try to stay on topic. But, if you know me, then you know I'll probably stray again.

Originally posted by talisman
pavil

The question remains. What cleared the mass below in order for the mass above to fall at near free-fall speeds?


When I speak of 'ejecting' outward, take a look at any video footage and you will clearly see a huge amount of debri being ejected outward.

I asked you for your estimate of the percentage "ejected". Then we could have a starting point for discussing the weight falling down on remaining floors. Remember we are talking about an acre sized building collapsing. I see a "huge" amount of dust and smoke being ejected in the video evidence, how much of the heavier mass of each floor gets totally ejected off the building's footprint however? I will ask a second time for your percentage estimate. It should not be hard for you to give an estimate, is it?

You speak of DNA as a sideshow? Then how exactly were the hijackers identified? From what? They used DNA which brings in many questions. How did they get the names of the hijackers so quickly?

.

Regardless of the DNA the planes still hit, did they not? How quickly did they exactly ID the DNA of the hijackers. Please give me the date. There were passenger manifests for each flight were there not? Pretty easy to figure our the hijackers from that. There had been inadequete background checking at airports prior to 9/11, that is for sure.

Then there is Building 7.

I remember hearing of the damage to WTC 7 earlier in that day and how there were still fires going on. Don't you think someone in the heat of the moment in an already bad day might say "blow up" when they meant the building was going to collapse or fall down? It's not a huge stretch.

I can see no logical reason why the Pilots left Boston to fly planes in NEW YORK BTW, that is ludicrous. IF this was planed as such, one would expect them to leave at a much more closer point i.e JFK.

It is not a long flight between the two. At takeoff, an immediate hijacking would have been much harder as all people were not free to move around. The flights had been trial run to have low passenger counts as well. I would anticipate NY flights having more passengers on it. Hardly ludicrous that they chose flights from a location and date that gave them the best chance for taking over the flight.

AT the end of the day, one could also argue that there is NO PROOF that the OFFICIAL STORY is true either, since the evidence you seek is not there either.

Are you claiming that there is no evidence of two planes slamming into the WTC's? I contend that without the airliners striking the WTC 1 & 2 there is no way they collapse. Most CT's contend that they were already doomed to collapse due to planted explosives and the the planes were simply a cover for it.

Yes I know this is off topic of the thread, just replying.

Someone give something earthshaking in the radio interview that gives new ammo to your claims? It was hardly an objective and unbiased interview was it?

i just found this intersting article that challenges the PM debunking article and prove with mathematical calculations that 9/11 was a demolition indeed.

Open letter to PM

Originally posted by pavil
I remember hearing of the damage to WTC 7 earlier in that day and how there were still fires going on. Don't you think someone in the heat of the moment in an already bad day might say "blow up" when they meant the building was going to collapse or fall down? It's not a huge stretch.

Well since we have the statement from fire chief Hayden that they were worried that if the building collapsed on its own it cause more damage and spread more fires.

Also we have fire chief Nigro's contridiction of Silverstiens statement that "PULL IT" meant the firemen.

So with those 2 pieces of evidence i do believe that buiding 7 was demo'd.

How quickly did they exactly ID the DNA of the hijackers. Please give me the date.

They didn't ID the DNA of the hijackers.

There were passenger manifests for each flight were there not? Pretty easy to figure our the hijackers from that.

How do you know that? The official lists were never released. We don't even know whether they were on the lists under their real name.

Even if they were, why should it be trivial to figure out the hijackers from that?

I remember hearing of the damage to WTC 7 earlier in that day and how there were still fires going on. Don't you think someone in the heat of the moment in an already bad day might say "blow up" when they meant the building was going to collapse or fall down?

I think his point was not so much that he used the words "blow up" (i might be wrong though), but merely that the building fell down two seconds after saying it was about to blow up.



[edit on 13-10-2007 by Willie911]

Originally posted by Willie911
They didn't ID the DNA of the hijackers.


I think his point was not so much that he used the words "blow up" (i might be wrong though), but merely that the building fell down two seconds after saying it was about to blow up.

1. According to the Arlington Cemetary page they did ID the hijackers. of flight 77.

www.arlingtoncemetery.net...

Investigators have identified remains of 184 people who were aboard American Airlines Flight 77 or inside the Pentagon, including those of the five hijackers, but they say it is impossible to match what is left with the five missing people.

2. See my post above about the fires chief's statments abour builidng 7.

1. According to the Arlington Cemetary page they did ID the hijackers. of flight 77.

Well, i said that they didn't identify their DNA. Quoting from your link:

The remains of the five hijackers have been identified through a process of exclusion, as they did not match DNA samples contributed by family members of all 183 victims who died at the site.

In other words, the DNA of the hijackers have NOT been identified at all. What they should have done is getting DNA from family members of the alleged hijackers to compare it to.

Identification through a process of exclusion is bullocks. How would they know that those five different DNA samples are from the hijackers? Would it be impossible to find DNA from non-passengers at those sites?

Originally posted by Willie911
Identification through a process of exclusion is bullocks. How would they know that those five different DNA samples are from the hijackers? Would it be impossible to find DNA from non-passengers at those sites?

Well they did not have the DNA testing back in 2001 to do testing on DNA that had been subjected to severe heat and damaged.

The NIST DNA experts did not have a new testing method ready untill 2002.

Well they did not have the DNA testing back in 2001 to do testing on DNA that had been subjected to severe heat and damaged.

The NIST DNA experts did not have a new testing method ready untill 2002.

Could you explain the relevance of this to our discussion?

Originally posted by Willie911
Could you explain the relevance of this to our discussion?

How did they ID all the bodies if they did not have the proper DNA testing?

How did they ID all the bodies if they did not have the proper DNA testing?

That's a good one. Do you have a link for your assertion that "Well they did not have the DNA testing back in 2001 to do testing on DNA that had been subjected to severe heat and damaged."? I'm not saying it's false, cause i read about that before (just forgot where).

Your link claims it's a combination of DNA testing and dental records. This means that either not everything was severely heated and damaged (but i'm not aware of any evidence of this), or that they are lying.

Regarding the hijackers. Assuming that the feds still had their dna samples in 2002 (and it's reasonable to assume that they had, because it's a felony to destroy evidence), it would still be possible to ID their dna by using samples from their family.

Note that afaik the autopsy reports of the victims are still not available for independent review, so it's still not possible for us to verify this story.


[edit on 14-10-2007 by Willie911]

Originally posted by Willie911
That's a good one. Do you have a link for your assertion that "Well they did not have the DNA testing back in 2001 to do testing on DNA that had been subjected to severe heat and damaged."? I'm not saying it's false, cause i read about that before (just forgot where).

[edit on 14-10-2007 by Willie911]

www.nist.gov...
Due to the nature of the World Trade Center disaster, it quickly became evident that traditional methods for performing DNA typing were not likely to be fully successful in identifying all of the recovered remains. Traditional DNA ID methods depend on the presence of long, intact segments of DNA in order to accurately type the sample. The DNA in many of the samples recovered in this situation were so fragmented that these standard methods were ineffective.

In early November 2001, Dr. Robert Shaler, the director of the WTC DNA identification effort, contacted me and asked if I would be willing to develop some new DNA tests to help in the identification effort. I agreed to fast track our research efforts over the next several months and produce some test materials for his laboratory to try by January 2002.



[edit on 14-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by amfirst
Conspiracy sites say there were small fires. And what of Silverstein's comments in the PBS special? He used the term "Pull" to describe a decision made. Conspiracy theorists say "Pull" is a term used by demolition experts. This is one of those many half truths conspiracy theorists use to convince the ignorant. "Pull" is used when they "Pull" a building away from another with cables during demolition.

debunking911.com...

No, actually it is one of those true truths that people sometimes use. BTW "conspiracy theorist" is a thought-stopping pejorative label that accurately describes those who believe in the theory that 19 Arabs conspired to hijack 4 airplanes "because they hate our freedoms."

More on the word "pull" here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...