PhixerIt went off topic a long while ago.
What started as a thread thoughtfully commemorating those who died in the atrocity has turned into a pantomime filled with silly conspiracy stories.
Moggy
My challenge of the Official Conspiracy theory should not be dismissed so flippantly as ‘Pantomime’. Neither does it mean that I am insensitive to the human costs of that day.
I thought moderators should demonstrate impartiality when moderating but here you have made your bias quite clear.
PhixerIt went off topic a long while ago.
What started as a thread thoughtfully commemorating those who died in the atrocity has turned into a pantomime filled with silly conspiracy stories.
Moggy
My challenge of the Official Conspiracy theory should not be dismissed so flippantly as ‘Pantomime’. Neither does it mean that I am insensitive to the human costs of that day.
I thought moderators should demonstrate impartiality when moderating but here you have made your bias quite clear.
PhixerAnd for those of you who doubt the sea vixen’s potency, she can still hold her own against the most modern aircraft in the RAF inventory …
But then we are biased aren’t we. 😉
One of the Sea Vixen fliers indicates, in Buttler’s book, how even the Lightning could be beaten.:)
PhixerWhen the first tower came down, I was watching it on BBC and they thought there had been an explosion, and that was the guy on the ground, it was the reporter in the London studio that told him the building was coming down behind him. So mistakes can be made on the ground.
I was also watching that day and saw the second aircraft hit WTC2. I also watched much of the broadcasts during that morning and later that day and there was much that puzzled me.
If you had bothered with some of the clips that I pointed to you will see that the reporter Stephen Evans mentions ‘…big, big explosions from much, much lower..’ before WTC2 started to disintegrate.
I use disintegrate because it did not collapse as such, the huge dust clouds that roiled out from the tower and the lack of mass at ground zero indicate that most of the buildings material went elsewhere.
Also watch closely as the top WTC2 begins to go; sure this starts to topple and in the absence of other forces would have continued to topple – basic laws of physics (these basic laws of physics were suspended on numerous occasions during the course of this day if the official reports are to be believed). However as one watches it steadies and before it falls any further it explodes into dust. Explain that without controlled demolition.
To those who state that it was impossible for explosives, by explosives I mean a mixture of various types of demolition charge including the demonstrated use of special cutting charges (thermite or thermate) to sever steel columns and members, to be planted without the knowledge of many in the building I suggest the reporting by Scott Forbes of Fiduciary Trust who heard the sound of heavy equipment being moved around, drills and hammers being used on the 98th floor of WTC1 above his position on 97. Forbes also reported on the huge amounts of dust around the interior of the building in the mornings as he went in to work.
Then there is the strange case of floor 38 in WTC1 where the lifts never stopped under normal operation and which required a special access key to make the lifts do so. This coupled with, once again, the sound of heavy objects being trundled around.
It happens that the WTC towers had a poor occupancy record, with many areas empty, due to restrictions imposed by the structure and the comparatively narrow windows which workers did not like. There was, over time, ample opportunity to move people around floors so as to vacate large sections for preparatory work. Also work in the sky lobbies (an essential area for special attention given the nature of the structure) and lift shafts would have drawn little attention particularly if the true nature of fittings being installed was camouflaged.
To be sure all this would be costly but look at what those who stood to gain have gained as the result of this day’s events. Besides, any expenditure would be small beer from that 1.1 trillion (and probably 4 times that) unaccountable administration deficit. Then of course there were the unprecedented power-downs, emergency drills and breakdown of security cameras in the days leading up to 9/11.
As for opportunity it should be noted that G W Bush’s brother Marvin was director of the company providing electronic security for WTC (and Washington Dulles airport which also had a key role that day) namely Sucuracom/Stratesec until that day, this latter fact mentioned in Barbara Bush’s own autobiography.
It so happens that a Bush cousin Walt D Walker III was CEO of Sucuracom/Stratesec from 1999-2002.
Much of all this can be found in the 9/11 Mysteries video, take your pick from these:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=9%2F11+Mysteries
Also the heat didn’t melt the steel, it weakened it and that affected the structual integrity of it, added to that the weakened steel was supporting quite a bit of weight.
Correct, the fuel fire heat did not melt the steel but where then did that molten metal at the base of WTC1, 2 and 7 come from?
To appreciably soften steel such as to loose enough of the buildings structural integrity to cause collapse would have required temperatures much hotter than achieved in an oxygen starved, note the black smoke, fire, as anyone who has worked steel will know. A blacksmith has to heat steel to a bright orange red before using a hammer on it to bend it. Static loads just would not bend steel at lower temperatures. The sheer mass of connected steel in each of the towers precludes any one area reaching anywhere near sufficient temperatures. It does not matter if some areas of the steel lost the asbestos fireproofing because the heat would still conduct away from those areas and throughout the remainder of the structure.
The steel columns of the centre core took sixty percent of the load, thus the steel outer columns of any one side took just ten percent of the load and even a seventy percent loss of columns on one side will cause a loss of just seven percent over all and these buildings by the nature of the structure had massive redundancy built in.
Supposing that the cores 47 steel columns did weaken through heat and bend, why were there not spires of twisted steel pointing to the sky after the supposed collapse? How come the steel was broken into convenient lengths for removal? Why was a crime scene cleared so rapidly and most of the steel shipped overseas for smelting before a thorough investigation was carried out?
In over 400 known cases, excluding WTC, of steel framed building fires not one collapsed and here we are supposed to believe that fire brought down three in one day, one of which was not hit by a plane.
Please check out the many other anomalies of that day. In ‘Debunking 9/11 Debunking’ David Ray Griffin has continued to bring these to the surface and has thoroughly demonstrated the contradictions and implications of lying of those involved in attempting to paper over the cracks of the Official 9/11 report, cracks brought to light by critical analysis of the commission’s make up (check on the role of Philip Zelikow) and of its reporting.
If you believe the official report, or pieces inspired by it, then you have been duped and the real criminals will get away with this heinous crime. Now that truly is sad.
PhixerWhen the first tower came down, I was watching it on BBC and they thought there had been an explosion, and that was the guy on the ground, it was the reporter in the London studio that told him the building was coming down behind him. So mistakes can be made on the ground.
I was also watching that day and saw the second aircraft hit WTC2. I also watched much of the broadcasts during that morning and later that day and there was much that puzzled me.
If you had bothered with some of the clips that I pointed to you will see that the reporter Stephen Evans mentions ‘…big, big explosions from much, much lower..’ before WTC2 started to disintegrate.
I use disintegrate because it did not collapse as such, the huge dust clouds that roiled out from the tower and the lack of mass at ground zero indicate that most of the buildings material went elsewhere.
Also watch closely as the top WTC2 begins to go; sure this starts to topple and in the absence of other forces would have continued to topple – basic laws of physics (these basic laws of physics were suspended on numerous occasions during the course of this day if the official reports are to be believed). However as one watches it steadies and before it falls any further it explodes into dust. Explain that without controlled demolition.
To those who state that it was impossible for explosives, by explosives I mean a mixture of various types of demolition charge including the demonstrated use of special cutting charges (thermite or thermate) to sever steel columns and members, to be planted without the knowledge of many in the building I suggest the reporting by Scott Forbes of Fiduciary Trust who heard the sound of heavy equipment being moved around, drills and hammers being used on the 98th floor of WTC1 above his position on 97. Forbes also reported on the huge amounts of dust around the interior of the building in the mornings as he went in to work.
Then there is the strange case of floor 38 in WTC1 where the lifts never stopped under normal operation and which required a special access key to make the lifts do so. This coupled with, once again, the sound of heavy objects being trundled around.
It happens that the WTC towers had a poor occupancy record, with many areas empty, due to restrictions imposed by the structure and the comparatively narrow windows which workers did not like. There was, over time, ample opportunity to move people around floors so as to vacate large sections for preparatory work. Also work in the sky lobbies (an essential area for special attention given the nature of the structure) and lift shafts would have drawn little attention particularly if the true nature of fittings being installed was camouflaged.
To be sure all this would be costly but look at what those who stood to gain have gained as the result of this day’s events. Besides, any expenditure would be small beer from that 1.1 trillion (and probably 4 times that) unaccountable administration deficit. Then of course there were the unprecedented power-downs, emergency drills and breakdown of security cameras in the days leading up to 9/11.
As for opportunity it should be noted that G W Bush’s brother Marvin was director of the company providing electronic security for WTC (and Washington Dulles airport which also had a key role that day) namely Sucuracom/Stratesec until that day, this latter fact mentioned in Barbara Bush’s own autobiography.
It so happens that a Bush cousin Walt D Walker III was CEO of Sucuracom/Stratesec from 1999-2002.
Much of all this can be found in the 9/11 Mysteries video, take your pick from these:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=9%2F11+Mysteries
Also the heat didn’t melt the steel, it weakened it and that affected the structual integrity of it, added to that the weakened steel was supporting quite a bit of weight.
Correct, the fuel fire heat did not melt the steel but where then did that molten metal at the base of WTC1, 2 and 7 come from?
To appreciably soften steel such as to loose enough of the buildings structural integrity to cause collapse would have required temperatures much hotter than achieved in an oxygen starved, note the black smoke, fire, as anyone who has worked steel will know. A blacksmith has to heat steel to a bright orange red before using a hammer on it to bend it. Static loads just would not bend steel at lower temperatures. The sheer mass of connected steel in each of the towers precludes any one area reaching anywhere near sufficient temperatures. It does not matter if some areas of the steel lost the asbestos fireproofing because the heat would still conduct away from those areas and throughout the remainder of the structure.
The steel columns of the centre core took sixty percent of the load, thus the steel outer columns of any one side took just ten percent of the load and even a seventy percent loss of columns on one side will cause a loss of just seven percent over all and these buildings by the nature of the structure had massive redundancy built in.
Supposing that the cores 47 steel columns did weaken through heat and bend, why were there not spires of twisted steel pointing to the sky after the supposed collapse? How come the steel was broken into convenient lengths for removal? Why was a crime scene cleared so rapidly and most of the steel shipped overseas for smelting before a thorough investigation was carried out?
In over 400 known cases, excluding WTC, of steel framed building fires not one collapsed and here we are supposed to believe that fire brought down three in one day, one of which was not hit by a plane.
Please check out the many other anomalies of that day. In ‘Debunking 9/11 Debunking’ David Ray Griffin has continued to bring these to the surface and has thoroughly demonstrated the contradictions and implications of lying of those involved in attempting to paper over the cracks of the Official 9/11 report, cracks brought to light by critical analysis of the commission’s make up (check on the role of Philip Zelikow) and of its reporting.
If you believe the official report, or pieces inspired by it, then you have been duped and the real criminals will get away with this heinous crime. Now that truly is sad.
PhixerIts all rather sad really. There was recently a BBC series about conspiracies, it went through some of the most famous (the 9/11 one being the last) and systematically debunked every single one of them.
I am glad that you mentioned that as that BBC ‘The Conspiracy Files: 9/11’ was shallow in the extreme and has been described by David Ray Griffin in his book ‘Debunking 9/11 Debunking’.
Guy Smith and his research team’s main source was very biased and selective with the facts, and even topics, by being based on an article by Popular Mechanics in March 2005 entitled ‘9/11: Debunking the Myths’ and its follow up book ‘Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts’.
It should be mentioned that prior to the March 2005 article there was a coup of the editorial team of the Hearst Magazines owned Popular Mechanics carried out by President Cathleen P. Black who was married to Thomas E Harvey who had worked for the CIA, the Department of Defense and the US Information Agency. The senior researcher for the article was Benjamin Chertoff cousin of the head of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff. When asked about his relationship with Michael Ben replied ‘I don’t know’.
Before you scoff at David Ray Griffin I would suggest that you have a look at Pilots for 9/11 Truth:
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=4870
Of course we have here the same BBC who brought us the live report on the day from Jane Stanley describing how WTC7 had collapsed a good twenty minutes before it did so – you can see the building still standing through the window behind her as she does so.
This is also discussed at Pilots for 9/11 Truth:
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=5044
and
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=7538
the link supplied at the head of which does not work the clip can be found here:
Please explain how a hijackers passport managed to survive a fireball to be found on the ground at WTC without so much as a scorched corner.
How cellphones worked from altitude in 2001.
How fuel fires burned hot enough to melt steel, I know that they cannot as does anybody who has worked metals.
Provide the origin of the molten metal below ground at WTC1, 2 and 7 that stayed fluid for weeks afterwards.
Why WTC7 came down? Watch the known video of the event, it came straight down. If damage had done it it would have leaned to the damaged side first. Whatever, note the demolition squibs, before any collapse begins, and crimp in the centre top as the collapse starts.
Note that the Official 9/11 Commission report avoids the WTC7 topic and we are still waiting for NIST to report. Judging by the holes in their job on WTC1 and 2 I doubt that it will inspire confidence.
Why, as alledged by the official report, neither the military nor the FAA could track aircraft with transponders switched off. This would only remove flight ID and altitude details. Are we to suppose that Russian invaders only have to switch off their transponders to become undetectable?
Just a few of the many holes in official reports.
PhixerIts all rather sad really. There was recently a BBC series about conspiracies, it went through some of the most famous (the 9/11 one being the last) and systematically debunked every single one of them.
I am glad that you mentioned that as that BBC ‘The Conspiracy Files: 9/11’ was shallow in the extreme and has been described by David Ray Griffin in his book ‘Debunking 9/11 Debunking’.
Guy Smith and his research team’s main source was very biased and selective with the facts, and even topics, by being based on an article by Popular Mechanics in March 2005 entitled ‘9/11: Debunking the Myths’ and its follow up book ‘Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts’.
It should be mentioned that prior to the March 2005 article there was a coup of the editorial team of the Hearst Magazines owned Popular Mechanics carried out by President Cathleen P. Black who was married to Thomas E Harvey who had worked for the CIA, the Department of Defense and the US Information Agency. The senior researcher for the article was Benjamin Chertoff cousin of the head of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff. When asked about his relationship with Michael Ben replied ‘I don’t know’.
Before you scoff at David Ray Griffin I would suggest that you have a look at Pilots for 9/11 Truth:
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=4870
Of course we have here the same BBC who brought us the live report on the day from Jane Stanley describing how WTC7 had collapsed a good twenty minutes before it did so – you can see the building still standing through the window behind her as she does so.
This is also discussed at Pilots for 9/11 Truth:
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=5044
and
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=7538
the link supplied at the head of which does not work the clip can be found here:
Please explain how a hijackers passport managed to survive a fireball to be found on the ground at WTC without so much as a scorched corner.
How cellphones worked from altitude in 2001.
How fuel fires burned hot enough to melt steel, I know that they cannot as does anybody who has worked metals.
Provide the origin of the molten metal below ground at WTC1, 2 and 7 that stayed fluid for weeks afterwards.
Why WTC7 came down? Watch the known video of the event, it came straight down. If damage had done it it would have leaned to the damaged side first. Whatever, note the demolition squibs, before any collapse begins, and crimp in the centre top as the collapse starts.
Note that the Official 9/11 Commission report avoids the WTC7 topic and we are still waiting for NIST to report. Judging by the holes in their job on WTC1 and 2 I doubt that it will inspire confidence.
Why, as alledged by the official report, neither the military nor the FAA could track aircraft with transponders switched off. This would only remove flight ID and altitude details. Are we to suppose that Russian invaders only have to switch off their transponders to become undetectable?
Just a few of the many holes in official reports.
PhixerPHIXER – If a moderator deletes a post, you are not expected to post an identical message subsequently
Moggy
Moderator
It wasn’t, quite, identical as I had removed the
‘and size nine stamping’
which I thought was the only possible objection you could have with it.
Am I not allowed to post a reasonable reply to SLLs rather grumpy posts?
PhixerPHIXER – If a moderator deletes a post, you are not expected to post an identical message subsequently
Moggy
Moderator
It wasn’t, quite, identical as I had removed the
‘and size nine stamping’
which I thought was the only possible objection you could have with it.
Am I not allowed to post a reasonable reply to SLLs rather grumpy posts?
PhixerPHIXER – If a moderator deletes a post, you are not expected to post an identical message subsequently
Moggy
Moderator
PhixerPHIXER – If a moderator deletes a post, you are not expected to post an identical message subsequently
Moggy
Moderator
Phixerthese two types of aircraft look great and are two of my all time faves. but what was the best…and are you a Javelin nut, or like me a Sea Vixen freak….. 🙂
I’ll wake up this thread by informing that Tony Buttler’s long anticipated book ‘The De Havilland Sea Vixen’ has just been published by Air-Britain.
I have had a pleasant, and some times not so pleasant, time over the last week reading through this magnificant work marred only by a lack of details about systems and important modifications and a lack of itemised cockpit layout diagrams.
The picture of Scimitars and Sea Vixens being swamped by ‘gofers’ over the bows is not of Ark’ as stated but of that well known incident when the Vic’ suffered a jammed rudder during a storm. The future history of the aircraft concerned was not as the caption implied either.
The most interesting personal testimony of those who flew will help to inform those who engage in Javelin v Sea Vixen debates.
PhixerFor those still skeptical about the conspiracy theories that point to an inside job (and it should be noted that the Official Account – or which one of its variants one choses to believe – should be classed as a conspiracy theory) and like to think, amongst other things, of Popular Mechanics and NIST as having debunked controlled demolition I point to David Ray Griffin’s latest book:
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X
which also draws further attention to problems with the account WRT communications between the FAA and the military.
When one appreciates the many, many things which do not add up, and also the number of times that key administration figures have contradicted themselves then the Official 9/11 report (Kean/Zelikow) can only be described as bunk. It should have been marketed with free gifts in pouches tapped to the inside covers, an packet of smoke on the inside front and a pack of mirrors on the rear inside.
Now please do not shoot this messenger again without informing yourself first.
PhixerFor those still skeptical about the conspiracy theories that point to an inside job (and it should be noted that the Official Account – or which one of its variants one choses to believe – should be classed as a conspiracy theory) and like to think, amongst other things, of Popular Mechanics and NIST as having debunked controlled demolition I point to David Ray Griffin’s latest book:
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X
which also draws further attention to problems with the account WRT communications between the FAA and the military.
When one appreciates the many, many things which do not add up, and also the number of times that key administration figures have contradicted themselves then the Official 9/11 report (Kean/Zelikow) can only be described as bunk. It should have been marketed with free gifts in pouches tapped to the inside covers, an packet of smoke on the inside front and a pack of mirrors on the rear inside.
Now please do not shoot this messenger again without informing yourself first.
PhixerI think most long time here don’t need to “sell” their credentials. They let their records speak for themselves. For example, you “gained qualifications” while some here “teach” qualifications.
Point understood and it was with some reluctance that I mentioned all that but then I was responding to a very specific slur
from hpsauce:
‘Phixer’s citing of multiple references to give his argument a veneer of credibility merely reminds one of similar tactics adopted by Scientology or staring-eyed fans of Area 51…’
which has since been pulled by the mod’s (as was the head of my post which originaly included that as a quote) neither of which you may have seen.
That is one of the dangers of pulling and changing posts – others miss essential pointers and it changes the tone of a persons post.
BTW I have also done that latter alluded to in your reply but did not consider it required mentioning.
Sign In
