Talking Acronyms

[medienanalyse]

My English skills could be improved. But in the wake of getting AWOL ASAP I learned to know some acronyms which seem to me to be most important. Here on DU I miss the use of them.

They are constantly ignored. Consider if you know what I mean when I introduce

MASCAL
PENREN
QRA
ATC SOP
ARTCC
NORAD
and Kevlar in this Forum.

Here I must be happy when some people understand FAA , FEMA and NIST.

But talking Pentagon the words "hole" and "wall" seem to be enough, sufficient to explain some pixels.

Do i have a reduced understanding of AWOL ?

[sabbat hunter]

1. norad

norad= north american aerospace defense command.

[KJF]

2. Congratulations! (n/t)

[theSaiGirl]

88. NORAD = North American Aerospace Defense

Who were personally ordered to stand-down for the Pentagon hit, by Osama bin Laden... right ?

[petgoat]

89. Maybe we should do a "9/11 Acronyms" pamphlet, sort of like

one of those A B C books for kids.

A is for Apple,.

NORAD is for North American Aerospace Defense Command.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. ATC SOP

air traffic controller - standard operating procedure

AWOL - absent without leave

[Duer 157099]

4. and?

MASCAL - mass casualties
PENREN - Pentagon reconstruction project
QRA - quantitative risk analysis/assessment
ARTCC - Air route traffic control center

So?

[medienanalyse]

5. My God

I am really impressed.

You do not even understand what I was talking about. But as good U.S. Americans you are at least willing to be helpfull.

To make myself a bit more clear: I wanted to know how much you folks understand about the importance of these terms consideriing the Pentagon impact. I do know perfectly well what they mean.

YOU DO NOT. And you do not even get that you do not know. If you would know what PENREN means you would understand that 9/11 was an inside job.

If you would consider what the implication of Kevlar as a wallpaper might be you would speak differently about the hole in the wall. And so on.

It is so senseless. Sigh.

[Bolo Boffin]

6. It's full of stars!

What are you going on about?

[KJF]

7. Basically, she means that...

(1) 9/11 was an inside job, which is proved by the standdown and the fact that American 77 hit the reinforced bit of the Pentagon, and anyone who doesn't agree with her is nuts;
(2) The no-planers and those who believe the WTC was demolished with explosives are indulging in pixelwixel and are equally nuts.

The OP contains no new information and is merely an invitation to rehash the same old issues that have been gone over here time and time again. If one were in a rehashing mood, one could say, for example, "The Pentagon hole was only 5 feet wide", "It takes hours to launch non-alert fighters", "The WTC was a hologram - I have a re-doctored video clip to prove it" or something like that.

Are you glad you came back?

[Jazz2006]

8. TFTT, K

Acronym for "Thanks for the translation, Kevin"

:D

[rman]

10. by all means, don't bother to explain,

and prop yourself up as all-knowing.

[mirandapriestly]

9. MA has a point

How likely was it for Hanjour to hit the reinforced part, which would be a stroke of luck for the Pentagon in terms of fewer casualties and less liability (since they had reinforced). And look at this, some "alert" person thought of turning things off before evacuating!
http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1003/news_1-2.html

Pentagon Battered but Firm

"So resilient was the newly strengthened section of the Pentagon that a glass display
case only 40 feet (12 meters) from where the plane entered the building survived
without a crack. "

"Countless additional injuries were prevented because new windows in the renovated
section were "blast-resistant" and did not explode into flying glass splinters,
because new fire sprinklers operated as designed, and because alert personnel turned
off power and utilities to the affected areas before evacuating"

but, I think there is more of interest here, like why no investigation for several days and no "full access: investigation for weeks and then only the ntsb, and the "exit" hole...and the renovated building didn't protect the lawn outside.

[medienanalyse]

11. mirandapriestly: I collect points

thank you for the link.
Thanks to KJF for the nice interpretation, but i differ between Macadamias and hazelnuts, peanuts and Brazilian paranuts.

Most interesting is that I got "translations" for the common acronyms - and no sign of interest for QRA or Mascal i.e. mirandapriestly - you know what I mean with mentioning PENREN. What I notice is the widespread unability or unwillingness to do some redearch on their own.

Photos and videos, everything handsomely packed. That counts. What about these photos and the tabloid?:
http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/planspiel.html

And nobody talks about Kevlar.

Same with Atta and the doppelgangers - see the research done by André II. Lame interest.

[Tobias]

12. You´re talking in secrets, but your site is full of bias:

1)

You´re trying to make a mysterium out of the exercises in 2000, where they simulated a crash of a passenger jet in the Pentagon. Right. You´re presenting pics. Okay.

But you do not tell your readers, that just 1 mile south of the Pentagon there is the National Airport. So it´s obvious they have to make these exercises.

A pic CTlers don´t like, and you don´t like either:



If you insert this pic in your site, your argumentation is FINISH.

2)

"Though the Department of Defense had no capability in place to protect the Pentagon from an ersatz guided missile in the form of a hijacked 757 airliner, DoD medical personnel trained for exactly that scenario in May."

Well, this was AFTER the attacks!

3)

">>FRAGE: Wie konnten sie PLANEN, dass zwei Stunden lang keine Abfangjäger am Himmel sein würden ?

ANTWORT (eines Anti-Bushisten): Sie planten dies gar nicht. Bin Laden hatte Atta beauftragt, die Anschläge innerhalb von 20 Minuten durchzuführen, so dass Bush und seine Administration nicht reagieren konnten. Das haben sie zwar nicht ganz geschafft, entscheidend ist aber ohnehin etwas anderes:

Bin Laden bzw. die Terroristen konnten keineswegs sicher sein, dass die Sache "gutgeht". Da aber z. B. schon vor 9/11 mal eine Cessna ins Weisse Haus flog (die hätte ja mit ein paar Tonnen Sprengstoff versorgt sein können), konnten die Terroristen durchaus Hoffnung haben... "

You do not even try to argue against that. So tell me, how can you be sure that air defence should have been able to scramble, when they were NOT ABLE before to scramble a Cessna crashing in the White House?

4)

And why are you attacking someone who disagrees as a "Bushist"??

Sheesh...

After all I would like to call you a tin foil hat!

[Tobias]

16. Nice to see that you´re ignoring me, but at least you made little changes

on your site, ... very little, but anyway.

It was nice to help you!

[Tobias]

24. That´s a kick: KICK! Esp. for medienanalyse. Btw do you know, why

... why John Doe II writes this here:

John Doe II wrote:

Comment : AA 11 departed as we know very early in the morning but Atta only arrived at the late afternoon in Boston. So how can he have watched AA 11 departing? Who is this person?

Source: http://www.team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2484.10
=> go to the date Sept. 9th 2001

Why does John Doe II think that Atta arrived in Boston in the late afternoon?

Ahh, and Btw means: by the way ;-)

[Andre II]

30. You do have a real problem, mate

Why the heck should medienanalyse know why John Doe II wrote something?
And what's the connection to the topic of this thread?
And don't you think you're just a tiny little bit arrogant to put it mildly?
If not encountered a single person around here who insults as much as you do.

[Tobias]

32. No. He asked, what´s a kick, and because he is a promoter of Atta doubles,

.. I used the opportunity to "kick" and to ask him.

Why not?

And sorry, sometimes I just can´t stop myself to call Bullshit Bullshit.

[Andre II]

33. 2.

Well, this was AFTER the attacks!

Sorry, what was AFTER the attacks?

[Tobias]

35. the article medienanalyse linked to. (Changed his site in the meantime) NT

[Andre II]

66. Still slow today

The excercise took place in May 2001.
The article was written after 911.
So what? What's the difference that the article was written after 911?

[Tobias]

69. You are medienanalyse´s doppelganger? Prove me wrong, please!

I do believe in doppelgangers now: medienanalyse´s doppelganger...

At least there are more reasens to believe you are medienanalyse´s doppelganger than Atta has one. Medienanalyse doesn´t answer to me, but you do...:eyes: :eyes:

But ok, that was not too serious.., back to the topic:

It´s very easy: before 9-11 nobody (or hardly nobody) connected the exercises at the Pentagon with hijackers or with terror attack. As there are flying passenger Jets very close to the Pentagon every five minutes, it´s clear they made those exercises because they feared accidents.

In reports after 9-11 some reports of course mention those exercises. That´s not mysterious.

You can prove me wrong: just show me pre-9-11-reports on those exercises which say they are because of the danger of terror attacks.

[Bolo Boffin]

13. How likely to hit the reinforced part? Odds were 1 in 5.

Five wedges, one reinforced. 20% chance of hitting the reinforced part.

Much better than lottery odds, don't you think?

[mrgerbik]

14. Add that up

with all the other coincidences, strange and first-time occurrences of 9/11 and you get extremely higher odds. What do you suppose would be the odds of these all occurring in 1 day:
1) 4 pairs of hijackers commandeering 4 Jumbo Jets and hitting 3 of 4 targets with near military precision.
2) The first 2 cases in recorded history of a "progressive collapse" of a building. An entirely new phenomenon.
3) The first case in history of a total collapse of a building attributed to fire.
4) No air defense deployed in time to stop the largest terrorist attack on US soil in its history.
5) Several different war game exercises being in play on the day of the attack. These included hijackings, a plane crashing into a building and a bio-warfare attack.
5) A single unharmed passport being found in the wreckage of the WTC towers of one of the suspected terrorists.
6) As mentioned, the pentagon being struck by a plane on the newly renovated, least occupied section.

I really could go on, but I have to hit the sack for work in the morning.
If so inclined, please continue the list ... and if possible, get a statistician to calculate the odds :rofl:

[mrgerbik]

15. Actually before I go a few others not on that day that may interest you...

1) 911 being drawn as the "Pick 3" numbers on November 11, 2002.
2) 911 the number the Standerd and Poor's Index closed at on September 11, 2002.
3) exactly 911 days after the NYC attacks, the Madrid Train bombing occured on 3/11

I post these out of pure curiosity. Maybe its something, maybe its not.

[Make7]

17. RE: Maybe its something, maybe its not.

1) 9-1-1 were the winning numbers on September 11, 2002 in a New York state lottery drawing.

2) The S&P 500 index closed at 909.45 on September 11, 2002.

3) It was 912 days.

- Make7

[mrgerbik]

19. My Bad...

The S&P closed at 911 on September 10th, not the 11th. (http://webreprints.djreprints.com/587261396651.html)
In regards to the Madrid bombings: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/madrid.asp

[Make7]

20. That's still not correct.

mrgerbik wrote:

The S&P closed at 911 on September 10th, not the 11th. (http://webreprints.djreprints.com/587261396651.html )

The S&P 500 index closed at 909.58 on September 10, 2002. The article you linked to is talking about S&P futures contracts - not the S&P index.

mrgerbik previously wrote:

exactly 911 days after the NYC attacks, the Madrid Train bombing occured on 3/11

Post #15

March 11, 2004 is 912 days after September 11, 2001.

- Make7

[mrgerbik]

26. ,,,

The S&P 500 index closed at 909.58 on September 10, 2002. The article you linked to is talking about S&P futures contracts - not the S&P index.

Again, my bad. Futures, not Index.

Noted.


March 11, 2004 is 912 days after September 11, 2001

How so?

9/11/2001 = Day 0
9/11/2002 = 364 Days
9/11/2003 = 729 Days
September 30th = 748 Days
October 31st = 779 Days
November 30th = 809 Days
December 31st = 840 Days
January 31st, 2004 = 871 Days
February 29th, 2004 = 900 Days
March 11th, 2004 = 911 Days

[Make7]

29. RE: How so?

Posted by mrgerbik:

9/11/2001           = Day 0
9/11/2002           = 364 Days
9/11/2003           = 729 Days
September 30th      = 748 Days
October 31st        = 779 Days
November 30th       = 809 Days
December 31st       = 840 Days
January 31st, 2004  = 871 Days
February 29th, 2004 = 900 Days
March 11th, 2004    = 911 Days

Why is 9/11/2003 a total of 365 days after 9/11/02, but 9/11/02 is only 364 days after 9/11/01? Was the year 2001 or 2002 a day short?

You said that the Madrid bombings were "exactly 911 days after the NYC attacks". They were not. There were 911 days between 9/11/01 and 3/11/04.

Perhaps an example would better illustrate this. Given days in the same week, Wednesday is two days after Monday, but there is only one day between them - a Tuesday.

Or maybe you should just re-read the snopes write up:

To some people, the connection between the Madrid train station explosions and al-Qaeda was obvious, even when the bombings were still being blamed on ETA — one had merely to note that the September 11 attacks on the U.S. and the attacks in Madrid occurred 911 days apart.

But did they really? Skeptics who did the calculations came up with a 912-day difference between the two events, leading the to conclusion that someone had miscalculated or neglected to account for 2004's being a leap year. Who's right depends upon how one describes the temporal relationship between two dates.

Let's say April 11 is already a date of significance, and something noteworthy occurs on April 14. How do we describe the relationship of the latter day's occurrence to the earlier date? We could say that the noteworthy event:

• Happened on the fourth day


• Took place three days later


• Was separated from the earlier date by two days

The middle option is the most common way of expressing this type of relationship between two dates, and the one that produces a 912-day difference between the September 11 attacks and Madrid bombings. The latter option, although less commonly invoked, does validate the claim that there were 911 days between the two events.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/madrid.asp

So it appears that the really odd coincidence is that on 3/10/04, exactly 911 days after 9/11/01, an S&P index futures contract closed at 911.00!

- Make7

[quickesst]

18. As fervent...

as they are, the ct debunkers need to realize it's too late for the spin. This thing is too big, and it's growing at an amazing rate. Whether it was MIHOP or LIHOP, it should be investigated. If it was just pure incompetence, then let me pose a question. Do you believe, as an American citizen and patriot, that the "incompetence" should be investigated further, and those who's incompetence directly caused the deaths of over 3000 people, should be held accountable? So far, there have been promotions and medals for, well, just about anyone who was "asleep" that day. Why a free pass, and if we're nuts, why the fuck are you people expending so much time and energy trying to convince us the sky is purple, when all evidence points to blue? That, and the FACT they have NO PROOF that 9/11 was NOT an inside job, so they spend their time trying, through straw men, spin, and sometimes plain ignorance, to convince a group of intelligent, informed people that what they think they saw, heard, or read has somehow transformed their thought processes as a direct result of asking a few questions about this subject.
It seems covering up, and making this go away is a priority in the ct debunkers lives. If not, they would simply shake their heads and go about their business. We're important to them because we will eventually expose this criminal act, and remember, if you do not succeed in shutting us down, you will probably qualify for a "Medal of Freedom" or a comfy gubment job. This mis-administration loves to reward failure. Thanks.
quickesst

[mrgerbik]

27. well said n/t

[Jazz2006]

34. What gives you the idea

that those of us who do not buy into conspiracy theories think that the corrupt Bush regime should get a pass?

You're making some pretty huge leaps there (typical among CTers) to equate those who disagree with conspiracy theories to spindoctors trying to give the Bush admin a pass or trying to cover up anything. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Moreover, nobody is trying to convince you that the sky is purple, just trying to make you see that it really is blue and remains blue even though CTers insist on seeing it as red, black, green, yellow, and fuschia, depending on the pet theory of the day and which way the wind blows.

Nobody is trying to make you stop asking questions, although it would be nice if you started asking the right questions instead of throwing red herrings up all over the place to give the Bush administration a pass, because that is what the CTers are doing, and not the other way around.

Absolutely and without question, I believe that the gov't is covering up all manner of ineptitude, incompetence, corruption, bribery, failures in security, intelligence, procedure, communications, building and fire code violations, by a whole host of governmental and related offices and agencies, and that it gladly used the attacks for its own illicit and immoral purposes, and that all of that should be investigated and all of those involved held accountable.

But the tinfoil hat brigade allows the gov't to escape accountability because the ridiculous theories, loudly and shrilly repeated, allows the gov't to laugh off ALL questions, the legitimate and the ridiculous alike, as the rantings of a bunch of madhatters. The CTers allow the gov't to ignore all calls for further investigations on the basis that it is not necessary to respond to tinhat theories as doing so would only legitimize that which does not deserve a response, because the ridiculous and hysterical drown out the legitimate questions that might have a chance in hell of getting to the truth.

Thus, the CTers just help the Bush administration, not hinder it.

And that's what pisses me off.

[Tobias]

36. Absolutely right. Thank You! NT

[medienanalyse]

37. What pisses Jazz2006 off

made me first laugh and now angry too.

What I intended by this thread was that people begin to do a little bit of redearch what the hell this German means by these acronyms concerning the Pentagon. Instead I got a translation of the simple ones.

Nobody mentions, asks for or adjusts some information i.e. QRA. I never read this acronym here on DU except in my own postings. Who might be interested could get a glimpse of the importance by viewing this video with the former canadian minster of defense Hellyer:
http://www.alciada.net/dload.php?action=file&id=293

Nowbody, not even those who seem to understand what PENREN and MASCAL mean, nobody mentions Kevlar and its material qualities in connection with the Pentagon "mystery".

Id people do not know what should be known, if people do not understand what I mean by the acronyms - why do they at least not ASK what I mean ?

What are NATO SOPs in air policing ? If peopke do not know that nor about Artcc regulations, FAA relation to NORAD, rules for ATCs, how could they ever solve 9/11 ?

[Make7]

38. I think we were all waiting for you to solve it for us. ( n/t )

[medienanalyse]

40. You think

- you think ? good.

You are talking for all ? Good.

- waiting for me ? sorry, I did not tell i would come over.

- to solve ? What ?

Again for the lame ducks: QRA is solved. SOPs are solved. What Kevlar means is visible in the thread which '39 provides. And so on.

You seem to be sure to heve made an intelligent remark. Disabled people in their wheelchairs know at least what they are missing.

[Make7]

41. RE: - to solve ? What ?

To solve 9/11.

From your post that I replied to:

Id people do not know what should be known, if people do not understand what I mean by the acronyms - why do they at least not ASK what I mean ?

What are NATO SOPs in air policing ? If peopke do not know that nor about Artcc regulations, FAA relation to NORAD, rules for ATCs, how could they ever solve 9/11 ?

You seem to be saying that you know what all this means. ("I do know perfectly well what they mean" - medienanalyse)

You also said that people did not understand what you were talking about. ("You do not even understand what I was talking about." - medienanalyse)

But you still haven't enlightened us with the significance of this knowledge you claim to possess. If you can't be bothered to even explain yourself, why did you make the minimal effort to start this thread in the first place?

SII
EQAD
BOCA
CMU
MER
LERA
PONYA

Pro di immortales!

- Make7

[medienanalyse]

48. "But you still haven't enlightened us with the significance of this ..."

I am not here to enlighten you.

Are you here to enlighten me ?

What is your understanding of a discussion ?

For example I provided the link to Mr. Hellyers claim. That is the material I provide, several times like that. If nobody answers, asks, says that Hellyer is right or wrong - what do you expect me to tell you ?

Same with Kevlar. When nobody enem UNDERSTANDS that you must take into account all material involved plus the conditions how they come together - how will the nuts here ever solve the problem of the hole in the wall ? By reviewing and reposting one picture afte the other, day by day, in every thred ?

I see a UNWILLINGNESS to take and give information, to discuss relevancies, to argue logically. I do not claim to know everything. That is why I want to discuss. But for more than four years now I am bored by the idiots who post photos of a hole which they do not understand because they do not WANT to understand.

They prefer to talk magic insrtead of logic. they prefer to discuss mysteries instead of searching for the culprits. It is a habit - countable in the closed minds for new information and thoughts.

That is why the sentence is wrong:
"But you still haven't enlightened us with the significance of this knowledge you claim to possess"

I do not claim big knowledge, only a understanding of the mentioned acronyms as a basic for discussion. Nobody discusses or even mentions Kevlar, nobody asks for it. How can I discuss it ? Tell me. Enlighten me.

[Make7]

50. It's rather amusing.

You started this thread purportedly to discuss the acronyms in your opening post, and there has been almost no discussion of them at all. Probably not exactly what you had in mind.

If you think that these acronyms are important, then why don't you at least explain the reasons you believe they are significant? It seems fairly obvious that your approach to discussing this subject is not working.

- Make7

[medienanalyse]

51. it is not amusing at all

and it is not my first approach - it was adifferent one. I hoped there is a bit of interest, a tiny glimpse of astonishment or whatever out there.

"...not exactly what you had in mind." No - I had it in my mind. The reaction was what I had in my mind - not in my hope.

"If you think that these acronyms are important, then why don't you at least explain the reasons"

Why not serve all on a silver tablet? Why not tell pre-fabricated stories all illustrated with photos and videos ? Why not explain the world ?

MAKE7: I am unable to change this consumer attitude. It is a spoiled public mind even in the world of the sceptics. If sceptics do not understand what se. Dayton or Hellyer pointed out and the the implications too - the possibility to use these statements as the sharpest weapons we have-

if the sceptics do not understand that it is helpless. It is not at all amusing that these staements do not find any response at all (not only because I posted them). No interest. Self sufficient video-looking chewinggum chewing American "sceptics". And I am not the only one who is pissed of here.

[Make7]

52. It is immensely amusing.

Even you aren't talking about the acronyms in the thread that you started about them.

:) Make7

[medienanalyse]

53. Good observation

"Even you aren't talking about the acronyms in the thread that you started about them."

Yawn. Yes.I am not willing to deliver more and more. What about you?

[Make7]

67. You are not willing to deliver more and more, yet you keep typing.

I have very little interest in whatever significance you believe should be revealed by the acronyms you posted.

- Make7

[Jazz2006]

47. You're angry because I didn't ask about your acronyms, medienanalyze?

Well, sub threads have a way of taking other directions and don't always relate to the OP.

If it makes you happy, I'll ask you what they mean.

But I thought that KJF already explained it upthread at post #7.

[Grateful for Hope]

39. While you make some good points

I take issue with this:

But the tinfoil hat brigade allows the gov't to escape accountability because the ridiculous theories, loudly and shrilly repeated, allows the gov't to laugh off ALL questions, the legitimate and the ridiculous alike, as the rantings of a bunch of madhatters. The CTers allow the gov't to ignore all calls for further investigations on the basis that it is not necessary to respond to tinhat theories as doing so would only legitimize that which does not deserve a response, because the ridiculous and hysterical drown out the legitimate questions that might have a chance in hell of getting to the truth.

While what you say may be true, I do not think any of us has enough info to completely discount some of the 9/11 alternative theories.

In addition, none of us has enough proof that the OCT is, in fact, the truth in respect to what really happened. It might just be that people are falling for a story that may turn out to be the grand-daddy of all fake conspiracy theories.

And, then again, maybe not.

But, like other truths that have been suppressed by calling them "conspiracy theories" (please see link below as an example), defenders of the OCT may, in fact, be aiding the gov to continue to cover up the truth.

I strongly believe we need a completely independent, non-partisan investigation into the events of that day. Until that happens, all of us are faced with incomplete, inconclusive information which serves, not only to divide us, but also serves to stimulate all manner of alternative theories which sometimes (as you point out) have no merit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=88018#91780

[Jazz2006]

44. Well, I must say that it's nice

to receive a polite and well written response. Thank you for that.

It is not clear to me from your post which "truths have been suppressed by calling them conspiracy theories" with reference to the Flight 77 thread that you linked to. Although I have read that thread in the past, and just skimmed it briefly now, nothing leapt out at me without rereading it in its entirety. Could you please elaborate on what you meant by that?

(On edit: Oh, I see now that you were referring to the Enron fiasco and corporate price-fixing and consumer gouging in the CA energy crisis - I don't know anyone who thought that was a "conspiracy theory" but certainly the corporate malfeasance and misfeasance was covered up for a while, as is the case in numerous other cases, albeit often on a smaller scale.)

I agree that there are many things that we have not been told about what led to the results of the attacks on 9/11. I absolutely believe that the gov't is covering up all manner of acts and omissions by all numerous gov't actors, agencies and authorities (as well as some private individuals), such as those I listed in my previous post, and that those acts and omissions could easily amount to criminal negligence causing death and a whole host of other charges if what I suspect to be true is actually true.

But the evidence that four hijacked airplanes crashed at the locations they are reported to have crashed, and with the people on board who are reported to have been on board, seems to me to be beyond not only reasonable doubt but beyond any rational doubt.

As for the "main" conspiracy theories, though, (and excluding the most bizarre ones like holograms, pod planes, FDNY hitmen, and secretly flying all of the planes to a secret location, loading them on another plane and taking them all somewhere to kill them), even these "main" ones (controlled demolitions, missile strike at the Pentagon) simply do not stand up to scrutiny in the face of the facts and evidence that we do have, and additional evidence if and when it comes to light, is not going to change that because the planes really did hit where they did, the passengers really were on them, the towers fell in a manner that is clearly not that of controlled demolitions, not to mention the realities that would preclude the towers from being rigged for controlled demolitions.

Could other conspirators have carried bombs into the complex, say in the shopping concourse beneath the towers, for instance, in a briefcase while strolling through at the pre-ordained time? Sure. Could other conspirators, having spent time pre-planning things, have arranged it so that they had legitimate appointments which would enable them to obtain legitimate visitors' passes in order to be in the towers at the pre-ordained time with a bomb in a briefcase? Sure.

But controlled demolitions? No.

Missile strike? No.

I agree entirely that the investigations have not gone far enough or deep enough, and I believe that is because the gov't is trying to suppress the ineptitude, incompetence, failures, negligence, etc. set out above and previously.

But, with perhaps the exception of WTC7 which is still subject to a further report (which is annoyingly overdue), they have explained quite competently the "hows". They have yet to address the "whys" and that's because, in my view, they know bloody well that it is the "whys" that will land a whole host of government actors from various agencies as well as those that they accepted bribes from, people many many years in jail.

[quickesst]

49. This statement...

by Jazz2006 "The CTers allow the gov't to ignore all calls for further investigations on the basis that it is not necessary to respond to tinhat theories as doing so would only legitimize that which does not deserve a response, because the ridiculous and hysterical drown out the legitimate questions that might have a chance in hell of getting to the truth."

is not only rediculous, but is also evidence that you are probably the weakest link here for the gubment's argument. What other questions? What other calls for investigations. Where are they? What are they based on? Who is the leader of this movement for "real investigations"? You spend all your time trying to convince us we are delusional, but since I've been reading this forum, I have not read of one call for any investigation, no links to investigations, no posts calling for a new investigation, and for what reasons? As far as I can see, the only calls for an investigation are those who are not wallowing in ignorance and fear. With all the evidence, even if circumstantial, that is so compelling, that millions are questioning the gubment's story, you and your cohorts have none. That tells me all I need to know about your motivations for being here.
Hell, I'm a firm believer in MIHOP, but, as you can tell, my posts are rather sporadic. That's because I have a life outside this forum, and life goes on, but I do put effort into expressing my views, but it's because I actually believe in them. I do not waste my time over at the "no moon landing" sites trying to convince them they're crazy. Why? Because I think they're flat wrong, and if they choose to spend their time theorizing on something I believe is silly, it's of no importance to me. Being that the opposite is true of the ct debunkers here, I can only surmise they have more at stake in this argument than simply wasting time on "nuts". If I were behind 9/11, I would have an army of operatives working all the boards, keeping this thing as far buried under the label "kook" as possible. But then, I would actually be stringent in the qualifications of those opreatives.
quickesst

[mirandapriestly]

54. Those of us who "don't buy into conspiracy theories"

but you "buy into" what has been told to you by this administration (that you allegedly dislike) about 911 ? That doesn't make any sense. The OCT IS a conspiracy theory. No one has stood trial for it (please don't say Moussaoui). Most posters on this forum DON'T HAVE A THEORY as to what happened, just questions/ ideas and a belief (conviction) that we weren't told the truth. So who is the "conspiracy theorist"? As for your ridiculous assertion that "ct'ers" cause the Bush administration to not answer legitimate questions, wtf? They don't answer ANY questions. Bush refused to speak under oath to the 911 commission. And why did the commission occur? Because the victims families had questions that weren't answered . and guess what?they still aren't answered and it has nothing to do with "cters".

edited to add- who is calling someone else "shrill"? Pot meet kettle

[Jazz2006]

55. You're quite wrong,

in your assertion that I "buy into what has been told to by this administration about 911".

Your parenthetical "(that you allegedly dislike)" is an obvious and rather pathetic attempt to suggest that I'm a Bush supporter, repug or freeper - which you have been doing since the first day I got here - just because I don't agree with you on your tinhat theories. I don't know who you're trying to convince or who you're trying to impress with such blatant nonsense, but I am quite sure that anyone with at least two arcing brain cells sees your juvenile tactics for what they are. I have made my views about this administration quite clear, on this very thread, in fact, as well as on numerous other threads but the best you can do is resort to childish schoolyard nonsense. Very telling, that.

(As an aside, you might consider a foray outside of the 9/11 dungeon occasionally to see what's going on in the rest of this terrific site and maybe that would help you come to grips with the fact that just because most people at DU dismiss or disagree with you on the tinhat theories, that doesn't make them repugs or freepers. It might also help you to realize that some of us post on numerous threads in numerous forums and groups, not just here in the 9/11 forum as you seem to think).

Perspective. You should find some.

So, back to your post: I don't buy into "what has been told to by the administration".

Your reading comprehension problems seem not to have dissipated.

Try reading #34 and #44 again.

Slowly.

With brain engaged.

Sheesh.

[mirandapriestly]

57. If you don't believe the official story

then what DO you believe? Why don't you do some research or read something instead of criticizing others and name calling, which was your first or one of your first posts here, calling people "crazy" or "nuts" -that is what I can't stand. How do you think people who have possibly had psychological issues in the past feel about being called names like that - it is just so boorish and ignorant. "Juvenile tactics" anyone?
Saying that people who engage in what you call "conspiracy theories" are somehow giving the Bush admin. a free ride, that is EXACTLY the tactic used on people who are dedicated to uncovering and preventing election fraud. People like you constantly tried to shut down conversation on election fraud initially. Now election fraud is universally accepted as what happened and will continue to happen if it is not stopped.
I'm not saying you're a freeper,I'm just saying that you have the demeanor of one.

[Jazz2006]

82. *Sigh*

The revisionist history you provide above is remarkably inaccurate.

I started posting on DU a few days after I joined, and started posting in this forum probably within a week, around April 2. My posts were not disrespectful and I did not engage in name calling as you allege. You can do a search and ascertain that quite readily.

Approximately a week after that, although I had never had a single conversation or exchange with you, and for reasons still unknown to me, you posted a snide comment implying that I was someone else who had previously posted here, and you did so on the basis of the fact that I used the term “critical thought”. You said something like “that word critical again. It’s almost as though someone keeps getting new identities and posting the same things”.

I responded saying that I had recently joined and had never posted as anyone but myself and that I found it surprising you would make such a leap to such a bizarre conclusion on the basis of the use of the word “critical”.

You didn’t answer, but then a day later, you went into full frontal assault mode, posted to me in the middle of a discussion with someone else, for no apparent reason, just to call me names like zombie (I didn’t know what that meant at the time), a disruptor (I didn’t know that that had a specific meaning here at the time either), and made all kinds of insinuations about me. I was quite taken aback since I had no idea why you would do that, but I responded rationally and politely to your bizarre attack.

Still, you kept at it, going on and on, insulting me for no apparent reason.

While in the midst of responding to your outlandish accusations, some of your posts were deleted by the mods and I didn’t realize at the time that only mods could remove messages and I thought that you’d deleted them while I was responding to you. Still, you kept at it, adding more insults along the way, and still more of your posts were deleted.

But mine are still there, and you can go back and read the genesis of this for yourself. I'll even give you a link if you like.

Despite your repeating the lie yet again, it is and remains blatantly untrue that I came here "criticizing others and name calling, which was (my) first or one of (my) first posts here, calling people crazy or nuts".

And that will remain untrue no matter how many times you post the same falsehoods about me.

Back to your latest post:

The "boorish and ignorant" label suits you, not me.
The "juvenile tactics" label suits you, not me.
Similarly, the "freeper demeanor" label suits you, not me.

As for your comment that "people like you constantly tried to shut down conversation on election fraud": people like me? What are you on about? I have never tried to shut down any discussion of any kind. The suggestion that those who have or do are people "like me" is ludicrous.

You ask me what I believe? Gee, I remember you asking me a whole series of questions a while ago, and when I answered them, you completely ignored the answers and instead went around on a number of threads announcing that you had put me on "ignore" - talk about "juvenile tactics".

My views and beliefs have been expressed in this and other forums - even in this very thread - they aren't hard to find.

You suggest that I do some reading and research? I've done lots. It seems that you just don't like the results so you mock, disparage and attack those who do not agree with you. And that's very sad.

Edit: punctuation.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jazz2006]

106. That must have been a doozy ~ what did I miss?

[Jazz2006]

107. oops - duplicate

[Bolo Boffin]

58. Not all information about 9/11 comes from government sources.

That is a persistent fallacy-turned-axiom of the alternate CT side of the aisle.

And not all government sources are the immediately discounted sources they are considered to be.

[Grateful for Hope]

59. Can you tell us

what other sources provide info on 9/11?

[Bolo Boffin]

60. Newspaper accounts, eyewitness accounts

True, newspaper accounts use government sources, but not always, not exclusively. In fact, a USA Today editor was an eyewitness to Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. He didn't get his info about that from the government. He was there.

[Grateful for Hope]

61. But

I have seen so many threads here that discuss the merits of eyewitness testimony, and, it has seemed to me that the consensus is that eyewitness testimony is questionable unless there is a significant consensus among many eyewitnesses.

And, then I read that someone knows a firefighter who knows firefighters who were on the scene, and then, suddenly eyewitness account is reliable.

Or, as you mention, one lone editor mentions he was an eyewitness, and, suddenly this is reliable.

Seems that we really can't have it both ways -- can we?

[Bolo Boffin]

62. There is a significant consensus among many eyewitnesses

Plus their testimony accords with the physical evidence at the Pentagon (bodies, wreckage, radar records).

Lone editor, give me a break. There were hundreds of eyewitnesses, and the consensus of their testimony is a large passenger jet (which many identify as AA) crashing into the Pentagon. This really is beyond discussion.

[Grateful for Hope]

63. Is this the best you can do?

"This is really beyond discussion"?

There were many conflicting eye-witness accounts, as I am sure you are aware.

You mentioned the editor, I simply categorized him as a party of one. Did he write his piece in conjunction with hundreds of other witnesses, or did he write it based on his own observations?

To get back to the point, most of the 9/11 info we have has come from the gov't, and, since adequate proof has not been provided, and from the looks of things, it may never be, it appears that an independent, non-partisan investigation is the only way any of us will know the truth.

Wouldn't you like to see such an investigation happen?

[Bolo Boffin]

64. Do you understand what consensus means?

Yes, some people say conflicting things, but by looking at all the eyewitness reports, you begin to see an overall pattern. That pattern is the consensus, and the overwhelming consensus of eyewitness accounts at the Pentagon say large American Airlines 757.

Joel Sucherman, USAToday.com Multimedia Editor, saw it all: an American Airlines jetliner fly left to right across his field of vision as he commuted to work Tuesday morning. It was highly unusual. The large plane was 20 feet off the ground and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield. Two seconds later and before he could see if the landing gear was down or any of the horror- struck faces inside, the plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away. My first thought was he's not going to make it across the river to National Airport. But whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction. It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle--almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its target and staying dead on course... "I didn't feel anything coming out of the Pentagon ," he said. "A couple of minutes later, police cars and fire trucks headed to the scene." Ironically, the passage of emergency vehicles got traffic moving again, which was now crunching over twisted metal Sucherman guessed was the skin of the plane.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

There's been an investigation of what hit the Pentagon. There's been an investigation of how the WTC collapsed. It is beyond foolishness to waste any more public dollars on investigations like these.

There are more important things for all of you to be spending your energies on.

[Andre II]

65. Consensus

"That pattern is the consensus, and the overwhelming consensus of eyewitness accounts at the Pentagon say large American Airlines 757."

I've thought I've read Eric Bart's list quite often:
Mind pointing out how many witnesses said "large American Airline 757"?
I've seen only very very few. Why is this a consensus?

[Bolo Boffin]

73. Do YOU understand what consensus means?

Some witnesses say large plane.
Some witnesses say American Airlines.
Some witnesses say plane.
Some witnesses say 757.

The pattern emerges. The identity of the plane becomes clear.

And when this is combined with the discovery of Flight 77's passengers, and the radar evidence, and the recovery of Flight 77's pieces, the fact is well-established beyond discussion. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

[rman]

94. Some witnesses say "sounded like a fighter jet"

Some say other planes were in the sky over DC.

The pattern is that there are contradictory eyewitness reports.

[Bolo Boffin]

96. Operative phrase: "sounded like"

That doesn't contradict the general consensus - it's a part of it. I imagine that any plane traveling that fast "sounded like" a fighter jet. No contradiction there.

Other planes over the area (the C130, right?) still doesn't contradict the general consensus.

The pattern is American Airlines 757. Almost all the eyewitness accounts fit into this, in a way that nullifies the outliers.

[rman]

101. Your conclusion that there's no contradiction is based on your imagination

Not good enough.

It's not very scientific to rule out contradictory evidence.
One piece of contradictory evidence - if verified - is enough to falsify a theory.

None of the eyewitness reports can be verified except by examination of several confiscated video recordings.

[Bolo Boffin]

105. There's an overactive imagination in this conversation, alright.

Saying that something "sounded like a missile" doesn't contradict other witnesses saying that it was a plane. As I said, the plane was going fast enough that it probably did sound like a missile. It's not contradictory.

Also, seeing other planes there in the area does NOT contradict the overall consensus of what actually hit the Pentagon.

Do you understand what a consensus is? Do you know how they are built?

[rman]

109. Again you simply assume

that contradictory evidence is irrelevant.

The consensus you speak of is primarily one of the government and the media.


Final Results of CNN Poll
As of the close of the poll, March 26, 2006, CNN.com Showbiz QUICKVOTE poll:
Do you agree with Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks?

52,621 voters:
84% Yes
16% No

http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/23968.content.html


Some consensus.

[Bolo Boffin]

112. Are you allowed to use both sides of an argument?

I would probably answer yes to that poll question, by the way.

[Grateful for Hope]

68. I thought so

Either you really didn't understand what I was asking, or you are deliberately reframing the question to make it appear that all I am interested in is whether the towers collapsed (and, you are attempting to undermine me by asking whether I understand what "consensus" means -- Please).

At the very least, 9/11 was a criminal act. And, one of the avenues of investigation was whether there was negligence on the part of the gov't. Therefore, the gov't should not have been investigating itself. At the outset, we should have seen a completely independent, non-partisan investigation. This is what I want to see now.

If you are satisfied with the 9/11 Commission report, (and, as I am sure you are aware, the money spent on investigating 9/11 was a mere fraction of what was spent on the investigation of Clinton), then, to me, it is clear to me that you have no interest in knowing the truth behind 9/11.

[Bolo Boffin]

74. There are wide open areas left to investigate.

I mention two issues that have been done to death, and you jump to an unwarranted conclusion.

The Bush Administration's sheer incompentence has never been fully plumbed. From the Phoenix memo to Able Danger, it's shocking to see how much information they had and ignored, right down to the Aug 6 PDB.

And this is why you see me here, railing against Flight 77 denial and controlled demolition twaddle. These issues negate your voices. Espousal or toleration of these insanities invalidate any sensible question you might have. It's a shame to see such passionate people diverted into topics that are beneath them.

[Grateful for Hope]

76. Thank you for sharing your viewpoint

I appreciate it.

Also, I do understand your frustration at the many threads here that address only one aspect of 9/11 (such as CD).

But, what if there is more to 9/11 than sheer incompetence? Wouldn't you want to see this exposed?

I think it would do the US (and the world) a great injustice if all valid questions were not answered in an independent investigation.

I don't subscribe to any particular theory; rather, I believe that there are many aspects of the official story that are questionable.

Thanks again for taking the time to respond to my post.

[Bolo Boffin]

77. No problem

If the right threads start getting pulled, the coverup will collapse and whether it's incompetence or worse, the truth will be there.

[Grateful for Hope]

78. Yes, I think you are right n/t

[Americus]

70. Do you understand that only naive people your OCT claims?

"There's been an investigation of what hit the Pentagon. There's been an investigation of how the WTC collapsed. It is beyond foolishness to waste any more public dollars on investigations like these.

There are more important things for all of you to be spending your energies on."

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Question:
Does this mean you're going to change professions? Say it's so, Joe.

[Bolo Boffin]

75. I don't understand...

What do you imagine my profession to be?

[Americus]

83. Answer to your question about what I imagine your line of work is

Sales

[Bolo Boffin]

84. Wrong.

Actor/waiter, but thanks for playing.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

72. And the pile on begins.... nt

[rman]

93. The investigations are inconclusive, contradictory

FEMA and NIST present mutually exclusive theories about the collapse initiation mechanism of the towers.
FEMA doesn't know what caused WTC7 to collapse. NIST doesn't address WTC7.
The 9-11 Commission omitted testimony of whistleblowers, figured there's no point in "following the money".

There used to be consensus that the earth is flat.

[Americus]

95. There's just no end to the incompetence, negligence & intel failures.

That OSAMA is one smart dude! He even came up with a plan to deal with the inevitable cries for Government-sponsored 9/11 investigations. And, to think he figured it all out while hovered over a fire inside one of his batcave residences in the remote mounds of Langerhorn. Boy left NOTHING to chance. Smart, cynical, diabolical. Osama's mama would have been proud of his ability to cause so many problems and opportunities (creating more jobs for SPIN Doctors).

[rman]

99. i'm not sure what that's supposed to mean

[Bolo Boffin]

98. With careful attention to the actual evidence

The consensus that the world is flat was destroyed. Still, there are people today who still claim the world is flat. Despite their noble stand against the "official story" and its scientists and shills, the world remains round.

FEMA's hypothesis was never fully investigated. It was a preliminary look at the data. NIST took their job over and finished the work.

So screw the FEMA report.

The WTC 7 report is late in coming, true. There's no date given when it will be released, as far as I know. Still, I think it will be. So hold tight, little camper.

The 9/11 Commission had a very tightly defined arena of investigation, and within that circle, they did okay. That's all I'm willing to claim for them. It was by no means comprehensive.

[rman]

100. In conclusion: there's no comprehensive investigation of 9-11.

Yet some people seem to think it is satisfactory, and they insist it should be satisfactory to everyone else.

[Bolo Boffin]

103. There are some very comprehensive investigations of certain parts

of what happened that day.

Like the NIST investigation of the WTC towers falling.

Yet some people still believe the earth is flat.

[rman]

108. Actually 90% of the NIST report deals with what we already knew:

the actual plane crashes and subsequent fires. NIST spend most of its 20 mil budget on highly detailed computer simulations of the crashes. It spends like one page on the collapse initiation mechanism and simply asserts that local collapse inevitably leads to global collapse.

No wonder people have questions about what happened that day.

[Bolo Boffin]

110. Don't mischaracterize the report to someone with a copy of it.

You know? That's kind of a losing tactic.

An entire appendix of the NIST report is called STRUCTURAL FIRE RESPONSE AND PROBABLE COLLAPSE SEQUENCE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS.

It is 388 pages long. "Like one page," indeed.

[rman]

111. As i said, by far most of it deals with the plane crashes

and the fires (including structural fire response). But vey little on the actual collapse.

--

in reference to
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x66589


NIST had gotten $20 million to spend on this.

The NIST report tries to make 2 main points:
1. the plane crashes caused fires, weakening of the steel, leading to collapse initiation
2. once collapse has been initiated it becomes "global collapse"

1st point takes up the entire 300 page report.

2nd point is put forth as an assertion, even though "global collapse" has never occurred in the past.

"a mountain of distracting detail"
NIST used finite element analysis to model the planes down to the individual turbine blades of the engines, individual seats and every single strut in the wings.

Almost all of the report deals with highly detailed simulations of the plane crashes. The explanation of the actual collapse initiation mechanism is only 1.5 pages short and is very vague, completely lacking the great attention to detail found in the rest of the report.

The NIST collapse initiation mechanism is the opposite of that of FEMA. FEMA concludes that the connections of the floor trusses to the core and the perimeter wall failed, causing the floors to drop. NIST concludes that the connections of the floor trusses were so strong that the 'sagging' floors locally pulled the perimeter columns inward, causing buckling and falling apart of the outer walls and the core.


"If only they would apply some their millions of dollars to trying to model why these buildings exploded when they came down, i think that would be a much more appropriate use of public resources".
-- Jim Hoffman


Building A Better Mirage: NIST's Cover-Up Of The Crime Of The Century (911)
Guns & Butter on KPFA
With Software Engineer and Research Scientist, Jim Hoffman. Analysis and deconstruction of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) draft government report on the physical evidence regarding the collapses of the World Trade Center twin towers on September 11, 2001. Originally broadcast on September 28, 2005.
http://www.gunsandbutter.net/archives.php?page=1
http://www.gunsandbutter.net/archives.php?si=112 (mp3)

----

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Nist could not get tests on models to fail so they did a computer modelwith "tweaking" and adjustments". Then they refused to show computer visualizations.

"But, of course, the Final NIST
9-11 report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.”
(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1)

“By comparison the global structural
model is not as sophisticated,” he said. “The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment
calls.” (Parker, 2005)

[Bolo Boffin]

113. Not true at all

There are huge sections dealing with emergency response and evacuation of the buildings, because this dealt with the primary reason the report was written.

How can we reduce our vunerability to such attacks, and how can we increase our preparedness and safety while still ensuring the functionality of the places in which we work and live?

This is why the report was written, along with eight different supplemental reports. The final report was an overall view, and you get to the meat in the supplemental reports listed here.

NIST NCSTAR 1-1: Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety Systems

NIST NCSTAR 1-2: Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis of the World Trade Center Towers

NIST NCSTAR 1-3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel

NIST NCSTAR 1-4: Active Fire Protection Systems

NIST NCSTAR 1-5: Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers

NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers

NIST NCSTAR 1-7: Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communication

NIST NCSTAR 1-8: The Emergency Response Operations

Your claim that the bulk of the report dealt with the "plane crash" is completely not true. That was material in exactly one of these companion reports, 1-2. Your myopia in looking at this report is palpable.

Stop spouting nonsense about a report I have a copy of.

[rman]

114. How much of 1-6 deals with the collapse, rather than

fire response?
How much deals with collapse initiation,
and how much deals with how local collapse would lead to global collapse?

[Bolo Boffin]

115. You understand that it's structural fire response, right?

In other words, after 1-5 deals exhaustively with how the fire spread, 1-6 builds on that by showing how the structure dealt with the fire stresses.

The entire section deals with the collapse. All of the structural fire response section is an examination of how the collapse happened. A led to B led to C led to D. I know, that's ungrammatical; sue me.

Everything has to do with D in that report.

[rman]

116. Structural fire response is not the same thing as collapse

Structural fire response may have lead to collapse, but it is distinctly different than the actual collapse.

If all of 1-6 deals with the collapse, as you say it does, then there's no room in it for dealing with the "fire stresses"/structural fire response (how much the structure was weakened by the fire).

If on the other hand 1-6 deals (in part) with structural fire response then it can not be that the "entire section" deals with the actual collapse.


So the questions remain:
How much of 1-6 deals with structural fire response?
How much of 1-6 deals with the collapse initiation mechanism?
How much of 1-6 deals with how local collapse would lead to global collapse?

[Bolo Boffin]

117. You have a copy, don't you?

Go look at it.

[rman]

119. No i don't have a copy.

But i do understand you don't want to answer those simple questions.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

121. How can you be talking about what's in the report if you don't have a copy

You said up there that the NIST report spent "like a page" on collapse initiation...and you don't even HAVE A COPY OF THE REPORT???

How can you sit here and post inaccuracies about something you've never even bothered to download and look at for yourself? Whose talking points are you mouthing, since you haven't even read the report to come up with your own?

You cannot speak to this issue. You haven't taken the basic amount of self-research necessary to do so.

http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

If those questions are so simple, then all you have to do is download the report, and open it up for yourself and find out. You don't need me to do your work for you. Heck, you might learn something before you're done. After all, you're an open-minded person looking for the truth, aren't you?

For example, you may learn the NIST report isn't what you've been told it is. Maybe you'll find the NIST report is a very comprehensive report on how the towers fell, researched and written by competent scientists working within their field of expertise. You may find a level of detail and a breadth of information and testing that is completely unmatched by densely worded darkweaving websites.

You cannot judge this report without reading it. You owe it to yourself and the truth to read this report.

[rman]

122. It remains to be seen just how inaccurate i am

It is exactly because it is so easy to verify that i don't have much reason to distrust my sources. I'd trust you to be truthful about the NIST report if only you'd answer my questions. So far you have been rather vague and have made some contradictory about it.

Anyway, thanks for the link. I have read some of the NIST report but i didn't know the whole thing is online.

At first glance it looks like my sources aren't very far off, seeing that only one of 4 chapters of section 1-6 deals with a topic that would logically include the collapse;

NIST NCSTAR 1-6A: Passive Fire Protection
NIST NCSTAR 1-6B: Fire Resistance Tests of the Floor Truss Systems
NIST NCSTAR 1-6C: Component, Connection, and Subsystem Structural Analysis
NIST NCSTAR 1-6D: Global Structural Analysis of the Response of the World Trade Center Towers to Impact Damage and Fire

[rman]

123. I read it. My sources are correct.

Only sub-chapters 5.2 and 5.3 of part D of of section 1-6 deal with the "Collapse Sequence", starting on page 312 for WTC 1. Less than half of page 314 is about "collapse initiation", it ends with the statement "Global collapse ensued", followed by several pages with diagrams and pictures.
Page 319 repeats this for tower 2. The report continues from page 320 onward with repeating the effects of the aircraft impact, the sagging of floors etc. Then follow the Appendixes.

Of the few pages that do say something about the collapse, most are filled with diagrams, graphs and photos. Not to say those are irrelevant but it leaves very little space for actual explanations. And indeed the 'explanation' for local asymmetrical collapse leading to complete and almost perfectly symmetrical collapse is no more then the assertion that it did.


Whether or not the damage and the fires could have caused any collapse at all depends on how realistic FEMA's computer simulations are. Especially wrt to weakening of the core. I'll leave that for another time.
But it is yet another question whether or not local collapse could have lead to global collapse. And given that the damage and the collapse initiation were asymmetrical it is highly unlikely that complete collapse would be symmetrical.
The NIST report explains neither.

[Bolo Boffin]

124. Well, there's no further need for us to talk to each other, is it?

Have fun storming the castle.

ON EDIT: I mean, after all, you got what you wanted, right? What you knew was there. Not even a page concerned "collapse". Page after page of how the fire raged through the building. Page after page of how the fireproofing was affected by the impact, and the damage caused to the structure by the impact. Whole sections devoted to how the building was designed and built. Diagram after diagram showing the stresses in various parts of the building, and picture after picture of the building's damage and fire.

But just a page talking about collapse initiation. So the whole thing is a pile of crap for you.

Never mind that everything in the report up to that point is focused on that last page. Every bit of work was done to support it. No, you get to ignore all the support and hold one single page up to ridicule. Why?

Because that's the rules on the Internets.

So the world goes on. The NIST study will be used by those responsible for designing buildings as it was intended, and they will make future skyscrapers stronger, and more accomodating to evacuation and emergency procedure. Lives will be saved because of this document.

And the darkweaving will go on, as it has throughout history. And the tapes will be sold, and the flock will willingly deceive itself, just so they can feel like they have some measure of possession over the random acts that the world throws at them.

You'll pay to know what you really think. Have fun storming the castle.

[Americus]

56. What "ineptitude, incompetence, corruption, bribery, failures in ....

security, intelligence, procedure, communications, building and fire code violations" are you talking about, and what do they have to do with the 9/11 OCT?

You seem to ascribe all manner of "badness" to the Bush Administration, all the while with your 9/11 OCT Tin-foil hat firmly fixed atop your head. As though it's a fairy tale to believe this Administration could possibly be involved in anything more sinister than your laundry list of sins.

Thus, the OCT Brigade appear to be protecting the OCT by way of a whole bunch of limited, modified, hang-out BS.

And THAT'S why many of us believe the Gov't isn't getting its money's worth in the PR budget. The Spin is too obvious and none too subtle.

[Old and In the Way]

42. At minimum, criminal incompetence.

The deaths of 3000 people on 9/11/01 demand justice. No one held accountable is a crime in and of itself. Whatever would come from an investigation, not controlled by this administration, would probably lead to a capital sentence.

We really need to send a signal to future dictators that you don't get a free ride because you weren't paying attention and 3000 die on your watch,nor does this incompetence give you the springboard to lie about the causus belli, attack a country that didn't have anything to do with 9/11, and kill another 2500 Americans.

[Americus]

43. "Don't look" would NOT have made it possible for 9/11 attacks

You don't really believe that OBL plotted, planned, and was able to carry out the events of 9/11 because the Bush Administration wasn't "paying attention" on that day, do you?

[Old and In the Way]

45. I believe I don't really know what happened on 9/11.

But there's an awful lot of smoke in the room and I think I hear elephants panicing. The fact they are not held accountable for criminal negligence makes me wonder if the truth is far worse. A real, independent investigation by an objective panel of experts who are not controlled or pressured by this administration might uncover some very ugly evidence that may lead to charges far worse than criminal incompetence. But I'd be happy to start from that basic assumption.

[Jazz2006]

46. I agree, Old and In the Way, that it easily amounts to criminal

conduct.

As I said above, I believe that the gov't is covering up all manner of ineptitude, incompetence, corruption, bribery, failures in security, intelligence, procedure, communications, building and fire code violations, by a whole host of governmental and related offices and agencies, and that it gladly used the attacks for its own illicit and immoral purposes, and that all of that should be investigated and all of those involved held accountable.

Those acts and omissions, which led to the deaths of thousands, easily amount to criminal negligence causing death and a whole host of other offences along the way.

[sabbat hunter]

71. 911 theories

1) of course people dotn believe in MIHOP or LIHOP have no proof it was NOT an inside job because you cannot prove a negative. it is up to those that believe in MIHOP or LIHOP to present facts to prove their case. so far most of what is presented is opinions and inferences. where are is the proof that it WAS an inside job?
2) too often people confuse facts and opinions. it is my OPINION that 911 happened thru incompentance of the current regime. but i have no PROOF of this. see the difference?


i have no problem if people believe it was MIHOP or LIHOP, but if you want others believe it too, then show proof of this. back it up with facts, eyewitnesses, people who were involved coming forward, etc. do not please resort to name calling, baseless accusations, all that does is make your case look weaker. that you are trying to intimidate people into believing your opinion instead of using facts to do so.

[Grateful for Hope]

79. Please allow me to disagree

I think the burden is on the gov't to prove their story. If there weren't so many "holes" in the official story, and if so much of the info we need was not classified as "secret", there would not be the magnitude of questioning that we are seeing.

IMO, we have not seen definitive proof of the official story. I would think that, at the very least, our gov't owes us that.

[sabbat hunter]

80. thats fine too

but to say that someone has to prove that it ISNT something is impossible.

[Grateful for Hope]

81. Yes, you are right.

It is not to prove a negative, but to prove a positive (at least IMO).

[Americus]

90. Kindly provide proof for your "incompetence" opinion

Was it incompetence that caused the loss of three jet engines (one at the Pentagon & two in NYC)? If so, what proof do you have.

Were all four 9/11 flights listed as scheduled to fly on 9/11? Link please.

Was blood, body parts, luggage and other artifacts from AAFL77 found at the Pentagon? We know about the few aircraft parts that were alleged photographed there, so I'm not talking about those...for purposes of THIS message, the issue of whether those parts were planted is not in dispute -- I'm talking about the large amount of OTHER aircraft, luggage, seats, and human artifacts that one would normally expect to find if a large commercial airliner had crashed at, into, or near the Pentagon.

List all of the eyewitnesses that claim they saw a 767 crash at, into, or near the Pentagon. NOTE: no fair using the old trick of giving eyewitness accounts of people whose claims are too vague to take seriously, as "I saw the plane heading towards the Pentagon" or "the plane was loud" etc..

To better help us understand what informs your opinions about 9/11, please state whether or not you believe the U.S. Gov't (and/or its agents) has ever been involved in false flag operations or falsely blamed others for actions which became the pretext for U.S. military/coup actions ... such as Gulf of Tonkin, explosion aboard the Maine in Havana harbor, WMD in Iraq and so on. If you DO believe the U.S. Gov't has been involved, tell us specifically what events you are referring to. If you do NOT believe the U.S. Gov't has a long history of being involved in such events, is it your opinion that events like the ones I listed above have been WRONGLY atttributed to U.S. Gov't operations, or do you believe that they maybe happened, but not from malicious intent, rather incompetence, negligence, ineptness, ______(other).

Thank you.

[rman]

118. It al started with the government's Official Story about what happened

that day. That story is full of holes, which is why many people believe there's a coverup about what happened that day. The fact many people think the Official Story is full of holes doesn't mean those people know exactly what did happen that day.

If it starts with the govt making claims about what happened, then it is the government's burden to prove it.

What people do know is that contrary to what the government claims it could have known an attack such as 9-11 could happen.
People do know that contrary to what the government claims it was warned about it being rather likely that such an attack was going to take place.
People do know that contrary to what the government claims there is no connection between 9-11 and Iraq.

Just to name a few of the top of my head.

And people aren't buying the blanket excuse of incompetence for this administration doing everything wrong.

[Bolo Boffin]

22. The question was: How likely was it for Hani to hit that reinforced part?

Answer: 1 in 5

Period.

The other events you note have NOTHING TO DO WITH HANI HITTING THE REINFORCED PART. Nothing.

And if you seriously think that what number hit the lottery or at which the stock market closed has anything to do with anything, you need to stop shopping at the dollar store for your clue pills.

[mrgerbik]

25. It was the bizarre series of events,

coincidences and improbable odds that happened in conjunction with why that one side of the pentagon was hit that shows its true significance. By itself its meaning takes on less importance.

I felt this needed to be pointed out.

In regards to the lottery, S&P and Madrid attacks, I'll let you decide the odds on that occurring.

[rman]

86. Other question: why would the attackers leave it to chance?

It must have taken quite some planning, this largest terrorist attack ever - wy would they have left anything to chance?

[Bolo Boffin]

87. Time and chance happens to all things. n/t

[rman]

92. that doesn't make sense

[Bolo Boffin]

97. Your question doesn't make sense

[rman]

102. Of course it does

You claim that hitting the one renovated, reinforced and mostly empty part of the pentagon was purely a matter of chance, implying that the attackers randomly picked a spot to hit.

I say it makes more sense to assume that the attackers planned which spot to hit, as part of the plan for the attack. They wouldn't have gotten far without a plan.

Hence my question: why would the attackers leave anything to chance?

To say that "time and chance *happens to* all things" is nonsensical. It is at best incorrect use of grammar.
Trying to make sense of it: 9-11 wasn't just "a thing" upon which time and chance "happen" as readily as on all other "things". A lot depends on how much is left to chance. It can't be excluded all together, but that doesn't mean that chance "happens to" just anything equally.

Assuming the attackers did have a plan, it is most likely they didn't just randomly hit a side of the pentagon.
Yet you make it seem as though it speaks for itself that when there are five sides to the pentagon, there's a 1 in 5 chance of hitting any side. That would only be true if you assume the attackers left it to chance - but why assume that?

[Bolo Boffin]

104. Please call off the grammar police.

Okay, time and chance happen to all things. The best laid plans of mice and men do often go astray. Sh*t happens.

I call into severe question your statement:

9-11 wasn't just "a thing" upon which time and chance "happen" as readily as on all other "things".

Why is it you believe that the laws of nature were suspended on 9/11? Yes, that is exactly what you just said. Somehow, via black hole or temporal anomaly, the events of 9/11 were subjected to a lessening of the ability of time and chance to affect them. This is why what you are saying makes no sense. Of course time and chance affected all elements of the plans the attackers laid.

Everything was subject to chance, as all plans are. The hijackers might have been caught before the planes took off. In that case, they're sitting there in our criminal courts, screaming about their innocenct, most of them with Saudi passports. This still could have accomplished Osama's overall goal - a split between the US and Saudi Arabia.

Was it a part of the plan for Flight 77 to sit on the runway so late? I doubt it.

Was it a part of the plan for passengers aboard Flight 93 to rush the cockpit? I doubt it, though I do believe that there was a backup plan should that chance occur. (IOW, dive the plane into the ground)

The only reason you think that that side of the Pentagon was chosen was because it was the newly reinforced side. You are "begging the question."

Okay, you want the hijackers to be choosing that side? Okay. That side is the one most likely to be hit by a plane trying to land at Reagan across the Potomac. It's in the angle of approach. So the hijackers' plan becomes, "Act like a plane trying to land, but then hit the Pentagon." Bam, that side gets hit anyway. Now there's a plan for you.

Or, the plan could have been, "If you get to Washington, fly the plane into the Pentagon." And so that's how the pilot did it.

The truth is, you have no real knowledge of the hijacker's actual plans, and neither do I. The question was asked: What are the chances of hitting that side of the Pentagon? The answer is, and remains: 20%

[LARED]

23. How about this

1) 4 pairs of hijackers commandeering 4 Jumbo Jets and hitting 3 of 4 targets with near military precision.

The hijacking of 4 planes is an extremely low probability event. But it's a singular event so framing it in material terms is pretty flimsy. Military precision is not quantifiable.

Driving a car over the edge of a mountain falling 500 feet and living is a very low probability event; no one is trying to hump the notion that it is so improbable that it must be a covert operation to be true

2) The first 2 cases in recorded history of a "progressive collapse" of a building. An entirely new phenomenon.

Couple this with the first case in recored history the two aircraft were crashed into the buildings the probability of a progressive collapse is not remarkable.


3) The first case in history of a total collapse of a building attributed to fire.

That did not happen in 9/11.

4) No air defense deployed in time to stop the largest terrorist attack on US soil in its history.

No one even knew there was a terrorist attack until it actually happen when WTC was attacked. How is it possible to mount a defense without knowing you are under attack?

5) Several different war game exercises being in play on the day of the attack. These included hijackings, a plane crashing into a building and a bio-warfare attack.

None of which are related to 9/11. Having emergency response drills for plane crashes and other type of emergencies are routine all over the country, and have been for many years

5) A single unharmed passport being found in the wreckage of the WTC towers of one of the suspected terrorists.

Statistically insignificant.

6) As mentioned, the pentagon being struck by a plane on the newly renovated, least occupied section.

Well that a twenty percent chance, although how that is relevant to the probabilities of the attacks is quite the mystery.

Your attempt at painting a picture that the events on 9/11 are some how so improbable is paper thin.

[Americus]

28. That Spin is paper thin - and as such. is statistically insignificant

Did you get all that from some GOP 9/11 Talking Points Bulletin? Or did you simply make it all up on your own?

[LARED]

31. I thunked it up me-self

I did notice you were only able to muster the lame argument that it got them from GOP talking points.

Instead why not tell me where I'm wrong.

[rman]

21. Maybe you know something that we don't

Why not enlighten us instead of just throwing the acronyms around and telling us we're dumb for not knowing.

NORAD has been discussed many times in this forum, as you might well know.

Regarding Atta, at least Andre does (a whole lot) more then just drop the name...