Mass and Velocity of 767 vs Thickness of Trade Tower Perimeter Walls.
[I just spent a long time writing an amendment to this blog. I'm at a public terminal and lost the text i worked on. I have to go not but will re-write later tonights.
The blog entry is incorrect since my calculations were wrong. I apologize for the sloppiness.
More later.]
From the Journal of Engineering Mechanics:
"Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center"
J. Engrg. Mech., Volume 131, Issue 10, pp. 1066-1072 (October 2005)
Here's the abstract from ASCE Research Library
"A numerical simulation of the aircraft impact into the exterior columns of the World Trade Center (WTC) was done using LS-DYNA. For simplification, the fuselage was modeled as a thin-walled cylinder, the wings were modeled as box beams with a fuel pocket, and the engines were represented as rigid cylinders. The exterior columns of the WTC were represented as box beams. Actual masses, material properties and dimensions of the Boeing 767 aircraft and the exterior columns of the WTC were used in this analysis. It was found that about 46% of the initial kinetic energy of the aircraft was used to damage columns.
The minimum impact velocity of the aircraft to just penetrate the exterior columns would be 130 m/s. [ i.e. 7800 miles per hour]. It was also found that a Boeing 767 traveling at top speed would not penetrate exterior columns of the WTC if the columns were thicker than 20 mm. [20mm = less than one inch thick. The columns were known to be 4 inches thick.] "
©2005 ASCE
The elaborations/math work within the brackets and the graphics are mine.
- Peggy Carter's blog
- Login to post comments
Who are the real disinfo artists?
According to Webster Tarpley's latest radio address the U.S. is at Defcom 3 (nuclear alert - and has only a very few times been at this level, since Cuba crisis to the Berlin crisis in the 60's). Therefore, I wouldn't start screaming, "You are damaging the movement. Shut up with this."
I would face the fact of what went on and try to alert as many people as possible. People need to face the truth and not be coddled. We also don't need to impress the Major Media outlets. - since those groups are perps! We don't need to impress people with how "unlike" we are to ""conspiracy theorists!" It's beyond that now. Maybe it always was.
The ones who have been slowing the dissemination of the research are the people who are to blame for the slow progress of the dissemination of 9/11 Truth. The public needs to be woken up and shocked by this, not coddled and pandered to.
Humans worldwide are dying and being tortured because of these frauds and because of the perps who committed the Media frauds. Who are they? Why is this happening? We need to know. The MSM is obviously severely implicated. The MSM is a mind control device.
This "airplane" also appears too tiny. The wingspan of a 767 would barely fit across the width of one side of the Tower.
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
DISINFORMATION ALERT
PLEASE NOTE THAT 911BLOGGER HAS A POLICY OF ALLOWING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION WHICH IS REGULARLY ABUSED BY THOSE WHO SEEK TO DISSEMINATE FALSE INFORMATION.
ALL BLOGS CLAIMING TO SUPPORT THE THEORY OF NO-PLANES BEING USED IN THE ATTACKS - OR MINI-NUKES - SHOULD BE IGNORED. THIS LINE OF RESEARCH HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED AND DISCREDITED BY THE THOUSANDS OF EYEWITNESSES WHO SAW THE PLANES ON THE MORNING OF 9/11.
PLEASE DO NOT SUPPORT THESE POSTERS BY ATTEMPTING TO ENGAGE THEM IN DEBATE.
You're busted John Albanese
Now that John Albanese has been shown to have been promoting the fraudulent info he is so fond of, and of baldly harassing people who promote the Truth, he has to post in all caps and demand the "ideas" he so strongly desires to repress be banned.
You don't like the Truth, do you John?
If it weren't for you, John. People would be more open to info that could really get to the "perps."
Proud of your work, so far, John?
I think it time for *you* to get out of here.
I thought you were going to leave the country anyway once Bush got elected. What happened to that promise, John?
Look - it has long been my intention to place a time limit on my involvement in 9/11 activism anyway. This decision has much less to do with fear [he had just described his harrassment by members of the F.B.I.]- than simply desiring a new life for myself outside of the sickness that America has become. This is not all about 9/11 - or even George Bush. The movie "Super Size Me" has had as much of an influence on my decision as 9/11. Frankly, I am sick of this country's bloated sense of self-importance, cultural entitlement and suicidal self-denial.
I believe George Bush will in fact be re-elected. I have long said that I would leave this country if he is in fact re-elected. And,unlike Alex Baldwin - I mean it. This last week I have taken the definitive first steps towards making that happen. I have made a definitive commitment - the details of which I do not intend to divulge to anyone. But, suffice it to say, I am definitely going. I am targeting Spring 2005 as my actual move date.
Why did you spam this letter all over the Internet? Was it to discourage others from taking up activism?
"The work we have all done is important - and to a large extent it has succeeded. We have planted the seeds. The questions are out there for those who care to look for the answers and to question the status quo.It is only a matter of time before history settles this issue. My feeling is that - if Americans cannot see the truth now - they never will. Let them eat McDonalds until they explode.
I was never much of an organizer anyway. I have always felt that Ihave been politically attempting to hold back the ocean with a broom.Like it or not, history will wash over this country in its own timeand in its own way. And when the day of crisis comes, there are manypeople - much more talented than myself - who will rise with thewaters to rise to whatever challenges the tidal wave of history willbring. I for one intend to be far far away - and on higher ground."
[]
"For those of you who wish to continue the struggle - you have mydeepest respect and I sincerely wish you the best of luck. You are all my heroes and friends. Some of you have been MUCH MORE INVOLVED in the 9/11 Truth movement than I ever was. Many of you are much more important than i am - and have much higher profiles in the movement(and you know who you are). My experience should be food for thought for you. [He related in the great part of the email how his female roomate was harassed by the FBI and how they got into his files and computer when he was not home] If they did this to me - what did they, or will they, do to you?"
Italics mine.
Were you trying to scare people, John, away from activism? What was the point of "what they did to me, what[]will they do to you"?
How can anyone take you seriously as an activist when at one time you are all for "what is good for the movement" mostly by smearing and criticising those who pursue research you don't like, and the next moment you are cursing our country and swearing you are going to leave to "higher ground?"
How is anyone who has been around very long supposed to take you serious?
And now you are furious because your job has failed. Proof is uncovered showing that the supposed Flt 175 couldn't have hit against the South Tower as shown on T.V. It could not have taken place!
Wasn't that the "hit" you were supposed to have witnessed....although your office location at the time was 2.7 MILES away and the airplane, which supposedly struck, hit on the side facing AWAY from you, John? That's a good trick John. You never explained how you did that.
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
Peggy/Nico
Clearly straight from the Nico hit-book.
Now that your math was proven wrong here - what do you have to fall back on? Personal attacks. (yawn)
Come back when you have the math correct.
I may have the numbers wrong,
I may have the numbers wrong,
but I've got your number, John.
And it's not just Nico. Many people know you. You created a record for yourself. They may not post here.
Lots of people got that letter you sent out. It went out all over the place.
Why did you do that, John?
Why did you try to scare people away from activism? Why did you announce to the world that you gave up? Why announce it? Why not just slip quietly away, if that is what you really wanted to do?
And beside, what does it matter how many people are onto you? It doesn't change anything .....how many people know it. Unless you're worried you'll have to "retire" again.
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
You've got my number?
First of all - who the hell are you to make accusations and slanderous remarks against me? Why in HELL should i explain myself to you?
Second - all we ever get from the no-planers are a bunch of accusations and personal attacks and cross-examinations against anyone who challenges your junk-science.
Third - You've got my number?
We've all seen your math skills Peggy.
911Blogger made it CLEAR that these boards may NOT be used to carry on personal attacks. stick to your no-planes research - and i will stick to debunking it and calling it disinformation.
I know I'm not as good at math as you, John
I know I'm not as good at math as you, John
Not all of us can be.
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
Scientific Evidence May Be Better than Eyewitness Testimony
Dear John Albanese & Others Who Reject the 9/11 "No Big Boeings" Scientific Evidence:
You say: "ALL BLOGS CLAIMING TO SUPPORT THE THEORY OF NO-PLANES BEING USED IN THE ATTACKS - OR MINI-NUKES - SHOULD BE IGNORED. THIS LINE OF RESEARCH HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED AND DISCREDITED BY THE THOUSANDS OF EYEWITNESSES WHO SAW THE PLANES ON THE MORNING OF 9/11." Typing in All Capital Letters is ordinarily used for "shouting."
In courts of law and otherwise, attorneys and judges know that eyewitness testimony is some of the LEAST RELIABLE evidence. What eye witnesses remember (or think that they remember) is very much susceptible to pschological influences that are well known to judges and attorneys -- and psychologists.
John, what you are saying (i.e., essentially "REJECT THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF NO BIG BOEINGS, BECAUSE EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY IS NEVER WRONG") would be rejected by ALL judges in ALL civil and criminal trials. Any judge who rejected scientific evidence because of eyewitness testimony would be laughed out of court -- or reversed on appeal.
What happens in courts in situations such as this is that the judge allows the jury to see & hear ALL the evidence and to judge the facts for themselves. Why are you attempting to act as NO judge would act in preventing the jury of 9/11 researchers, the jury of the American public, and the jury of the people of the world from seeing the scientific evidence that MIGHT prove that No Big Boeings hit the WTC towers? Do you also believe in the integrity of the mainstream media so much that you believe that the mainstream media would NEVER deceive you by showing fake images of Big Boeings (either wittingly or unwittingly)?
Even your statement above does not preclude what the "No Big Boeings" proponents are saying. You say that "EYEWITNESSES ... SAW THE PLANES ON THE MORNING OF 9/11" This does NOT necessarily mean that Big Boeings hit the WTC towers, now does it, John? Maybe the eyewitnesses saw a Big Boeing flying TOWARD the WTC tower, saw a Big Explosion coming from the WTC tower, and then assumed that a Big Boeing must have caused the Big Explosion. What they saw would certainly have been later influenced by TV, radio, cell phone calls, and other members of the crowd on 9/11/01. Is this possible? Maybe. Let' us examine the scientific evidence -- unless you want to prevent us from examining this scientific evidence.
Are Nico and others sometimes unnecessarily rude? Yes, they are. If they are unnessarily rude, then they are unwittingly motivating you & others in not looking at the scientific evidence. And they should stop this. However, being unnecessarily rude is not a one-way street. From what I have seen, you & others have been unnecessarily rude to Nico and others who advocate that we look at ALL the scientific evidence.
While driving to work on the morning of 9/11/01, a good friend of mine saw a Big Boeing flying low TOWARD the Pentagon. He later saw the Big Explosion coming out of the Pentagon. Of course, when the evidence came out that a Big Boeing MAY NOT have hit the Pentagon, my friend continued to tell the story AS IF he had seen a Big Boeing hit the Pentagon. It took him a long time before he could realize that he really did NOT see a Big Boeing actually hit the Pentagon. John, is the "No Big Boeing Hypothesis" at the Pentagon "thoroghly debunked and discredited by the ... eyewitnesses who saw the planes on the morning of 9/11"? Or should we look at the scientific evidence? Let me know.
By the way, John, even Professor Steven E. Jones disagrees with you. At my request, 'Steve signed Nico's petition calling for scholarly articles in the Journal of 9/11 Studies on four (4) hypotheses: 1) The 9/11 Pro-Planes Hypothesis; 2) The 9/11 No-Planes Hypothesis (No Big Boeings); 3) The 9/11 TV & Media Fakery Hypothesis; and 4) The 9/11 TV & Media Integrity Hypothesis.
I suspect that Steve Jones is having trouble finding someone to write the scholarly article on the 9/11 TV & Media Integrity Hypothesis. John, would you like to write this article? Or can you find someone to write it?
I was also the one who invited Dr. Steve Jones, Dr. Morgan Reynolds, and Dr. Judy Wood to speak before the McClendon Group at the National Press Club in Washington, DC on September 6th. Morgan & Judy accepted our invitations (Steve did not), and we had our largest crowd ever for their presentations. Fox News and others interviewed Morgan Reynolds about the No Big Boeings Hypothesis. Morgan did well.
If & when you decide that you are open to ALL the scientific evidence about 9/11, then please let me know.
Thank you. Best regards,
Thomas J Mattingly
P.S. After examining the scientific evidence & eyewitness testimony, although my working hypothesis is that No Big Boeings caused ANY destruction on 9/11, I am certainly open to any & all scientific evidence to the contrary -- including eyewitness testimony under oath with cross examination. My understanding is that there is NO pro-planes eyewitness testimony under oath with cross examination. Is this true?
Follow up to this thread
Not only is it improbable (now, obviously impossible) to pass an aluminum airframe through a steel curtain, it also appears to have done so without a single deflected piece of debris. I hate to resort to the oft used "knife through butter" analogy, but if the video of the aircraft impacts is played frame by frame, it is evident that not a single piece of airframe meets enough resistance to deflect from or fail to penetrate the perimeter columns. Photos stored on Serendipity by Leonard Spencer show the Tower One Impact site before the photos were altered by FEMA. The visible pieces of wreckage inside the "scar" are clearly not 767 wings, nor are they bearing the correct markings. I've never seen a commercial aircraft with circular markings on the upper wing surfaces.
Whatever hit these towers was no commercial aircraft. I'm sorry if any of you feel we dilute the truth movement with the "no aircraft" theory. But I am evolving mine into a "no ordinary aircraft", Okay? Feel free to use it. The sooner we all get on the same page (or even in the same book), the stronger we become.
130 m/s = 290 mph
You even raised 7200 to 7800 since your other, similar post - why's that?
m/s means meters / second, not miles / second. The metric system is much more convenient for scientists, so they're mostly preferring it over the (retarded) imperial system.
Nothing unexpected happened when the planes hit - they desintegrated on the front while the rear just kept coming - an airplane is not very rigid, so instead of transferring any encountered resistance all the way through its fuselage, it would just deform right where it met resistance.
Again, why oh why would the perpetrators want to rely on purely speculative hologram technology when an airplane could do the job just fine? Why won't the NPT faction finally address this question?
THE REAL QUESTION
Bruce - clearly you have proven the original poster wrong. The real question now is whether the OP will continue to spread this lie, at the expense of the 9/11 Truth community.
This I don't know
Then again, so many lies have been spread, and the Truth is still going stronger than ever. I don't think we need to fear the lies all that much, especially if they're so easily exposed.
Sure, they can put up Reynolds talking about cartoons at prime time. but we can't reach the people that rely on Faux News, anyway, so...
Not so fast
He has clearly not proved my point wrong.
Except my math.
The concepts still stands.
And....The engineering study stated the steel would have to be .22 " thick to be penetrated at all.
I was wrong about the 4", but at the top it's still .25" thick
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
Peggy, Are you now saying
Peggy,
Are you now saying that the steel in the perimeter columns was .25 inches thick? WHERE IS YOUR SOURCE FOR THIS? Sorry to shout but you seem to be dancing around the issue.
If I read that correctly and you are claiming that the steel in the perimeter columns is .25" thick, then your point is in trouble because the study stated that the steel would have to be less than 22mm thick, not .22" thick, and 22mm = .866 inches.
I'm still not going to call you disinfo or even a retarded child but your analysis SUCKS. Sorry to be so blunt but I feel no need to sugar coat it after this post of yours and our last exchange about the "overlay" video and your insistence that you knew better than everyone else that the comparison was valid. You have ZERO credibility with me now.
In the future when you are doing "research" and want to share it with others, I suggest you pose it with a little less conviction that it is final and it is right and frame it as tentative, asking for comments. If you're not very good at math, have someone you know who is good at math check your work before you present it as proof.
Thank you for your suggestion
Thank you for your patience and tolerance.
I should've been more careful.
I still think the overlay video shows video fakery. Sorry if you don't see that or resent my POV.
Some are claiming the thickness of the perimeter columns at the very top was .25 - as i said. The thickness where the "airplane" is alleged to hit is a different matter.
I am double checking the info, since, we are led to believe that the actual floorplans are not available.
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
I rechecked my math
I changed the entry since I re-checked my math
I doubt it could be meters per second because that would mean, at 130 meters per second the airplane would be travelling at ~4.9 miles per hour.
The conversion factor for meters to miles is .0006214
As far as your "explanation" as to the way the plane disintegrated upon entry.... According to your scenario, why is it the "hole" put up no resistance? Where was the resisteance if the area of the hole itself disintegrated? How could it have been strong enough to disintegrate the "airplane," yet itself yet completely disintegrate, in a perfect silhouette, without any distortion to the surrounding metal?
Did the "airplane" disintegrate exactly at the moment the "airplane" supposedly disintegrated the steel it penetrated through? Mutual destruction, like a particle and an anti-particle?
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
Look
The structure put up resistance. Had it not, there would be no hole...
The lack of expanded distortion can easily be explained by inertia. The ability of the columns to distribute the momentum was overstretched, they were penetrated before they could significantly deform over a significant distance. Same goes for the plane, that's why we didn't see deceleration of the plane's rear when the front had already impacted.
It might sound like a lame excuse straight out of an apologist's book, but I think the entry just "looks weird" to you because you have no references to compare. The Towers were massive structures, but the columns were designed to resist vertical, not lateral loads. The perimeter columns weren't that thick, they had strength in numbers.
Thank you for your polite response
"The structure put up resistance. Had it not, there would be no hole..."
If there were no resistance there would be a perfect iimprint or hole. Does butter put up resistance to the knife? If that why the knife marks it, prints into it, so easily?
Well, I see it like this: In the case where a material puts up zero resistance, it caves in, collapse in the face of the force of the plane. If it put up 100% resistence, it wouldn't budge, it wouldn't show a scratch.
It this instance it put up exactly the perfect balance between the combination of resistance and penetrability .....to affect, supposedly, a complete absorption of the airplane by the building - according to the clips.
Since it completely gave way to the plane, the little section, the plane hit appeared to put up no resistance. Or if it did, it was exactly the amount of resistance needed to disintegrate the "airplane." The exact quantity of resistance accomplished that, with none left over, since after the airplane disintegrated, according to your scenario, the steel then gave way perfectly to create an exact profile.
"It might sound like a lame excuse straight out of an apologist's book, but I think the entry just "looks weird" to you because you have no references to compare. "
Actually I have things to compare to:
Here's a picture of the hole where an airplane, an Army B-25 bomber, hit the Empire State Building at 300 mph. :
"We were horrified to see a B-25 half in and half out of the Empire State Building."
"The Towers were massive structures, but the columns were designed to resist vertical, not lateral loads. "
Not really, the Towers were designed to withstand impact by a 707, which contrary to much public speculation, or perhaps deliberate misinformation, was both a faster plane and a heavier airplane than the 767.
Plus, Steel trumps Al in terms of strength. How thick was the body of the "767?"
Boeing 707 320B . Max take off weight 336,000 lbs. Cruising speed 607 mph.
Boeing 767. Max take off weight 450,000 lbs. Cruise speed 530 mph.
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
My, my...
If there had been no resistance, the aircraft would have flown right through the tower without leaving any traces...
Do you really want to equate a concrete wall to a grid of steel columns in terms of material properties?
Yes, the towers were designed to withstand a 707, and they withstood a 767 each. "Withstand" doesn't mean "being unscathed".
Seriously, I don't want to sound rude, but you obviously have no clue - so maybe you'd better not offer anymore "scientific" analysis for now. Sorry.
Why so high and mighty?
You're the one who said:
"The structure put up resistance. Had it not, there would be no hole...!
Obviously, had it put up no resistence there would be a hole. As I attempted to explain in my post.
IAnd also, on the contrary, if there was no hole, it would mean the airplane was completely repelled - 100% resistance. Not 0% as you seem to contend.
I don't believe solid bodies can fly through other solid bodies unscathed. I think you read too much science fiction. Or maybe that's kind of notion is just a trait of a "planehugger." ;)
I'm not sure what you mean by:
Yes, the towers were designed to withstand a 707, and they withstood a 767 each. "Withstand" doesn't mean "being unscathed"
I was just pointing out that they were designed with lateral strenght in mind. Not just for resistance to a 707 aircraft, which is bigger and heavier than a 767, but for resistance to wind pressures.
I never conflated "withstand" and "unscathed."
I'm sorry if I was unclear.
You make snide remarks about the logic of "no planers." Is it therefore fair for me to point out that you, as a "planehugger," thought that:
No Resistance = The Plane Flies Through Without Leaving a Scar?
How sane is that?
;)
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
I'm not going to call you DISINFO, Peggy.
At least not yet. I will, however, critique your post/claims and give you an opportunity to explain yourself. But this is your last chance.
How did you get 7800 miles per hour from 130 meters per second? Show your work, please. I did the conversion myself, three different times, and as far as I can tell, 130 meters per second is about 291 miles per hour.
Also, regarding column thickness, I believe the steel in the core columns (at some height in the building) was 4 inches thick but I have not heard that the steel in the perimeter columns was that thick. Please cite a source for this claim.
I do look forward to your reply.
Peggy
IN your QUEST for the truth - if you should suddenly discover that, yes indeed, you made a serious mistake and have essentially inadvertently debunked the no-planer's central claim - that an aluminum plane could not penetrate the towers - would you accept this?
IN other words - if you simply made a math mistake - fine.
But, now that you yourself have inadvertantly shown that this very publication your are quoting from in fact indicates that a plane must travel at 291 miles per hour to pierce the towers - wouldn't that now compel you to be intellectually honest and accept the truth?
Thousands of people in the streets of NYC saw those planes. And now you provide us with scientific analysis that indicates that it is entirely plausable that the planes pierced the building.
what more do you need?
If in fact you retain a stubborn attitude about all of this - and persist in cherry-picking evidence to support this crazy theory - what should WE in the 9/11 Truth community think?
You keep DEMANDING we look at the evidence. We did. You got the math wrong.
Do you not now owe us the respect of admitting you are wrong?
Off-topic
John,
As long as we are both here right now I would like it if you could clarify something for me. I asked it in a wild thread from last week that was shut down after I posted it.
Are you the same John Albanese, the photographer, who was featured in Time magazine shortly after 9/11?
Also, I am just getting around to watching EGLS now but the video seems to hiccup about every second and it's really hard to watch. How would I go about getting a copy of it on DVD?
Thanks,
Ben
Off-Topic
No I am not that photographer. He is a volunteer fireman, which gave him access to the site.
DVD copies of my film can be purchased here:
www.911dvdproject.com
I believe he is only charging a few bucks since it is a not-for-profit endeavor.
I am currently working on the new version of my film (which will be 3 hours long - in multiple chapters)and no longer distributing my film for free. IT just became too overwhelming to do so - and i never really received the donations i had hoped in keeping this project financially above water.
The next version of my film will follow a different business model.
Thanks, John.
I must be blind. I looked at the 9/11 DVD site a few days ago. In one eye out the other, I guess.
Peggy, I'm still waiting to see your math, and a source for the 4 inch thick steel in the perimeter colums. What's the hold up?
she was too busy
she was too busy attacking personally to provide any real math or science.
now i'm a "supposed" witness.
now i'm an disinformation agent because i quite the movement 2 years back when i was harassed in the leadup to the presidential election - as thousands of other people were who ran websites critical of the president.
911Blogger has stated over and over and over again that these board may NOT be used to continue personal fights or attacks - yet, here Peggy is trotting out some ancient email of mine to make accusations against me.
This is not within the framework of this discussion.
The no planes theory has been thoroghly debunked - and will continue to be debunked here everytime this disinformation is foisted on the public. I made NO attacks against Peggy personally.
I believe the no-planers should be banned from this site for the continued hostility and personal attacks they engage in.
Yeah, I noticed.
At least she did come back and show her (bad) math.
Regarding your flip-flop on leaving the country, I will point out that Bush was not actually re-elected. I'm glad there were people like you out there two years ago (and before that) busting your asses, planting seeds and putting up with that shit while dupes like me were still thinking that holding our noses and voting for Kerry would actually improve things. Hah!
291 miles per hour pierces the tower?
"291 miles per hour pierces the tower."?
I question that conclusion.
However, you still have the fact the outer perimeter would have to be less than one inch thick.
I'm looking forward to the mental contortions you must deliver to explain that.
Also, John, How do you explain your contention that you saw the 767 FLT175 flt. hit the South Tower, when the relevant Tower wall faced away from your view, which was at 2.7 miles to the North? And supposedly the object approached from the South?
How do your reconcile your statement that the "airplane" banked at the end, before it struck, when numerous videos show that "it" did not bank?
And also, "Thousands of people in the streets of NYC saw those planes." I will dispute.
I speak to many people all the time about it. I pass out fliers and have done so for years. Some people, not many, will say they saw a plane. Very few, in fact none that I have found, will say they actually saw it hit. I've found people who think they saw "it" hit, but when questioned closely admit they did not.
I have yet to hear your own description of the hit on the South Tower, John.
I know people down there, long time neighborhood residents, who are asking around. And have come up dry.
I know with your connections, John, you are likely to find a few witnesses for me. However, the notion, "1000's saw it" is just false. Millions, maybe Billions saw "it" on T.V. There are very few direct eye witnesses. And quite a few who were on the ground, or were in a position to see it, and did not see a plane.
It's similar to the Pentagon hit stories. People claim, "everyone saw it hit." Yet when you really ask around....ah, actually no, not "everyone saw it. "
And not only that, a 767 didn't hit there [the Pentagon].
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
why should i answer someone
......who attacks me personally by digging up some ancient emails i wrote - and attempts to imply that i am an agent?
why should i answer someone who calls me a liar when i say that i witnessed the planes personally?
using this approach you can very handily dismiss ANY evidence.
now - you have been proven wrong here today. you claimed that a plane would need to travel 7,800 miles per hour to pierce the building.
your math was wrong.
we now see that the number is more credibly 291 miles per hour.
your bad.
and, in the end, you have personally attacked me and attempted to smear my reputation.
so - i think the no-planes theory should be banned on 911Blogger as disinformation. this pattern is unmistakable.
You're the one who is trying to ban people
You're the one who is trying to ban people, John.
What does that say?
And you are the one who mis-states my positions.
Naturally you are not obligated to answer any of my questions. No one ever said you were. You also mischaracterize my argument in other ways.
I never called you a liar. I merly asked you to to explain how it was you saw what you saw. That is called research. That is what people who are searching for the truth normally do with someone who is/was a witness.
But isn't that convenient. I am the bully and therefore you can say there is no need for you to answer, because I hurt your feelings by doubting you.
Maybe i shouldn't have answered you either, when you called me a "retarded child?"
Can you see a little bit of the hypocrisy in that ,John? It's alright for you to name call and try to run others off the board, but you are insulted when someone asks you valid questions.
Am I supposed to believe everything uncritically? Especially when in the past you told everyone, "I don't know what's going to happen to you [ if you continue with your activism]?"
BTW, who else at that time had their house broken into by the Feds? Vox? Who else? You say so many people had that happen. Who else? Are you insulted by this question too?
Am I supposed to believe you because you say you saw something from a position by which such a thing could not be seen? And you refused to clarify? Even when you knew I had the specific question of the impact of the "Flt 175" when I originally asked you for your account. You acted, at the time, as though you needn't even bother to give your account ,since "everyone's knows that."
Well, everyone does not know that.
The people who doubt the MSM accounts/videos information gets bigger every day. And most people I speak with, even at the Sunday night meetings at the Church, all think non-planes is possible.
With the possible exception of Les - remember him? Your enemy. The one you and Nick tried to dispose of since he brought in "anti-semitic' literature. One magazine left on a table!
It wasn't that you left the movement twhich II questioned. And you mischaracterized me again by claiming that. Do you see a pattern here?
It was the letter. It was the way you wrote that which brings up questions. Especially now when you are trying to dictate to others what the "movement" should be.
And the way you mercilessly attacked those who are researching valid issues around the events of 9/11. And the way you have belittled people in the past who stood for the controlled demolition. Or for trying to announce, even in the early days, "9/11 was an inside job."
"Oh that was so long ago" ....Isn't that a response that begs the question?
Exactly when was it permissible for the "movement" to say "9/11 was an Inside Job?" When did you finally decide that would be O.K.?
You don't think sooner would've been better?
And you've stated that publiclly!
And here we are on the cusp of World War.
I guess everyone should've waited like you said. Just like everyone should quash the video fakery evidence, even if true, just for the "good of the Movement."
In the same way as you claim people such as myself are bad for the movement, I believe the same about people such as yourself - who constantly harass researchers and bully people into what is their politically correct idea of what we should be thinking or saying. You are a mini-MSM, a mini mainstream culture.
As far as implying you are an agent. You said that. Not me.
You are the one calling or insinuating right and left that people are agents. We all know it's basically impossible that there are not agents among us. Impossible. Anyone could be one, so I don't go into it.
But are you the only one immune to such speculation? Are you so above everything that you can call others on it, but not take any questions regarding yourself.
People on this very thread said to me: "I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. Answer my questions well and I'll let you slide for now in terms of my suspicions - [that I am a disinfo]" !!!
Did I take that the wrong way?
No, I know it's normal.
Anyone who doesn't think there are agents around isn't informed on the state of the world.
Well you hurt my feelings when you repeatly called me a retarded child and laughed at me.. And now you are pretending to take the high ground and be the one who never smears others. That's a joke.
And I do think that is a sign that you truly work against the good of the movement.
But I never said you should be banned.
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
Lies and twisted comments
Lies and twisted comments
That is all you have to offer. Lies and twisted comments.
This is the LAST time I respond to you – and simply to demonstrate how weak your comments are:
“You're the one who is trying to ban people, John. What does that say?”
It says that I adhere to the rules which states you may not use these board to carry on personal vendettas and fights. Half of what you post here is left-over childish accusations against me from the past - accumulated over years of this nonsense. This is a clear violation of the rules here.
“I never called you a liar. I merly asked you to to explain how it was you saw what you saw. That is called research. That is what people who are searching for the truth normally do with someone who is/was a witness.”
Suddenly you cast yourself as civil when clearly you asked me these questions in a condescending way which implied it was “a neat trick” for me to have seen what I claimed to have seen. Funny how you design your “tone” around whatever suits your argument. You are condescending and load every question with sarcasm to lead your audience to believe that my eyewitness account could not be possible.
“Maybe i shouldn't have answered you either, when you called me a "retarded child?"”
I called Nico Haupt a retarded child. So, is this Nico? Is it necessary for Nico to pose Peggy and as multiple people, just to create the allusion of support?
“Am I supposed to believe everything uncritically? Especially when in the past you told everyone, "I don't know what's going to happen to you [ if you continue with your activism]?"”
This is an outright lie. It is twisting my words and slanderous.
“BTW, who else at that time had their house broken into by the Feds? Vox? Who else? You say so many people had that happen. Who else? Are you insulted by this question too?”
Another lie. I never claimed they broke in. MY roommate invited them in and they questioned her. It was news at the time that the secret service was ACTIVELY visiting people in the NYC area with questionable anti-Bush websites. At the time I had a website associated with fascism – comparing Bush to fascism. This was common knowledge that these visits took place.
“Am I supposed to believe you because you say you saw something from a position by which such a thing could not be seen?”
Again, this is intellectual dishonesty. I saw the plane approaching the south tower and saw the fireball from the north side. Main point – I saw the PLANE. You are mincing words and playing games. No one respects you here.
“And you refused to clarify? Even when you knew I had the specific question of the impact of the "Flt 175" when I originally asked you for your account. You acted, at the time, as though you needn't even bother to give your account ,since "everyone's knows that."”
No, I refuse to answer the same question 50 times.
“The people who doubt the MSM accounts/videos information gets bigger every day. And most people I speak with, even at the Sunday night meetings at the Church, all think non-planes is possible.”
Perhaps in clown town. Not in any mixed group that I know of.
“With the possible exception of Les - remember him? Your enemy. The one you and Nick tried to dispose of since he brought in "anti-semitic' literature. One magazine left on a table!”
More lies. Les was caught on more than one occasion distributing this literature. It was rabidly anti-semitic and insulted many people who saw it. We wrote a PRIVATE email to Les demanding that he cease distributing this literature – which YOU have twisted into some power-struggle after he made this email public.
“It was the letter. It was the way you wrote that which brings up questions. Especially now when you are trying to dictate to others what the "movement" should be.”
I, like everyone else, am entitled to my opinions.
“And the way you mercilessly attacked those who are researching valid issues around the events of 9/11.”
No. Just you. I just challenge people who claim there were no planes. Only YOU post ancient emails in a pathetic attempt to smear people.
“And the way you have belittled people in the past who stood for the controlled demolition.”
No. I just never thought physical evidence was the way to LEAD. More lies.
“Or for trying to announce, even in the early days, "9/11 was an inside job."”
No – I just didn’t want to scare new members away by holding up a sign that clearly scared people away. The idea was to engage people on the street in dialogue. Not scare them away.
“Exactly when was it permissible for the "movement" to say "9/11 was an Inside Job?" When did you finally decide that would be O.K.?”
I never did. As an activist I demand accountability. I demand we reopen 9/11. Only fools and adolescents like you feel they need to be so blunt.
“I guess everyone should've waited like you said. Just like everyone should quash the video fakery evidence, even if true, just for the "good of the Movement."”
Yes – Video Fakery is clearly garbage research and should be quashed.
‘In the same way as you claim people such as myself are bad for the movement, I believe the same about people such as yourself - who constantly harass researchers and bully people into what is their politically correct idea of what we should be thinking or saying. You are a mini-MSM, a mini mainstream culture.”
No – I just debunk your garbage research – and you attempt to throw the kitchen sink of personal attacks against me. Your research lacks any credibility and I intend to always point that out.
“Well you hurt my feelings when you repeatly called me a retarded child and laughed at me..”
I called Nico a retarded child. So – I guess this now confirms that Nico uses and abuses this board by posing as multiple people. Another clear violation. Who is this? Nico or Peggy? YOU CLEARLY MAKE EVERY POINT NICO MAKES AGAINST ME. YOU EVEN CUT AND PASTE THE SAME SHIT.
“And I do think that is a sign that you truly work against the good of the movement.”
And this opinion from someone who claims there were no planes. It does not get any funnier than that.
“But I never said you should be banned.”
I CLEARLY think YOU should be banned. Did I stutter?
I am reluctant to get in the
I am reluctant to get in the middle of this because this shit between the two of you seems to go back years, but...
John, you most certainly did call Peggy a retarded child. Some time later you indirectly called Nico a retarded child and tried to deny it by invoking nuance. I guess, technically, you didn't call Nico a retarded child in so many words, although now you claim that you did and come to the conclusion that Nico and Peggy are the same person.
Based on the writing styles, I'd say they are different people.
please provide a link
to the best of my knowledge i never called Peggy a retarded child.
I said to Nico that debating him was like taking candy from a retarded child.
if i somehow directed this at Peggy - i apologize. but i sincerely do NOT remember EVER calling her that - unless i somehow got confused on the board.
when you say that Peggy and i go back years - i do not know since i have no idea who Peggy is.
and lastly - i do believe that the no-planes theory is disinformation extremely detrimental to this movement. Peggy instead responds by producing a private email i wrote TWO YEARS AGO - to my friends - in an attempt to smear me personally and publically.
this is always the pattern.
You're right; I'm the one
You're right; I'm the one who is confused. Here's the thread with your retarded child in a car analogy. You did not call Peggy a retarded child in so many words but you did come awfully close and I guess I wouldn't have a problem with it at all if you removed the word retarded. Why does the kid in the car have to be retarded to think the moon is chasing them? For that matter, do you think debating Nico is that different than taking candy from a non-retarded child? Anyway, I'm sorry, John. You "most certainly" didn't do what I claimed. I should listen to my own advice and not be so sure of things without at least double checking them.
As for the two of you going back years, I said it seemed that way, which I now realize is silly since you're wondering if Peggy and Nico are the same person. How could that be if you knew both of them in real life before? My bad.
oh yeah - i forgot about that thread
well - i stand corrected.
look - if i seem hostile it is because i am. the only reason i am in this movement is because of my personal experience of that day.
alotta people in NYC died that day, and many of us perhaps have lingering emotional problems. i apologize for the hostility.
but, when i see intentional junk-science being foisted on the public - when a nuclear strike is perhaps only weeks away - and there is TONS of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job - and we see the no-planes crowd attacking and insulting Dr. Jones and Dr. Griffin and Ruppert and me and practically EVERY sincere hard working activist in this field - sure, i get very angry.
it kinda makes me see the no-planers as morally culpable to the coverup...... wasting people's time with trashy research claiming all the eyewitnesses are crazy or spies?
puh-leeze.
the no-planes theory makes me angry. 9/11 and the death of 3000 innocent people sitting in their office - gets me angry. the liars on FoxNews make me angry. propaganda and lies make me angry.
its really all as simple as that.
no planes? it is just an absurdist position that HURTS this movement - and DESERVES to be debunked and discredited.
period
I hear you.
And I understand your anger. It's on a whole other level from mine.
BTW, do you have any idea what's with the "John Albanese 2" posting on here?
Brilliant strategy. Depending on what your goals are.
Lies and twisted comments
That is all you have to offer. Lies and twisted comments.
And OK you slander me.
No, that's not all I have to offer.
Yesterday i wrote about the 9/11 ilnesses.
This is the LAST time I respond to you – and simply to demonstrate how weak your comments are:
“You're the one who is trying to ban people, John. What does that say?”
It says that I adhere to the rules which states you may not use these board to carry on personal vendettas and fights. Half of what you post here is left-over childish accusations against me from the past - accumulated over years of this nonsense. This is a clear violation of the rules here.
I never accused you of anything. You seem not to be able to read clearly. I questioned your past actions and asked why it is I should listen to your opinion now.
Why is "such a long time ago" - two years? I don't understand that. What does that have to do with explaining your actions?
Oh and thank you for letting me have the last word. Though somehow I doubt you will.
“I never called you a liar. I merely asked you to to explain how it was you saw what you saw. That is called research. That is what people who are searching for the truth normally do with someone who is/was a witness.”
Suddenly you cast yourself as civil when clearly you asked me these questions in a condescending way which implied it was “a neat trick” for me to have seen what I claimed to have seen. Funny how you design your “tone” around whatever suits your argument. You are condescending and load every question with sarcasm to lead your audience to believe that my eyewitness account could not be possible.
To be technical, what you said you saw was not possible.
It was a "neat trick." You never stated that you did not see the "airplane" hit the building. You kept repeating you saw it hit, when you obviously could not have seen that.
And I think I asked for your reply respectfully.
What is making you so upset - my questions?
“Maybe i shouldn't have answered you either, when you called me a "retarded child?"”
I called Nico Haupt a retarded child. So, is this Nico? Is it necessary for Nico to pose Peggy and as multiple people, just to create the allusion of support?
Well, you may have thought you were saying it to Nico, but it was directed to me - at my posting and argument. Sorry for the confusion.
“Am I supposed to believe everything uncritically? Especially when in the past you told everyone, "I don't know what's going to happen to you [ if you continue with your activism]?"”
This is an outright lie. It is twisting my words and slanderous.
Here is the direct quote:
"My experience should be food for thought for you. If they did this to me - what did they, or will they, do to you?"
“BTW, who else at that time had their house broken into by the Feds? Vox? Who else? You say so many people had that happen. Who else? Are you insulted by this question too?”
Another lie. I never claimed they broke in. MY roommate invited them in and they questioned her. It was news at the time that the secret service was ACTIVELY visiting people in the NYC area with questionable anti-Bush websites. At the time I had a website associated with fascism – comparing Bush to fascism. This was common knowledge that these visits took place.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
(I wish sometime I could hear an apology from you for the numerous times you've taken my words out of context and smeared me with them.)
You did say however that they went through your things. Who else did this happen to? It just happened to people with anti-Bush sites? I had such a site. I never heard of that. Only once, someone who threatened the President. A kid up on the Hudson.
Is this another case of "common knowledge?" Like "Everyone saw" the airplanes?
Well, everyone I guess doesn't include me and many people I know.
You seem to make a lot of assumptions, John.
“Am I supposed to believe you because you say you saw something from a position by which such a thing could not be seen?”
Again, this is intellectual dishonesty. I saw the plane approaching the south tower and saw the fireball from the north side. Main point – I saw the PLANE. You are mincing words and playing games. No one respects you here.
OK, you now clarified. Thank you.
Are you trying to say now that you never said you and 30 - 40 of your co-workers all saw both "airplanes" "hit?"
I can't wait to get a picture of what the World Trade Center area buildings looks like from the top of the building you were looking from.
How big did the "airplane" look from there? Could you see the colors of the livery? You still haven't explained how it "banked."
What does "no one respects you here" mean? Is that more of "everyone knows?"
“And you refused to clarify? Even when you knew I had the specific question of the impact of the "Flt 175" when I originally asked you for your account. You acted, at the time, as though you needn't even bother to give your account ,since "everyone's knows that."”
No, I refuse to answer the same question 50 times.
I asked once.
And didn't get an answer until now.
Thank you for your answer.
“The people who doubt the MSM accounts/videos information gets bigger every day. And most people I speak with, even at the Sunday night meetings at the Church, all think non-planes is possible.”
Perhaps in clown town. Not in any mixed group that I know of.
Yea, well, you and Nicholas never liked our group anyway. It's getting bigger and better though.
“With the possible exception of Les - remember him? Your enemy. The one you and Nick tried to dispose of since he brought in "anti-semitic' literature. One magazine left on a table!”
More lies. Les was caught on more than one occasion distributing this literature.
This is the first time I've heard the accusation that he was "distributing" the literature. As far as I knew and saw he only had one copy of the magazine. I looked at it.
It was rabidly anti-semitic and insulted many people who saw it. We wrote a PRIVATE email to Les demanding that he cease distributing this literature – which YOU have twisted into some power-struggle after he made this email public.
I don't believe it was rabidly anti-semitic. I saw the magazine. it had a picutre of David Griffin on the cover. That was why he brought it in.
Yea, you sent him a letter. You want me to post that too! So everyone can make up their own mind about how 'privacy' was an issue with such a letter?
It was a none-too-subtle threat and smear letter which said in affect, "step down or else." "You're out, but can still visit."
Where did you and Nick get the authority for that? Of course he showed it to others. What did you think? He would just do what you told him?
Didn't the decision to take power from Les precede the discovery of his "anti-semitism?"
“It was the letter. It was the way you wrote that which brings up questions. Especially now when you are trying to dictate to others what the "movement" should be.”
I, like everyone else, am entitled to my opinions.
Thank you for admitting I am entitled to mine. (But I'm not sure why we are stating the obvious.)
“And the way you mercilessly attacked those who are researching valid issues around the events of 9/11.”
No. Just you. I just challenge people who claim there were no planes. Only YOU post ancient emails in a pathetic attempt to smear people.
Hey, I never noticed you attack me before - except for the "retarded child" smear, which you now deny.
I *know* there was others. Because I see you doing it all the time - at least on the threads I visit. I mistaken was looking at a thread from a month ago yesterday and there you were reaming out, attacking, smearing and directing hatred toward the "no-planes" people. And it ws not just Nico.
Me? I wasn't even in the thread.
So it's not only me.
“And the way you have belittled people in the past who stood for the controlled demolition.”
No. I just never thought physical evidence was the way to LEAD. More lies.
You fought the controlled demolition evidence. Are you denying that?
“Or for trying to announce, even in the early days, "9/11 was an inside job."”
No – I just didn’t want to scare new members away by holding up a sign that clearly scared people away. The idea was to engage people on the street in dialogue. Not scare them away.
And you say still are against the slogan?! Nobody gets scared away from that. And the public should've gotten used to the idea much sooner.
“Exactly when was it permissible for the "movement" to say "9/11 was an Inside Job?" When did you finally decide that would be O.K.?”
I never did. As an activist I demand accountability. I demand we reopen 9/11. Only fools and adolescents like you feel they need to be so blunt.
OK So now more name calling. You really can't stop yourself, can you? I'm a fool and an adolescent?
I guess we can assume, that to make sure no one is shocked or anyone's feathers ruffled, that the perps of 9/11 will be brought to justice about the same year as those of the Kennedy Assassination.
Oh yea, "re-open 9/11" so we can have another investigation - like what was done for the Kennedy Assassination! Great time table.
Then the perps will have another chance to hide their trail, game the system and put off the day of accounting - if that day should ever come, given your scenario.
But isn't that the point, John?
Excuse me for mirroring you and thinking it's "funny" that you should suggest the "no plane" position is disinfo.
Isn't it just that the video fakery will compeletly blow the lid off the case - and you couldn't stand for that?
I'm glad you made this strategy of yours explicit.
I'll have to remember that:
According to John Albanese it is way too premature, and immature and "lacking in accountability[?!] [whatever htat means] to state publicly, even now:
"9/11 was an Inside Job."
We really can't go that far. It's too much of a jump, an assumption.
The most we should do is .... ASK THE GOVERNMENT for a new investigaton !?
If they will deign to give us another Investigation!?
Brilliant strategy. Depending on what your goals are.
With all the $billions of $$$$ at stake, and in fact that there are criminal charges ijvolving the death penalty etc, that could be handed down.....I'm sure whoever is in the position of "New Investigator(s)" will be very fair.
I'm sure the perps who pulled off 9/11 and the Kean commission would really be stumped by a "new investigation!"
“I guess everyone should've waited like you said. Just like everyone should quash the video fakery evidence, even if true, just for the "good of the Movement."”
Yes – Video Fakery is clearly garbage research and should be quashed.
When did you decide the controlled demolition was good evidence? Do you still think it is trash?
‘In the same way that you claim people such as myself are bad for the movement, I believe the same about people such as yourself - who constantly harass researchers and bully people into what is their politically correct idea of what we should be thinking or saying. You are a mini-MSM, a mini mainstream culture.”
No – I just debunk your garbage research – and you attempt to throw the kitchen sink of personal attacks against me. Your research lacks any credibility and I intend to always point that out.
Obviously, you are free to question any research. But you seem to blend that questioning in with personal attacks.
I question your motives. And your willingness to read into my questions, ulterior motives.
But you cleared up that suspicion:
1. your attacks on me here.
2. And with your admission of your position(s):
Anyone who would utter the words, "9/11 was an inside job [publicly?!] is a fool or an adolescent." to paraphrase.
We can't disturb people.
NO need to hide anything John, you're hanging out there.
I admit I can't take your criticism to heart, since your history and your statements don't seem to indicate you are completely in good faith.
I guess I am entitled to my opinion, as we all are.
You are free to try to change my mind with any alternative explanation of your behavior and opinions. I am always interested in being proved wrong, if I am.
“Well you hurt my feelings when you repeatly called me a retarded child and laughed at me..”
I called Nico a retarded child. So – I guess this now confirms that Nico uses and abuses this board by posing as multiple people. Another clear violation. Who is this? Nico or Peggy? YOU CLEARLY MAKE EVERY POINT NICO MAKES AGAINST ME. YOU EVEN CUT AND PASTE THE SAME SHIT.
Yea, I guess the points are good ones. You never answer them and they bear repeating.
Nico could never write like this.
I have no idea why you can't tell the difference.
Um, he can't write English very well. And he's not faking it.
Haven't you noticed? He posts in a short-hand style. Maybe that's why you never noticed he can't really write English??
I guess your strengths are limited to mathematics? And in reading you can't seem to distinguish too much? Everyone's different writing style and thinking patterns are just a blur? Is that it?
The pitch is different between us, and so is the volume. And so is the vocabulary. I guess you haven't read enough of me. ;)
You're just making a distraction, John, with that, "you must be Nico." You couldn't honestly think that.
Nico also wouldn't have the patience for such a long post.
Also, Nico is much more emotional than I am. He could never stand the attack you just gave against me. My skin is much thicker, John.
Can't you tell the volume of my post is a bit quieter, less harsh, than Nico?
Nico is not the only one who thinks you should be called to task for your past behavior. Or who doesn't trust you. Where do you "get off" thinking you can call out who should be thrown off this site?
“And I do think that is a sign that you truly work against the good of the movement.”
And this opinion from someone who claims there were no planes. It does not get any funnier than that.
Yes, it's a mirror image world, isn't it John?
“But I never said you should be banned.”
I CLEARLY think YOU should be banned. Did I stutter?
:)
Sorry this discussion appears to upset you.
Thank you for answering some of my questions.
I am not taking any of this lightly.
Thank you for your respectful questions
130 miles per second X 60 = 7800 miles per hour.
130 meters per second X .0006214 = .080782 miles per second
.080782 miles per second X 60 = 4.84692 miles per hour
I will look now for the estimates of the thickness of the outer columns. You are aware that the official floor plans were supposedly destroyed with the Towers? And there are no floorplans available?
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
???
".080782 miles per second X 60 = 4.84692 miles per hour"
60 seconds = one hour, in your book? Interesting...
Ouch Peggy
your math skills are being proven wrong at every turn. yet, your arrogance and rightious indignation never wanes.
what is wrong with this picture?
291 miles per hour
Thanks for the correction.
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
Thanks for showing your work.
I see the problem. There are 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour, so you need to multiply by 3600 to go from per second to per hour. So that means that 130 miles per second is actually 468,000 miles per hour, and 130 meters per second 291 miles per hour.
I'm aware that most if not all of the original plans have been destroyed (or just kept hidden). So? You made the claim that the perimeter columns were 4 inches thick. Was the steel 4 inches thick or was that the thickness of the whole column? Were the columns solid? You are making a (vague) claim. I am simply asking you to cite your sources.
Thank you for your question
Thank you for your question:
I remember reading the perimeter columns were 4 inches thick, but I could be wrong. I am having to do the research over since I didn't save my links conveniently.
Thank you for your patience. I will get back here with a more definitive answer for you soon.
The preliminarly evidence is there, but since the actual plans of the building are not extant, I am going to re-check my sources.
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
The exterior columns of the WTC were represented as box beams?
But the exterior columns were not box beams, they were solid square shaped beams. Nothing ever posted by no-planers makes any sense. 4 inch thick box beams sound like the core columns that OF COURSE were not damaged much if at all by the planes after they broke through the solid square columns of the perimeter... nice try with the whole ASCE thing, though! Did y'all know that four of the ASCE volunteers who worked on the twin towers case study also did the analysis of the Alfred P Murrah building in OK City? No? Did you also not know that their job there was to cover up the fact that explosives were found in that building that failed to go off? No? Real 9/11 Truth folks know all these things. No-planers just kind of... don't, it seems. Or don't want others to know. Either way.
It was from an engineering journal.
It was from an engineering journal.
The people who modeled it on "box-beams" were engineers.
The citation is from the Journal of Engineering Science.
You're so quick to label "no-planers" as "making no sense", because that's the group concensus.
But I would remind you - The group concensus of the culture at large is that we are all "wacky."
Why do you imitate the people who are sheeple, and the perps of the sheeple?
And thanks for the tip on the Journal. I should've know since the link came up so easily on google.
:)
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
Great post Peggy. I love the
Great post Peggy. I love the way you are instantly attacked because of your views. What are they so afraid of? Afraid that they have been made to look like fools by obvious tv fakery.
brianv
Of course, by "they" you
Of course, by "they" you don't mean me. Or do you?
Get it straight
I will always refer to the no-planes theory as disinformation - simply because it is my opinion.
On the other hand Nico and Peggy attack me personally - my history in teh movement - my opinions on controlled demolition and the 'banners' and on and on and on. They dredge up a personal email i sent from 2 years ago when i quit the movement and my wife was quite ill.
And then when it gets ugly we see you attempting to spin it all into attacks against poor-'lil Peggy.
Peggy reprinted an email i wrote 2 years ago, and gave a laundry list of personal attacks that are all distortions and lies regarding my record in this movement.
The no-planers' RECORD speaks for itself. Their tactics SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.
Your 'Planes Theory"
rayantoky
bklyn
Mr. Albanese: You spend a lot nof time accusing the 'no planers' of using junk science and getting their info wrong and of being disinfo agents. Fair enough. Then could you please tell us if you support the official story, lock, stock and hijackers or can you come up with a clear, easy to understand outline of how it was done, where the planes came from, who flew them,were they switched at some point after being hijacked not once but four times?Can you explain why certain of the crashed planes were still in service after 9/11?Can you tell us why numbered parts of the planes were not found and catalogued?Can you explain why the engine found was under a tarp and not covered with dust?Do you believe there was a controlled demolition?
Please answer.
Ray Antoky
what a joke
just because i believe planes were used in the attacks (because i saw them in person)i must now be the grand wazoo of all 911 research and answer all your spanish-inquisition-like questions?
how the fuck should i know?
but i do know one thing. i saw the planes. thousands in the streets of NYC saw the planes. i work with people who saw the planes. i know people who saw the planes. there were planes.
your post is kinda immature. no one is allowed to have an opinion - or be an eyewitness - if it disagrees with the no-plane crowd.
John Albanese's "paranoia" is
John Albanese's "paranoia" is scripted.
He knows damn well, that i am not the same person as Peggy Carter.
He also deceives the public, by implying that i am the only one who's looking into the evidence for 9/11 TV fakery.
Here are more:
# 9/11 TV Fakery Petition
# http://911stealth.blogspot.com
# http://covertoperations.blogspot.com
# http://perpetualynquisitive.blogspot.com
# http://911truth.wetpaint.com
# http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html
# http://911cgiwatch.blogspot.com/
# http://www.911closeup.com/nico/
# http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren01.htm/
# http://nomoregames.net//
# http://www.archive.org/details/911-Chronology-Source
# http://www.911hoax.com/
# http://www.911foreknowledge.com
# http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=71
# http://missilegate.com
# http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175
# http://thewebfairy.com/911
# http://reopen911.org
Then we have also Morgan Reynolds, David Shayler, Joseph Keith (ex-SPINE), and almost 20 9/11 Scholars like Brian Vernon, Alexander Dent, Brad Mayeux, Veronica Chapman, Andrew Johnson, Rick Rajter who are supportive of the issue.
Even Jim Fetzer didn't rule out anymore that "some footage had been doctored"
Albanese is also confusing 2 different notions on purpose.
The findings on 9/11 TV fakery do have a different approach than the forensic findings on "no planes".
He's furthermore still not addressing the 'white elephant plane' or explaining why he didn't notice this plane as well.
He's ignoring that all eye-witness reports already contradict each other no matter how credible his own account is.
He's furtthermore refusing to give us an URL on "thousands in the streets of NYC [who] saw the planes".
In the recent collection of of "goatpussy" :
at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8EomY8jcjw&mode=related&search=
you furthermore have witnesses who saw either nothing, a "metal piece", described different aircraft sizes or "missed the plane". It shows furthermore live TV feeds with no planes (CBS, FOX 5), but explosion of South Tower only, though cameras had been pre-positioned.
He didn't explain how he could notice objects on the west side, though Victoria's Secret is blocked by a building from the west.
He is ignoring that scientific evidence was also successful to prove "no-planes" at the pentagon and shanksville against other 'eye-witness reports' and planted aircraft parts.
He's supportive of Ruppert's statements linking Loose Change to "CIA material".
He's lying about this:
"...producing a private email i wrote TWO YEARS AGO..."
Which isn't true, because it was publicly released on his "crisis in america" website, as titled:
Crisis in America
America - Love It or Leave It
by John J. Albanese, ny911truth.org , CrisisInAmerica.org
It had the convenient purpose of discouraging this movement as also Ruppert's "farewell" had many years ago.
How his credibility can be backed up is a big mystery to me, but possibly can be psychologically explained that this movement is desperately grasping after every new pseudo authority.
His reputation at ny911truth.org has a record.
When we point on this, he's spinning the rules of this board for his purpose, though our postings are "on the topic", not his ego.
Now since this movement made some apparent "success" with the reportings on controlled demolition, he's still pushing hangout topics.
Maybe the majority of 911blogger members are getting deceived by his clear diffusions of a political agenda of this movement, but other's don't.
I don't see any significant difference between a flagwaver who's supportive of the official story of 9/11 and Albanese.
PS: Albanese's personal attacks against me do not bother me. It's his ignorance which is obviously revealed here and other place. Time will tell...
If your "Science" stood on its own....
.... you wouldn't need to reproduce an email i sent 2 years ago.
That's weak - even for YOU.
Now - prove to us there were no planes - without attacking the witnesses.
EXPLAIN the witnesses - without attacking them.
Is it YOUR contention that there are NO witnesses who saw the planes?
CLarify this point.
Witnesses - yes? or witnesses - no?
Mike Berger of 911Truth.org claims he was walking his dog and saw the plane. Explain his account.
John, you didnt answer my
John, you didnt answer my questions previously, so I'll try again.
Considering that New York /Manhattan is made up almost entirely skyscrapers, and if you stand and look up you see a very small piece of sky. Correct?
How did you see an airplane travelling at 0.8 mach (allegedly), the speed of a rifle bullet, passing over the rooftops?
How long did you see the airplane for ? .00003 of a second?
What colour was it?
Was it an American Airlines?
Which building did you see it hit, and where were you standing?
Is it possible that you saw a "fly - by"?
bwahahahahaha!!!!!
PUH-LEEZE!!!!
i was on the 44th floor of my building - and the first plane went right by us at a very low altitude. everyone saw it. everyone heard it.
this whole debate is surrealistic. you just can't accept that people saw the planes - and you will try EVERY distortion and contortion and personal attack POSSIBLE to discredit me - an eyewitness.
you feel that if you keep asking me questions you can somehow catch me in some perceived contradiction - so you can call me a liar. it is a childish game.
it was FIVE FUCKING YEARS AGO. it all happened fast and under emotional distress. Jesus!
The fact that Peggy and Nico keep reproducing the same email i sent over 2 years ago to members of the movement is pathetic. so? i quit. so? so i opposed the banner. so?
what's with the smears. you are still doing it. each post just adds smear on top of smear. you are a disgrace to this Blog.
no - the truth is that this no-plane crowd simply attacks any witness who is capable of dismantling their theory.
no planes? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! that;s a terrific bit of disinformation. sheer genius.
Once again Albanese
Once again Albanese continues to confuse the hypothesises.
"...no-plane crowd simply attacks any witness who is capable of dismantling their theory...."
The evidence on 9/11 TV Fakery is not "attacking" any eye-witness.
It should be more logically that "eye-witnesses" are supportive of an analysis of these findings, because what was 'shown on TV 'does not back up what they allegedly saw. Please give us a more detailed account and we compare it with the tv footage.
And "9/11 TV fakery" follows a completely different goal:
Showing exactly all irregularities within the live feeds and non-live footage.
"NPT" is instead focussing on forensic evidence only.
Once again, that should make "eye-witnesses" think.
If forensic evidence does not back up what they allegedly saw, then they should figure out, what they really saw...
The eye-witness argument is a clear cop-out.
http://911closeup.com/nico/witness_contradictions.html
Why is Albanese not
Why is Albanese not focussing on the footage first?
Can he explain why the following 2 footage clips do not match with his account?
Or if he saw also an aircraft coming "from nowhere" though iit was pretty blue sky on 9/11?
Where exactly also did the "detroit local tv" aircraft made the U-Turn of 45 degrees to match with the flight path of the "VH-1" footage?
And why didn't you see this U-turn, if there was one?
And if there wasn't a u-turn, how could the aircraft, seen here behind the Empire State Building, match with the flight path of the VH-1 non-live footage?
why would i?
why would i debate the science of someone who puts out hit pieces on me?
you've used this board to attack me personally - and lie and distort my beliefs and actions.
you drag my name through the mud - and then act like this is all a simple request to discuss your "research"??
Laughable.
but - the good news is that everytime the no-planers show their ugly faces here - they will get this same reception. your time is up.
The evidence on 9/11 TV Fakery is not "attacking" any eye-witnes
nooooo....... you don't attack anyone Nico.....
you just post insults and lies and distortions and insinuations about people and their personal involvement in this movement.
you just posted an email i wrote 5 years ago when my wife was in the hospital with nervous exhaustion as a way of proving i am "suspect" and everyone should be "suspicious" of me......
Nico - lets be clear. you are an enemy of the truth.
i have seen you post LAUNDRY LISTS attacking legitimate people who are risking their lives for this movement.
You're not attacking the "eye-witnesses"?
you are an insult to every person who suffered that day and was traumatized on that day who stood in the street of manhattan and watched thousand die that day. you are a disgrace.
I'm still waiting for an
I'm still waiting for an answer of this:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/3212#comment-74048
which also has no "attacks against eye-witnesses" in it.
Furthermore Albanese is apparently confused.
I didn't post any "email" in this blog,
neither from 2 or 5 years ago.
It was the title of your public article.
Maybe he can now stick to the topic and explain the discrepancies between the videos and his account.
naaaaaaa
i don't respond to junk-science.
i just respond to personal attacks - and expose the perpetrators.
You AND Peggy (what a coincidence) reprinted an email i sent out to my friends in the movement 2 years ago - in an attempt to personally attack me.
you also gave a laundry list of "facts" about me regarding pathetic childish crap regarding banners and CD and on and on.
I am here to expose these tactics of the no-planes crowd.
The no-planes theory is CLEARLY disinformation designed to poison this movement - and i intend to expose you for the petty little creep you are.
posting my personal email from 2 years ago - which i wrote when my wife was hospitalizes - is BEYOND low - and it is only my hope that the controllers of this website will eventually see your tactics for what they are - bootstrap brownshirt attempts to disrupt and intimidate.
you are an enemy of the truth - and as such an enemy of this movement - and the american people.
John wrote:
John wrote:
"...i don't respond to junk-science.
i just respond to personal attacks - and expose the perpetrators..."
Interesting. So you are describing the TV footage as "junk science"?
I agree with you on that. It doesn't show us real events.
I am trying to reveal this and so do many with me.
Since we also established that my postings on this blog had nothing to do with personal attacks, what's your point to respond back to me?
We note for the record, that we had here an opportunity to analyse these videos together with a live eye witness but the very same witness refused a cooperation on that matter.
What the analysis of your 2 years old posting depends, you still ignore, that it was on your public website!
I don't see anything "low" of reproducing public releases.
It also wasn't me who posted this "letter" but Peggy Carter.
Furthermore Albanese still confuses two different notions and hypothesis (NPT, 9/11 TV fakery).
We're waiting on many other answers as well, i.e. on his account of the "white elephant plane", but there isn't any cooperation on this as well.
The only "controller" obsession is obviously laid out by Albanese.
It's furthermore *him* who actually "continue(s) arguments with other users from thread to thread" and using "ad-hominem attacks"
http://www.911blogger.com/rules
while i follow the topic.
you posted my email on another comment boar
so you are obviously a liar now blaming Peggy. YOU posted my email just a few days ago.
i would like you to produce a copy of my website showing that post. you can't because it does not exist. it was an email sent to my friends in the movement - back when i made the mistake of counting YOU as one of them.
and you DO attack everyone in this movement with your laundry lists of lies.
you are an enemy to truth - the victims - the witnesses - the traumatized - and everyone 9/11 Truth activist who is risking their life to expose the truth.
Albanese,
Albanese,
your 2 years old "farewell letter" was reproduced many different times.
I mirrored it also on globalfreepress at that time and it was described on Angie's website at Angieon911.com and is often posted by her since you showed up again.
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=871
(This website is down meanwhile as well, but you can easily find parts of the cache here, which shows it is the same text:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Love+It+or+Leave+It+John+J.+Alb...
I didn't reproduce it *today* and that was my point.
Why it does upset you, i cannot understand and i also didn't blame anyone for reproducing it.
You're still distracting from my questions to you on comparing your witness account with the footage and that's the only reason why i am still lurking.
There is no personal attack from my side.
You are obviously blind.
Fraud?
"You are an enemy to truth - the victims - the witnesses - the traumatized - and everyone 9/11 Truth activist who is risking their life to expose the truth."
A truth movement that's too scared to speak the truth may not have a lot of success.
Maybe if your account made sense
Maybe if your account made sense we wouldn't keep asking questions.
In a court of law, forensic trumps eyewitness. And the forensic....which is the contradictory video tapes, does not show a clear picture of what occurred.
You claim "1000's saw it." But i have trouble finding one.
I don't find your report credible since you were 2.7 miles away and originally claimed you saw both "airplanes" hit, and then you say what hit the south Tower "banked at the last moment" - yet this can't be corroborated with the video evidence - which shows an "airplane" many times over, which does not "bank."
That was why I was interested to hear the details.
And then you revised under pressure to say, I saw the "airplane" approach and then I saw the explosion.
Why wasn't that your first account?
I disagree with Nico about the Building blocking to the West, but I would like to figure out how large a 767 would appear from such a distance.
I'm sorry to have to clue you in on this John, but just because you say, "I saw it."...that doesn't trump everything and erase any other evidence, data or facts. You can't just steamroller people with that.
It'd be nice if we all could just make something true by fiat, "I saw it" but you have to know what you are seeing, you have to be also trustworthy. Your story has to hang together.
That you say, "1000's saw it" when I cannot find any. And "1000's on the street saw it"....when there are really not that many places on the street where it can be seen...does not help your case or credibility. IMO
You also use the emotion of the moment - - in your account you go down to ground zero and supposedly have your life change at that moment , which you seem to assume bolsters your authenticity. You feel insulted that after such an experience someone could dare to question you.
Yet, I question you because I need to know the truth. I had a close and special irreplacable friend die there. That motivates me, but has nothing to do with why I should be believed or not.
How do we know that was really why your life was changed? Or in the way you intend us to think?
You said you had an emotional experience, a catharsis. Many people did. That doesn't mean whoever had such an experience are good witnesses of the event. Or does that experience verifies their account?
I met many people, on the street, who start out trying to use their emotions of the moment to prove their case. When they begin to use their reasoning capacity instead, they recognize that the experience did not necessarily verify the government's story.
A case is not proved by emotions. We may sympathize with you. But that can't be confused with relying upon your opinion as to what you saw. The rest of your story has to add up.
I know you are a detail guy. And pay attention to how the details of things don't add up. That's why I can't understand why you don't "get" how there could be authentic reasons for me to question you.
What you wrote two year ago, that you apparently posted on your website, bears upon your credibility, IMO.
I still can't understand why you would do that.
I'm still trying to find good witnesses.
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
I will not dignify this with a response
i saw the planes.
cross examining me to try to find inconsistencies in a 5-year-old memory is obnoxious and lame.
the streets were full of people who saw the planes. i personally know many.
if you can't find one - you are not looking hard enough.
your approach is disresectful of the victims who were traumatized by what they saw. you are basically calling them all liars.
and lastly - you use my personal email to members of the movement - publically blasting it out to everyone on 911Blogger to point a finger at me, when it was the result of extreme stress and my wife's illness.
you are despicable - and i will not answer any more questions about planes that thousands of people witnessed who mysteriously YOU cannot find.
..."mysteriously" Albanese
..."mysteriously" Albanese cannot find them either :)
Again, i do not point out on "inconsistencies in a 5-year-old memory", but "inconsistencies of 5-year-old videos".
Fact is, that there is no cooperation on that matter with Albanese possible, since he didn't elaborate his account.
Furthermore his "1000s" of eye-witnesses have no record and they're opposed by those who all had different vantage points which should it make possible for them to witness aircrafts, but they didn't.
Same also to this amateur footage which had no plane in it, though another, obviously doctored footage shows an alleged aircraft filmed from same vantage point, which was even much further away.
Compare with:
15)
http://www.stefangeens.com/000158.html
"...about 20 minutes after the first explosion, a huge fireball erupted out of the South tower, about 2 thirds of the way up. People screamed on the roofs around me, where everybody was beginning to gather. Most memorable is the bright bright orange of that explosion, and also the crispness of it; it's a quality difficult to describe--it's the quality of NOT seeing it on television, at a much higher resolution and in the outdoors, under a clear sky. The boom came later.
It was difficult to know what had just happened. I already knew from the radio that the first explosion had been caused by a plane. Was the second caused by a news helicopter accident? The plane that caused this second explosion had in fact come from behind the tower, so from my vantage point I had not seen it.
16)
http://p066.ezboard.com/fnypdrant64609frm1.showMessage?topicID=43159.top...
"...As I was the only security guy on sight I wasn't able to leave right away. Due to the angle of the buildings I never saw the second plane hit, but could clearly see the results..."
http://911closeup.com/nico/witness_contradictions.html
1)
http://culhavoc.blogsome.com/2006/03/10/nicos-timeline-cnns-reality-tv-h...
"...I have witnessed a horrible history. I was supposed to go to NJ for a
seminar. I was on the BQE bridge going into Chinatown, Manhattan, when I saw
an explosion at exactly 8:48am on the first Twin Tower. The radio said that
it was a plane accident. I immediately called my sister in NJ, who normally
has to get to the World Trade Center station (she works for the Mayor's
office, 4 blocks away from WTC). I told her that there has been an accident
and told her to avoid that station. She said that my brother will drive her
to Manhattan instead. I then placed another phone call telling
my best friend to stay away from the area. My friend has jury duty and the
Supreme
Court is 3 blocks away. Suddenly, I saw a second explosion but did not see
the plane.
http://www.geocities.com/vnwomensforum/september11debate.html
(NOTE: BQE Bridge is local slang for Brooklyn Queens Express running over
the Williamsborough Bridhe)
2)
http://www.panix.com/userdirs/timothy/wtc.html
"...We all looked up at the WTC to see one tower on fire. There was a ring
of fire encircling the building one floor...near the top. The floors above
the ring were enshrouded in thick black upwardly rising waves. Every second
or two the fire crept lower--floor by floor---dripping like wax down a
candle.
The thought of those people...they're being incinerated..there's no way to
control that fire. Then a huge fireball--monstrous in size--shot out and
up---like some horribly visible dragon's breath.(this was the fireball from
the impact of the second jet--I didn't realize this until after viewing the
footage of the attack)..."
3)
http://www.asne.org/index.cfm?ID=4318
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0110/images/m04.jpg
"...Then out of nowhere came this noise. This loud, high-pitched roar that
seemed to come from all over, but from nowhere in particular. AND THE SECOND
TOWER JUST EXPLODED. It became amazingly obvious to anyone there that what
we all had hoped was a terrible accident was actually an overt act of
hostility. I DIDN'T SEE THE PLANE HIT,ALTHOUGH I WAS LOOKING AT THE TOWER AT
THE TIME. I have no recollection of pushing the button, hitting the shutter,
making the picture that appeared on Page 2 of the Daily News the next day, a
picture that was taken milliseconds after the second plane hit that tower..."
4)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/tyne/have_your_say/september_11.shtml
... Gemma McDonald, Houston, Texas: On the morning of September 11. I was
getting ready to go to school, when the news station broke in with breaking
news. They said a plane had hit the world trade center. They were in the
middle of broadcasting that story live, whenever a big fireball appeared out
of the other tower. In order to see what hit the tower. They had to replay
the tape in slow motion. We didn't know what had happened because we didn't
see the plane, because it was so fast. Whenever I did figure out what
happened I got this weird feeling across my body that I can't describe..."
5)
TV'"witness":
http://www.vegasgangonline.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7574&page=2
"...stood there watching the coverage in the airport until my flight was called.
I saw the explosion in the second tower and thought it was because of the
first tower burning as I didn't see the plane hit. My flight was called
about 9:20 and I boarded the plane, we all sat there until about 9:35 when
the pilot announced taht all flights were cancelled. After I got of the
plane I went back to the TV and saw what was going on.."
6)
Hispano amateur cameraman, who didn't see any object hitting south tower,
while filming both towers:
http://www.cruzate.com/nyhell/3.jpg
Compare with same geograpical position of towers aT Rosalee's site
(Antenna is in the back of second= north tower)
http://www.webfairy.org/2hit/blueplane.htm
http://www.cruzate.com/nyhell
"...When I was back in the roof I saw
just before my eyes the explosion on Tower 2.
I didn't see the plane, nor did any of the other
guys on the roof. We speculated for a few
minutes. The only thing we could imagine was
on of the wings of the first plane hitting the
other tower and provoking the explosion, but
that was very unlikely...."
7)
From an amateur camera clip, camera positioned on both towers:
"...we just saw another explosion (TV comment)...."
Person 1 in room: "...Another explosion Kate..."
Kate: "...i know, i know..." (noone of both refered to any plane)
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/day1-tower2-fireball-only.wmv
8)
Don Dahler vs. ABC
Dahler:
...i didn't see any plane going in...that...that's just exploded...i...
Gibson:
We just saw another plane coming in from the side.
Dahler:
You did?? I...that was ..was...out of my view...
Gibson:
That was a second explosion.
You can see the plane come in just from the right hand side of the screen...
(=> Dahler's witness report 'overruled' by a TV monitor)
http://thewebfairy.com/911/haarp/reporter.didnt.see.plane.wmv
9)
Witness Reporter Winston on NBC, which had same synched W-ABC clip:
the "building is exploding right now"
The studio host doesn't even see his monitor where the same W-ABC footage
shows same black flying object vanishing behind first tower, then followed by explosion and fireball (no sound).
The studio host agrees with street reporter (who didn't report any incoming 'plane', that this explosion must have been forced from 'parts of the first plane..."
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/msnbc_2ndCGIplane_wrongtower_touch.mpg
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/CGIplane_touches_northtower.jpg
(RENDERING UPLOAD MISTAKE)
10)
http://thewebfairy.com/911/bombs/
Witness: NO second plane, it was a bomb....
FOX clip
Reporter Rick Leventhal is whisking witness away: "we heard about tv reports..."
11)
Pilot Witness:
http://www.montclair.edu/pages/alumnilife/alumnilifewinter02/features4.h...
"... I saw a flash and fireball from the top of the World Trade Center.
....Due to the angle and altitude of our flight, I have sometimes experienced the optical illusion of something appearing to hit a building.
We then flew south to the Battery to see if whatever had hit it had gone out the other side. We saw heavy damage on the south side of Tower 1, but saw nothing of substance on the ground or on Tower 2, so we decided to go back north again, all the while just on the water's edge on the Manhattan side at about 900 feet. Ninety seconds after leaving the Battery, in the spot where we had just been looking, the second plane hit the second tower. We never saw the plane, but I could see the flash of the impact from behind us.
12) More amateur tapes showing no planes at 2nd attack (06/02)
Dialogue between guy and his girlfriend:
Man: "...wtf**k. What was that?
Woman: "I don't know"
Man: "..they're f**in bombing it...
Must have been a rocket or something.."
13) Two dudes do not catch any plane
http://tinyurl.com/nhuu6
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2137200753344880184&q=9%2F11&pl=...
tower 1 on fire only filmed by amateur and his buddy, then unfortunately shortly edited and started filming again...
"...oh my god..." (amateur camera continues filming after 2nd attack on ST, but no comment on any plane....!!)
dialogue of two dudes continues:
guy 1:
"...that must have been a fukin terrorist attack. Probably that just explode.. that doesn't make any sense, that has...
interrupted by guy 2:
"...How did THAT ONE just catch on fire man?... see this stuff is falling out...
14)Bird "sees" no plane (check out blog below)
Amateur Footage with no plane in it while filming fireball:
all direct video links here:
http://911tvfakery.net/
1)
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Another amateur footage shows no plane hit South Tower (08/05)
2)
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Compare with yet another amateur video, same perspective, explosion, no plane
3)
The "no-plane" bird (07/13)
(now also vlogged at 911CGIwatch.blogspot)
4)
May Archives
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
More amateur tapes showing no planes at 2nd attack (06/02)
http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_911tvfakery_archive.html
http://youtube.com/watch?v=P8oZIYkoBfE&search=september%2011%20plane
5)
May 1, 2006
Two dudes do not catch any plane
http://tinyurl.com/nhuu6
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2137200753344880184&q=9%2F11&pl=...
6)
March 5, 2006
Dahler doesn't see or hear any plane at the South Tower
http://thewebfairy.com/911/haarp/reporter.didnt.see.plane.wmv
7)
February 2, 2006
Amateur Video of 2nd hit without any clear plane
http://tinyurl.com/lrt45
http://www.bolt.com/audio/audio_player_flv_branded.swf?contentId=170167&...
8)
9/11 CGI: FOX vs CNN (06/28)
Amateur Vid of couple not seeing any plane
and here is one satire fake how can easily do the opposite:
WTC 7 "hit" by a "plane":
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/WTC7_plane002.swf
I guess that makes sense.
it was FIVE FUCKING YEARS AGO. it all happened fast and under emotional distress. Jesus!
Thank you.
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
Still "under emotional
Still "under emotional distress" 5 years later, John?
Fact is: The videos need further analysis.
I guess, if we cannot rely on John's help, we have to look out for other witnesses :)
Scientific Evidence May Be Better than Eyewitness Testimony
Dear John Albanese & Others Who Reject the 9/11 "No Big Boeings" Scientific Evidence:
Above, you say: "ALL BLOGS CLAIMING TO SUPPORT THE THEORY OF NO-PLANES BEING USED IN THE ATTACKS - OR MINI-NUKES - SHOULD BE IGNORED. THIS LINE OF RESEARCH HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED AND DISCREDITED BY THE THOUSANDS OF EYEWITNESSES WHO SAW THE PLANES ON THE MORNING OF 9/11." Typing in All Capital Letters is ordinarily used for "shouting." (I also posted this reply comment in response to your original comment.)
In courts of law and otherwise, attorneys and judges know that eyewitness testimony is some of the LEAST RELIABLE evidence. What eye witnesses remember (or think that they remember) is very much susceptible to pschological influences that are well known to judges and attorneys -- and psychologists.
John, what you are saying (i.e., essentially "REJECT THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF NO BIG BOEINGS, BECAUSE EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY IS NEVER WRONG") would be rejected by ALL judges in ALL civil and criminal trials. Any judge who rejected scientific evidence because of eyewitness testimony would be laughed out of court -- or reversed on appeal.
What happens in courts in situations such as this is that the judge allows the jury to see & hear ALL the evidence and to judge the facts for themselves. Why are you attempting to act as NO judge would act in preventing the jury of 9/11 researchers, the jury of the American public, and the jury of the people of the world from seeing the scientific evidence that MIGHT prove that No Big Boeings hit the WTC towers? Do you also believe in the integrity of the mainstream media so much that you believe that the mainstream media would NEVER deceive you by showing fake images of Big Boeings (either wittingly or unwittingly)?
Even your statement above does not preclude what the "No Big Boeings" proponents are saying. You say that "EYEWITNESSES ... SAW THE PLANES ON THE MORNING OF 9/11" This does NOT necessarily mean that Big Boeings hit the WTC towers, now does it, John? Maybe the eyewitnesses saw a Big Boeing flying TOWARD the WTC tower, saw a Big Explosion coming from the WTC tower, and then assumed that a Big Boeing must have caused the Big Explosion. What they saw would certainly have been later influenced by TV, radio, cell phone calls, and other members of the crowd on 9/11/01. Is this possible? Maybe. Let' us examine the scientific evidence -- unless you want to prevent us from examining this scientific evidence.
Are Nico and others sometimes unnecessarily rude? Yes, they are. If they are unnessarily rude, then they are unwittingly motivating you & others in not looking at the scientific evidence. And they should stop this. However, being unnecessarily rude is not a one-way street. From what I have seen, you & others have been unnecessarily rude to Nico and others who advocate that we look at ALL the scientific evidence.
While driving to work on the morning of 9/11/01, a good friend of mine saw a Big Boeing flying low TOWARD the Pentagon. He later saw the Big Explosion coming out of the Pentagon. Of course, when the evidence came out that a Big Boeing MAY NOT have hit the Pentagon, my friend continued to tell the story AS IF he had seen a Big Boeing hit the Pentagon. It took him a long time before he could realize that he really did NOT see a Big Boeing actually hit the Pentagon. John, is the "No Big Boeing Hypothesis" at the Pentagon "thoroughly debunked and discredited by the ... eyewitnesses who saw the planes on the morning of 9/11"? Or should we look at the scientific evidence? Let me know.
By the way, John, even Professor Steven E. Jones disagrees with you. At my request, 'Steve signed Nico's petition calling for scholarly articles in the Journal of 9/11 Studies on four (4) hypotheses: 1) The 9/11 Pro-Planes Hypothesis; 2) The 9/11 No-Planes Hypothesis (No Big Boeings); 3) The 9/11 TV & Media Fakery Hypothesis; and 4) The 9/11 TV & Media Integrity Hypothesis.
I suspect that Steve Jones is having trouble finding someone to write the scholarly article on the 9/11 TV & Media Integrity Hypothesis. John, would you like to write this article? Or can you find someone to write it?
I was also the one who invited Dr. Steve Jones, Dr. Morgan Reynolds, and Dr. Judy Wood to speak before the McClendon Group at the National Press Club in Washington, DC on September 6th. Morgan & Judy accepted our invitations (Steve did not), and we had our largest crowd ever for their presentations. Fox News and others interviewed Morgan Reynolds about the No Big Boeings Hypothesis. Morgan did well.
If & when you decide that you are open to ALL the scientific evidence about 9/11, then please let me know.
Thank you. Best regards,
Thomas J Mattingly
P.S. After examining the scientific evidence & eyewitness testimony, although my working hypothesis is that No Big Boeings caused ANY destruction on 9/11, I am certainly open to any & all scientific evidence to the contrary -- including eyewitness testimony under oath with cross examination. My understanding is that there is NO pro-planes eyewitness testimony under oath with cross examination. Is this true?
P.P.S. John, since you say that you were an eyewitness to a Big Boeing hitting a WTC tower, are you ready, willing & able to be examined under oath (with cross examination) on the question of whether or not Big Boeings hit the WTC towers? If so, then how many OTHER eyewitnesses to Big Boeings hitting the WTC towers can you bring to depositions (i.e., examinations under oath with cross examinations)? 1,000? Would a Sunday session of NY911Truth.org be an appropriate venue for such public depositions? Let me know. Thanx.
regarding a deposition
you said: "P.P.S. John, since you say that you were an eyewitness to a Big Boeing hitting a WTC tower, are you ready, willing & able to be examined under oath (with cross examination) on the question of whether or not Big Boeings hit the WTC towers? If so, then how many OTHER eyewitnesses to Big Boeings hitting the WTC towers can you bring to depositions (i.e., examinations under oath with cross examinations)? 1,000? Would a Sunday session of NY911Truth.org be an appropriate venue for such public depositions? Let me know. Thanx."
Sure - if you agree to take a psychological examination and be laughed at by a jury of your peers.
Chicken
Chicken
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
John, Thank You for Agreeing to Be Examined Under Oath...
Dear John:
In response to my request that you and other eyewitnesses to "seeing planes" on 9/11/01 subject yourselves to a reasonable examination under oath (with cross examination) about whether or not you actually saw Big Boeings hit the WTC towers on 9/11/01, you answer: "Sure - if you agree to take a psychological examination and be laughed at by a jury of your peers."
Hmmm... My response is as follows: 1) Why does my state of mind (as crazy as I may be) have any relevance to the truth or falsity of the "9/11 No Big Boeings Hypotheses"? AND 2) YES, I am ready, willing, and able "to take a psychological examination and be laughed at by a jury of [my] peers."
NOW, John, "since you say that you were an eyewitness to a Big Boeing hitting a WTC tower [one or more], are you ready, willing & able to be examined under oath (with cross examination) on the question of whether or not Big Boeings hit the WTC towers? If so, then how many OTHER eyewitnesses to Big Boeings hitting the WTC towers can you bring to depositions (i.e., examinations under oath with cross examinations)? 1,000? Would a Sunday session of NY911Truth.org be an appropriate venue for such public depositions?"
NOW, John, please answer my questions... ALL of my questions.
NOW, John, you accepted my request, subject to your conditions.
I accepted by also offering to comply with your conditions.
NOW, John, will you do what you AGREED to do?
Let me know. Thank you. Best regards,
Thomas J Mattingly
P.S. In an insane world, only the crazy people CAN BE sane. However, just being "crazy" may be no guarantee of one's sanity in this world. Believe me: I know... However, this is IRRELEVANT to the question of whether or not Big Boeings actually hit the WTC towers -- NOW isn't it, John?
Nah. Don't think so
For every report there is an equal and opposite report
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14655835
The four inch thick steel was the base of the core columns. The perimeter columns were lighter and thinner, although specially hardened steel. The report you cite was written by a couple of grad students. It would be nice to get some data we could trust, but I don't think this is it.
the perimeter columns were
the perimeter columns were box columns not solid beams.
here is a photo supposedly of wtc2 perimeter columns from floor 68-71.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxD.htm (see figure D-5)
supposedly the stenciled writing on one in fig. D-5 are 3/4" high lettering which makes the wall that we see an edgewise view of on that box column at least 1/2" thick.
oops that was pretty stupid
oops that was pretty stupid of me - looking at fig.D-5 again:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxD.htm
it clearly states that the stamped lettering is 3/4" high, not the stenciled lettering. so looking at that spandrel plate which was 5' wide and viewing that in perspective with the wall of that box column it appears that the wall of that box column is much thicker than 1/2".
does anyone concur with this?
130 m/s = 130*3600/1000 km/h
130 m/s = 130*3600/1000 km/h = 468 km/h = 292 mph