dixon76710

And your insistance that we look at whats NOT in the PM article kind of demonstrates my point regarding whats in the article. It hasnt been "debunked". Just lots of waaaaa!

Doremus Jessup

Start with the Florida elementary school. The Nation is under attack and one of the most valuable targets is in a known location. And yet he is kept there until he finishes reading "The Pet Goat" to the kids. The claim is that they didn't want to scare the children. The SS had to have been ordered not to extract him, or they knew that he was not a target. Or maybe they knowingly endangered POTUS, themselves, and the children in order to not startle them. Perhaps somebody has crafted a better explanation, but I've yet to see it.

__________________
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

Pull My Finger

Funny, I was thinking the same thing…

I personally find Hoffman’s argument here to be weak. There I said it. In fact, I’m not claiming that Hoffman’s argument is the Bible argument either.

Again, what PM fails to address on this matter is more important than the distraction element they choose to debunk – or even Hoffman’s attempt to debunk that…

They do not mention the war games – crucial in their eerie resemblance to the actual events of 9/11, and the confusion they added to the response…
They do not mention how the rules changed a few months prior regarding who controls the response to such an attack
They do not mention the testimony (given under oath) that contradicts Cheney’s alleged actions on the morning of 9/11
They do not mention how Cheney & Bush demanded testifying together and NOT under oath regarding these matters…

And that’s just on this matter…

I say, OK so NORAD has only intercepted ONE plane over LAND – I’m giving it to you on a silver platter with one of my balls. Enjoy.

QUESTION: How does how many times an interception vs scramble, over land vs offshore prove or disprove an argument for or against an inside job?
Awesome, we almost got a direct answer out of you, but you still trivialized it – Chertoff doesn’t just work for PM, he was chosen to be the lead researcher for the particular article in question. That said…

So I can say then, that though to a lesser degree than the Hoffman article, you DO find the credibility of the PM article to be questionable.
1. Is this correct?

2. How does how many times an interception vs scramble, over land or offshore prove or disprove an argument for or against an inside job?

3. What purpose does it serve to smear the skeptics in a truly objective answer piece to the skeptics concerns?

4. What does it mean to you that the PM researcher/spokesman reacted the way he did to the questions? (radio interview)

5. What does it mean to you that they can’t prove their DNA evidence?

6. What does it mean to you that the PM guy never got back to him like he said he would (redirected questions to voice mail) with an answer about the DNA?

7. Why do YOU think they didn’t tackle these types of points? (listed in previous post)

Seriously, answer them. You’re dodging them, and they’re piling up…

Peace

__________________
My eyes are always open, habitat gropin'...

dixon76710

"resemblance"??? Flying bombers to Alaska and northern Canada hardly resembles the events of 9/11 and the only confusion it caused was that they had to ask if it was real world or a drill when first reported and they were told it was real world, end of confusion.


It is the entire premise of their silly theory. That the dark overlords ordered NORAD to stand down and not intercept the hijacked planes. Claiming that NORAD does it all the time in a couple of minutes, and the lengthy delay on 9/11 is their evidence that NORAD was ordered to stand down, when in fact NORAD had done it once in an decade and it took almost an hour and a half.

Pull My Finger

Incorrect, and vastly oversimplified. The Pentagon and FAA almost faced separate charges of obstruction during the Commission report. NORAD and the FAA had to be subpoenaed for cooperation, etc, etc…

Cooperative Research
Cooperative Research: Complete 9/11 Timeline
No it is not. It is a portion. There is still the testimony (given under oath) that contradicts Cheney’s alleged actions on the morning of 9/11 and how Cheney & Bush demanded testifying together and NOT under oath regarding these matters, how the rules changed a few months prior regarding who controls the response to such an attack, and on and on…
I don’t claim that NORAD was directly ordered to stand down. That is speculation as far as I know right now. I know officials and agencies responsible for reacting have not cooperated with investigations OR TESTIFIED UNDER OATH, and a combination of other facts that leads one to believe that a response to the attack could have been intentionally marginalized…
I don’t care how many times or how long it took to intercept planes in the past by itself. IMO, if that is their argument, what the hell good was the multi billion dollar, state of the art air defense system? I am more concerned with their activities surrounding the events of 9/11.

You've still avoided…

• No mention at all of ANY of the evidence that strongly indicates foreknowledge on someone’s (other than AQ) behalf.
• No mention of the dozens of testimonies of multiple explosions at ground zero
• No mention of the living terrorists and lack of evidence to connect any of them to UBL
• No mention of the scientific marvel of the first 3 buildings to ever fall from fire happening to be towers 1,2, and 7
• No mention of the WTC steel being immediately shipped overseas BEFORE an examination of the most extraordinary crime scene in American history
• No mention of the pancake theories ignoring the existence 47 steel columns in the core, which officials claim to be a ‘hollow shaft’
• No mention of Bush’s brother and cousin controlling WTC security
• No mention of the 80 (approx) video tapes of the Pentagon that the FBI confiscated and won’t release even after repeated requests
• No mention of the ‘9/11 families’ questions and claims - ironically PM condemns theorists for disgracing the memory of those who died
• No mention of the original flight manifests not including a terrorist name
• No mention of CIA involvement in the creation of Islamic Fundamentalism and ties to UBL
• No mention of Bush/Bin Laden relationships

QUESTION: Why do YOU think PM didn’t tackle these types of points?

Peace

chal7ds

They likely got false reports of it "about to collapse"?!? LOL!!! Did you not hear or read about the countdown that happened at ground zero that day before WTC 7 came down? Firefighters were told it was going to come down, they had a COUNTDOWN, and then 9/11 1st responders like Craig Bartmer and Kevin McPadden (as well as many others) both came out and said they heard obvious explosions going off as it came down. We also have Silverstein using demolition language like they decided to "Pull It" as well as this building THAT DIDN'T GET HIT BY A PLANE falling in under 6.5 seconds neatly into its own footprint. How is that possible when no other steel structure in history has collapsed that fast and neat in that amount of time? It is physically impossible. I guess Newton's laws don't apply here huh?

Not satisfied? Why did the BBC and CNN also report the collapse too early?





ohhh, but I suppose they just got reports it was 'about to collapse' and reported it too early huh? lol. You gotta be kidding me. Who could have guessed a burning steel building was going to collapse? NO ONE. The only possible answer to that is that someone knew about the building coming down beforehand and started warning the people and the firefighters and rescue workers. Of course, if someone knew, then the official story is worthless.

Anybody who believes that WTC 7 came down as a pancake collapse has to be either a retard or a government operative hired to try and hold up this 'official story' which by each day continues to slowly fall apart.


chal7ds



-------------------------------------------------------------------

partier9

Here's my source which says that you are wrong.

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Free Fall

The time required to strip off a floor, according to Frank Greening, is a maximum of about 110 milliseconds = 0.110 seconds. It is rather the conservation of momentum that slowed the collapse together with a small additional time for the destruction of each floor.

Below are calculations from a physics blogger...

When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.


Let's see:
KE = 1/2mv^2
The mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be
208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft
50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg
additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be
450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor
so the total mass would be
4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor
Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
90.4m/s
so our
KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J
So, divide by 2 and we get
10,362,544,260J
OK, now let's try a floor halfway up:
t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s
v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J
Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's
110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value)
= 1,139,879,868,600J
OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t

Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That's over a quarter kiloton. We're talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that's another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.

__________________
If I had a billion dollars?

dixon76710

Your links confirm my statement and nothing within contradicts. Your silly little proclamations that I am incorrect, with nothing more are silly.

dixon76710

And when the conspiracy theorist start makin shiite up they only further demonstrate they have no arguement.

chal7ds

According to Newton's Laws of Motion we see that:


Distance travelled (s) is equal to the initial velocity (u)
multiplied by the travel time (t) added to 1/2 of the acceleration
(a) multiplied by the square of the travel time (t)

s = ut + 1/2at squared

When considering objects falling under the Earth's gravity,
the initial velocity, u is zero. The equation can then be simplified,
because the first term becomes zero. (anything multiplied by zero is zero)

s = 1/2at squared

In considering the twin towers, we want to find out how long it would
take for an object (e.g. ball bearing) dropped from the top of the towers
to reach the ground. We then compare this time to the time measured for the
collapse. We rearrange our previous equation so that we can find out what 't'
would be if we knew all the other values. It comes as

t = 2s/a

the distance (s) that the ball bearing would travel is 1350ft (height of tower)
a is the acceleration due to Earth's gravity 9.81m/s squared

This then gives us a way of calculating 't'

t = 2(411.48)/9.81 = 9.16 seconds

The time calculated for freefall of an object, 9.16 seconds,
is very close to the actual measured time of the collapse (8
and 10 seconds approximately. Even if 11 or 15 seconds were
suggested such as by Keening, this does not substantially change
the situation.

This indicates that the towers fell with ALMOST NO RESISTANCE!


The quicker than freefall collapse time of one of the towers
was probably due to the vacuum effect of the lateral explosions
- they sucked down some floors, reducing the time it took for them
to fall. A pancake collapse would have meant there was an amount
of resistance as each floor impacted the one below.

This would have increased the collapse time, not decreased as your
source claims.

I didn't make up the "shiite" countdown. I already stated in my "arguement" that 1st responders such as Former Air Force special operations unit Kevin McPadden came out and said he heard a "20 second countdown", as well as Volunteer EMT Indira Singh, who heard the same countdown. Other responders have said they heard the countdowns as well. I'm not going to list them all, go google it.





Buuut no, I give no definitive names or video, nooooo.

I guess this physics and eyewitness accounts are all just 'made up', right?



chal7ds


-------------------------------------------------------------------