Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
how could they ask the wrong question, the answer they got was that the controller had to traverse a flight of stairs to see the radar vs transponder view. thats a pretty big stretch there.
there articles are written by professionals, technical writers, thats why they read like they were written by professionals technical writers. technical writers write technically so they can't be misinterpreted. why would you lump them in with lawyers unless you want to bring in the negative connotation that lawyers have. now you are not just attacking the books credibility but the organization as a whole, you are attacking a credible, accurate organization with a great track record of accuracy because they don't agree with some guy you know. you have an agenda, to only accept the evidence that supports your views while rejecting anything that disagrees with them.
|
Fine then, a point by point AGAIN.
Popular Mechanics: Conspiracy theorists claim that the jets that struck in New York and DC weren't commercial planes.
Me: We have only ambiguous video or picture evidence, since many photographs and videos of the crash, epically of the Pentagon, remain classified. Aside from eyewitness accounts, which aren't particularly reliable, we only have limited photographic evidence about the Pentagon crash. Fortunately for me, the one video released by the Pentagon was enough to debunk the Flight 77 myth. Fortunately for me, I've already analyzed the evidence and have posted about it
here,
here,
here, and
here.
Popular Mechanics: Conspiracy theorists claim that a pod was attached to the fuselage of Flight 175 that hit the South Tower.
Me: And we're right
:
This is a regular Boeing 767:
This is a Boeing 767 on 9/11:
Any questions?
Popular Mechanics: Conspiracy theorists claim that either no planes were scrambled or that they dragged their feet. Thankfully, that's a conversation we just ended, so I won't need to go into further detail.
Popular Mechanics: Conspiracy theorists claim that a FOX News broadcast featured an interview with Marc Bimbach where he was quoted saying, "[The plane that hit the South Tower] definitely did not look like a commercial plane," Birnbach said on air. "I didn't see any windows on the sides."
Me: Popular Mechanic's experts omitted part of this interview, in which Marc explains in great detail a blue logo on the front of the plane, something that would not have been on Flight 175. Again, I don't know how much stock to put into eyewitness reports, but it's something that he imagined a very specific blue logo where there officially was none.
Popular Mechanics: Conspiracy theorists suggest that it's standard operating procedure for fighters to intercept possibly hijacked planes, and that they can usually reach them in a matter of minutes.
Quote:
|
FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.
|
Me: Popular Mechanics sucks. According to the Air Force in their official press release, it took the F-16 about 20 minutes to reach Payne Stewart's Learjet.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/991026dallasmorningnews
Why would they need to lie to prove their point? Is it possible that they are full of shit? Yes, and this proves it. But it gets better...
...NORAD, according to the AP, has scrambled fighters 67 times between 9/2000 and 6/2001. But it gets better...
...one of Popular Mechanic's own expert sources, Maj. Douglas Martin, told the Associated Press that NORAD scrambled over 60 times in the year prior to 9/11.
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/090305alexresponds.htm
Yikes, right? How could they be so wrong. But it gets better...
...
This is a cached copy of the FAA protocol. Notice it's effective from before 9/11?
This is where you can find Chapter 7: Escort of Hijacked Aircraft. It's scary how wrong PM, an organization of professionals and technical writers can be.
Popular Mechanics:
Quote:
|
The collapse of both World Trade Center towers--and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later--initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.
|
Me: WTC7 fell PERFECTLY INTO IT'S OWN FOOTPRINT, despite the fact that all the alledged damage and explosion was on one side of the building.
Notice that it falls at free fall, no outward debris, and the top moves straight down.
As for the fire thing, I've already posted evidence on that, and even though someone who claims to be a student of higher physics doesn't follow, my work has been verified by experts.
Popular Mechanics: Molten steel? Jet fuel caused loss of strength?
Me: Yes, jackasses. The ASTM E119 steel used to build the WTC could not have been stressed by hydrocarbon fires, especially in only an hour.
An executive from Underwriters Labs, the company that was given the responsibility for proving the official story about 9/11, spoke out, saying "The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel." Not only that, but anything and everything inside the WTC buildings would have been strictly governed by fire codes. In other words, it would be fire rated, tested for flame spread, smoke density and a dozen other thing.
This will give you a complete listing of the ASTM published standards.
Popular Mechanics: Conspiracy theorists claim that as each tower collapsed there were visible puffs of smoke coming out from he collapsing floors, suggesting controlled demolition.
Me: There were
47 solid, one piece i-beams in the center of each Twin Tower. They supported the weight of the building. I'm wondering just how the impact of a floor falling upon a floor would collapse them at the same speed as the rest of the collapsing building? How about a big dose of 'nope'. This is my favorite:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Popular Mechanics
Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
|
Where is the math on this fantastic 'enormous energy"? I'd love to see the math that explains how one pancaked floor at the top of the building mysteriously falling could explain the pulverization of the entire building, including crushing the 47 i-beams. Of course, I can't because PM left that out.
This is exhausting. I'll finish the rest later.