9/11/MLK/RFK

[Matt Grantham]

 Hard to find a forum where these are discussed, so I just wanted to open the door on these topics if anyone is interested

[Matt Grantham]

It looks like some people actually looked at the previous post and probably my mistake for not putting up something more than an invitation  S

 So I will take a shot at 9/11

 John Skilling the Chief Architect and Engineer for the WTC state they were built to withstand the impact of a jetliner with the equivalent force and resultant fires we saw on 9/11

 The images of the Pentagon facade in the first ten minutes after the impact

Donald Rumsfeld is out on the Pentagon lawn around 9.40 while the country is still under attack

Virtually all the top administration officials say "oh it must have been a lost small aircraft"  when reports first told planes had hit the towers

Andrew's AFB, which was obviously known, as the heart of protecting the capital does not manage to get a jet scrambled And almost weith a day of the attck changes it's wesite to sound less prepared to defend the DC airspace

 The Langley fighters are scrambled in time, but fly over the ocean because they had been programmed to only intercept attacks from overseas


 And then one of my favorites which smacks of an internal conspiracy. When an aircraft was approaching Washington and the Pentagon around 9.20 a report came in that the approaching aircraft was not lost flight 77 but was actually Flight 11 So to be clear there is an approaching aircraft coming towards Washington, just confusion over which plane it is But when the top generals in charge appear in front of the 9/11 Commission, they claim they did not send out aircraft because the report of Flight 11 was a false report and they could not scramble jets to respond to a plane that did not exist That kind of presentation can only be made to a hopelessly gullible populace and media


 I shied away from some of the more common objections but apparently it is just now accepted as not surprising that there was foreknowledge that WTC was going to collapse around 5 though there was no reason or precedent for such a belief

[Tim Nickerson]

It looks like some people actually looked at the previous post and probably my mistake for not putting up something more than an invitation  S

 So I will take a shot at 9/11

 John Skilling the Chief Architect and Engineer for the WTC state they were built to withstand the impact of a jetliner with the equivalent force and resultant fires we saw on 9/11

 The images of the Pentagon facade in the first ten minutes after the impact

Donald Rumsfeld is out on the Pentagon lawn around 9.40 while the country is still under attack

Virtually all the top administration officials say "oh it must have been a lost small aircraft"  when reports first told planes had hit the towers

Andrew's AFB, which was obviously known, as the heart of protecting the capital does not manage to get a jet scrambled And almost weith a day of the attck changes it's wesite to sound less prepared to defend the DC airspace

 The Langley fighters are scrambled in time, but fly over the ocean because they had been programmed to only intercept attacks from overseas


 And then one of my favorites which smacks of an internal conspiracy. When an aircraft was approaching Washington and the Pentagon around 9.20 a report came in that the approaching aircraft was not lost flight 77 but was actually Flight 11 So to be clear there is an approaching aircraft coming towards Washington, just confusion over which plane it is But when the top generals in charge appear in front of the 9/11 Commission, they claim they did not send out aircraft because the report of Flight 11 was a false report and they could not scramble jets to respond to a plane that did not exist That kind of presentation can only be made to a hopelessly gullible populace and media


 I shied away from some of the more common objections but apparently it is just now accepted as not surprising that there was foreknowledge that WTC was going to collapse around 5 though there was no reason or precedent for such a belief

Matt,

It would be helpful if you would source the claims that you've made. It's been 7 or 8 years since I've looked at the 9/11 Truther stuff. I recall that most of it was easily debunked.

[Matt Grantham]

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

https://www.google.com/search?q=photos+of+pentagon+before+facade+collapses&rlz=1C1VFKB_enUS769US769&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=a5hXE77tSuTJgM%253A%252C07fXTpJyJzywtM%252C_&usg=___qJBLyow_EdVM96fN6TWeLR5Sko%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiHmc-mnvraAhVU1IMKHZFlBB4Q9QEIKzAA#imgrc=a5hXE77tSuTJgM:

 As for the Langley fighter they take off at 9.24 and the Pentagon is hit at 9.37 It is 1,431 The jets were capable of doing over 500 miles er minute Plenty of time


http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2009/05/f-16s-that-failed-to-protect-washington.html

On Phantom Flight 11 https://steemit.com/conspiracy/@budz82/september-11-2001-the-interesting-story-of-the-phantom-flight-11-on-9-11

 When looking around at the sites that come up on Google, and they are dominated by the Official Story folks ,there is a lot of talk about how phantom Flight 11 messed everything up So yes it has all the markinngs of a created event used to excuse the failures for a response on DC


 I can't find one link that speaks to the reactions of top level administration when they first heard about the plane strikes Bush knew about the first strike before leaving for the classroom He would later state to a large audience that he watched the first plane hit the tower before he went it to class That of course was not possible, or was it?


Can't find a link to show Andrews AFB base after 9/11 You don't expect that to show  up

 In regard to the Langley fighter they take off from Langley at 9.24 and the Pentagon is hit at 9.37 Thirteen minutes to travel

http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2009/05/f-16s-that-failed-to-protect-washington.html

[Matt Grantham]

 Hoping you are going to reply Tim It did take a little effort to track some of those link down

[Tim Nickerson]

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

Matt, I don't have the time to deal with all of the items. Sorry.

1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?

As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that "... such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building...."

The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.

https://www.nist.gov/pba/national-institute-standards-and-technology-nist-federal-building-and-fire-safety-investigation

https://www.google.com/search?q=photos+of+pentagon+before+facade+collapses&rlz=1C1VFKB_enUS769US769&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=a5hXE77tSuTJgM%253A%252C07fXTpJyJzywtM%252C_&usg=___qJBLyow_EdVM96fN6TWeLR5Sko%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiHmc-mnvraAhVU1IMKHZFlBB4Q9QEIKzAA#imgrc=a5hXE77tSuTJgM:

And your point is??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6RG9A0rlhg

So what? What is the problem with him being out there aiding the injured?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

Mineta's memory was faulty. He was not in the PEOC before 9:37. The plane that he witnessed being tracked was UA93, not AA11.

[Matt Grantham]

Matt, I don't have the time to deal with all of the items. Sorry.

1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?

As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that "... such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building...."

The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.

https://www.nist.gov/pba/national-institute-standards-and-technology-nist-federal-building-and-fire-safety-investigation

And your point is??


So what? What is the problem with him being out there aiding the injured?


Mineta's memory was faulty. He was not in the PEOC before 9:37. The plane that he witnessed being tracked was UA93, not AA11.

 Where did the plane go through the facade

 The country is still under attack at 9.40 but it is OK for the Secretary of Defense to grandstanding while Americans are dying

 Yes I explained phantom flight 11 to you Maybe you didn't get the explanation but don't posture like you are explaining anything to me You are conflating two issues One is the Mineta testimony and the the other is the generals claim that they need not scramble any fighters in response to the plane approaching DC around 9.30 What was flight 93 approaching? Just eliminating Mineta because you imagine he just lost a half hour somewhere along the way is almost as ridiculous as the claim that by using protractors and crayons it was determined an imaginary plane was heading towards something at 10;10 When do you think this original report came in of this event occurring shortly after 10? Lets guess they needed to make something up to account for Mineta's testimony Mineta, the poor guy, of course thought the order was a shoot down order since he was still lost in the belief the military was interested in defending the country

 In regard to Skilling one must first establish what the established scientific understandings are at a given time. Then if one wants to claim those understandings are in error they need to have convincing proof in doing so You know Sagan and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof NIST provided us with a comedy of theories, the pancake theory, the broken truss theory and then finally the well we don't really have a theory just a computer modulation that no experts can look at In 93 there was every opportunity to re-examine the vulnerability of the buildings and the claims that Skilling was publicly making at that time, yet no reassessment was offered If NIST claims are correct hundreds of skyscrapers across the country are more vulnerable than previously believed and are much more vulnerable to terrorism and fire than first believed yet nothing is done to remedy the supposed new undertakings

[Tim Nickerson]

Where did the plane go through the fa?ade.

Through the hole that it made in it.

The country is still under attack at 9.40 but it is OK for the Secretary of Defense to grandstanding while Americans are dying

What you call grandstanding, I call human decency and compassion.

 

Yes I explained phantom flight 11 to you Maybe you didn't get the explanation but don't posture like you are explaining anything to me You are conflating two issues One is the Mineta testimony and the the other is the generals claim that they need not scramble any fighters in response to the plane approaching DC around 9.30 What was flight 93 approaching? Just eliminating Mineta because you imagine he just lost a half hour somewhere along the way is almost as ridiculous as the claim that by using protractors and crayons it was determined an imaginary plane was heading towards something at 10;10 When do you think this original report came in of this event occurring shortly after 10? Lets guess they needed to make something up to account for Mineta's testimony Mineta, the poor guy, of course thought the order was a shoot down order since he was still lost in the belief the military was interested in defending the country

Yeah, I have trouble understanding you most of the time. Who were the generals that you refer to?

 

In regard to Skilling one must first establish what the established scientific understandings are at a given time. Then if one wants to claim those understandings are in error they need to have convincing proof in doing so You know Sagan and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof NIST provided us with a comedy of theories, the pancake theory, the broken truss theory and then finally the well we don't really have a theory just a computer modulation that no experts can look at In 93 there was every opportunity to re-examine the vulnerability of the buildings and the claims that Skilling was publicly making at that time, yet no reassessment was offered If NIST claims are correct hundreds of skyscrapers across the country are more vulnerable than previously believed and are much more vulnerable to terrorism and fire than first believed yet nothing is done to remedy the supposed new undertakings

What is the convincing proof that the towers should have remained standing?