• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Woolworth Building & 9/11

Bigfoot73 said:
Now the point is whether the sceptics are going to apply the same standards of scrutiny to the contradictions between the official story and the Flight 77 FDR data...

I already have, but you chose to ignore it.
 
I wasn't ignoring you, I disagreed with you. There was a door sensor record in the data.You were assuming a lot of government officials must have known about the plot whereas I suspect many of them didn't. P49.11T based their conclusions about the flight path on the FDR data and the NTSB's own interpretation of it.
It's serious evidence, and I don't think it unreasonable to expect those who still believe the official story to explain why.
 
Analis said:
Another feature of CDs using jacks is that they start at free fall speed for a brief time, when they cover cover the height of the destroyed levels. Then they go significantly slower, when they meet the intact lower part. This is a point of the demonstration of structural engineer Frédéric-Henry Couannier, who has studied the demolition of the ABC tower, Vitry-sur-Seine, 25.1.2007 : http://www.darksideofgravity.com/11%20S ... 02001.html ; http://www.darksideofgravity.com/demolition_ferrari.pdf . He has confronted F. Greening and J. Quirant. Notably on http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=164605 and http://the911forum.freeforums.org/henry ... -t298.html (this link on the pulverization mystery). While there was a disagreement on the methods used to estimate theoritical speeds, they matched roughly. And they are very different from what is seen in the case of the Two Towers, which fell faster than the ABC tower or estimates.

Well, there some fairly hefty physics being discussed in some of those threads and I'm not going to be foolish enough to pretend I understand all of it. Suffice to say, I get the impression that Couannier doesn't fair well in the argument. You obviously see it differently from me. I doubt we will ever agree.
 
Bigfoot73 said:
I wasn't ignoring you, I disagreed with you. There was a door sensor record in the data.You were assuming a lot of government officials must have known about the plot whereas I suspect many of them didn't. P49.11T based their conclusions about the flight path on the FDR data and the NTSB's own interpretation of it.
It's serious evidence, and I don't think it unreasonable to expect those who still believe the official story to explain why.

OK, to save time, I'll cut and paste a more detailed answer to the door sensor data evidence:

The aircraft was manufactured before October 11 1991.

The rule for these aircraft is:

AIRPLANES MANUFACTURED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 11, 1991, WITHOUT AN FDAU OR DFDAU INSTALLED AS OF JULY 16, 1996.
The new rule requires that by August 18, 2001 the FDR record at least 18 parameter groups. For most airplanes, this is an increase from 11 parameter groups, as described in "Effects of 1989 FAA Flight Data Recorder Rule Change" on page 32. On about half of all the Boeing 727, 737, DC-8, and DC-9 models the FDR system uses a single FDR, a result of the late 1980s replacement activity. Most of these FDRs should have enough spare inputs to accommodate the increased requirements with little or no modification required. Other parameter groups required to be recorded include the addition of both flight control surface positions and flight control inputs for all three axes (lateral, directional, longitudinal), lateral acceleration, and autopilot engagement status. Airplanes manufactured prior to October 11, 1991, with a FDAU or DFDAU installed as of July 16, 1996. The new rule requires that by four years from date of rule at least 22 parameter groups be recorded by the FDR. In this group are Boeing models 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, DC-10, and MD-80. Most of these airplanes record almost all the 22 parameter groups, some of which operators may ask Boeing to remove to save weight or to avoid maintenance costs if a parameter group is not required by a particular country's regulatory agency. The additional parameter groups required to be recorded include the addition of flight control surface positions and flight control inputs for all three axes, lateral acceleration, and autopilot engagement status.

The new rule requires that by August 18, 2001 the FDR record at least 18 parameter groups.

If you read the rest of it you will glean that later aircraft will require 34, 57, or 88 parameter groups to be recorded.

The door sensor is not required on the earlier aircraft but they COULD have a flight recorder installed that had the capacity for more parameters, but they were unused blocks.

Or possibly it might have had to record 22 parameters, but that is still much less than the 34, 55, or 88 parameter capable recorders.

The required 22 parameters for that aircraft would have been:

1. Time;

2. Pressure altitude;

3. Indicated airspeed;

4. Heading -- primary flight crew reference (if selectable, record discrete, true or magnetic);

5. Normal acceleration (Vertical);

6. Pitch attitude;

7. Roll attitude;

8. Manual radio transmitter keying, or CVR/DFDR synchronization reference;

9. Thrust/power of each engine -- primary flight crew reference;

10. Autopilot engagement status;

11. Longitudinal acceleration;

12. Pitch control input;

13. Lateral control input;

14. Rudder pedal input;

15. Primary pitch control surface position;

16. Primary lateral control surface position;

17. Primary yaw control surface position;

18. Lateral acceleration;

19. Pitch trim surface position or parameters of paragraph (a)(82) of this section if currently recorded;

20. Trailing edge flap or cockpit flap control selection (except when parameters of paragraph (a)(85) of this section apply);

21. Leading edge flap or cockpit flap control selection (except when parameters of paragraph (a)(86) of this section apply);

22. Each Thrust reverser position (or equivalent for propeller airplane); (1)


Note that the cockpit flight door is NOT listed.

So the recorder was capable of more parameters than there were sensors for.

The parameter for the cockpit flight door was an unused block.
 
The download of the Excel spreadsheet of the data I got from the site shows an entryrecorded every 4 seconds, so there must have been a door sensor activating every 4 seconds. There were retro-applied upgrades.
 
Bigfoot73 said:
(though actually a lot of the dust is not from concrete
Oh, so where is it from then? You're accusing me of vagueness and evasiveness and now all of a sudden you introduce the claim that it isn't all concrete dust.
unless you're going to start with some numbers?

Are you going to introduce any regarding the dust?

The dust has been analysed in great detail.
See, for example http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091033.htm

Lots of glass fibre, asbestos, organics etc - what you would expect from a normal building.

(Witness statements on missiles)
It's in the article Cavynaut started the thread about.

That does not give descriptions or statements from any witnesses who say they saw missiles, does it?



What is this evidence for lasers?
We've been here before.

And you're still not answering.
Iit sounds to me as though you do not have any.

If there wasn't a missile or any lights, what possible significance would that hold for the rest of the 9.11 events?

Because it's such a good example of the way conspiracy theorirsts throw up wild theories without evidence and without checking. That's been the story ever since 9/11.

Sadly, it all distracts from the real issues around 9/11 and the reaction to it.
 
Bigfoot73 said:
The download of the Excel spreadsheet of the data I got from the site shows an entryrecorded every 4 seconds, so there must have been a door sensor activating every 4 seconds.

The researcher who provided that data to Pilots for 9/11 Truth doesn't agree with you.

There were retro-applied upgrades.

I don't think you're reading the answer I gave correctly. A plane of Flight 77's age would be required to upgrade to 18 parameters if its FDAU or DFDAU was fitted before July '96 or 22 parameters if fitted after July '96. Even at 22 parameters, it still wouldn't be recording the flight deck door data.
 
Bigfoot73 said:
I agree about the sort of evidence that this incident needs in order to be concluded one way or another.Witness reports are evidence of a sort, but not as good as the other types.

Again, what witness reports are there for missiles?
 
So how come it's there in the spreadsheet?
If the data is there, and it demonstrates that the door didn't open during the flight when it was supposed to be getting hijacked, then it can't be from the right FDR- unless there was no actual hijack of the plane.
Pilots for 9.11 Truth went back and checked their own decoding of the data and found it, having overlooked it at the time.
Wasn't Warren Stutt arguing that the data shouldn't be there rather than wasn't?
 
They are in the report Cavynaut linked to in the OP. I believe I have already said that. Have you read my post yesterday in response to WowBagger?
 
Bigfoot73 said:
So how come it's there in the spreadsheet?
If the data is there, and it demonstrates that the door didn't open during the flight when it was supposed to be getting hijacked, then it can't be from the right FDR- unless there was no actual hijack of the plane.
Pilots for 9.11 Truth went back and checked their own decoding of the data and found it, having overlooked it at the time.
Wasn't Warren Stutt arguing that the data shouldn't be there rather than wasn't?

From the relevant thread on the Pilots for 9/11 Truth site:

Warren Stutt said:
What is the default if the EICAS is not receiving the door open state? I haven't seen sufficient documentation to prove it is 0 or 1. Until we do, I don't think we can prove this either way.

This kind of conflicts with your earlier assertion:

Bigfoot73 said:
The door sensor checked door status every 4 seconds, and it has been established that it was working properly.

So, once again, possible evidence but insufficient data to prove anything one way or the other. Conjecture, in other words. You shouldn't really present conjecture as fact, that's why the whole 9/11 debate is such a mess (and that applies equally to both sides of the argument).
 
Bigfoot73 said:
I hope I haven't given the impression I was trying to marginalise or exclude

Yes it did seem to be the case, but I can see now that it was not your intention, and I understand how hitting your head against a wall can get tiresome.


Most other truthers have had the great good sense not to get involved in the interminable bickering over theories, and it can get tedious, particularly when you're right. :twisted: ;) :p

I do enjoy a fresh new theory, and this one for a while seemed to have some credibility, but seeing the presence of birds in a number of videos around the towers lead me to only one conclusion for the missiles.

I know I keep banging on about Pilots for 9.11 Truth, but the thoroughness of their research and the import of their revelations leaves little room for scepticism : the official account of what happened at the Pentagon .As for what actually went on and how they pulled it off, many if not most people would find it very hard to conceive of how such a labyrinthine plot could be fomented and executed with- in my opinion - so very few people actually being on the team or knowing the whole story. Most of those involved in the nuts and bolts stuff were just doing their everyday jobs unaware of anything sinister. The only ones with anything to blow the whistle about are those who wanted it to happen, and they're not telling.

I agree, and if this kind of strategy works for terrorist cells, drug pushers, and the mafia hit men, then there's no reason that a double blind heirarchy won't work in government. By double blind i mean the idea of you not knowing who you are working for or what part you are playing, and the people that work for you have the same deal all the way down the chain. I'm sure there's a nice term for this but can't think of it right now!

Now the point is whether the sceptics are going to apply the same standards of scrutiny to the contradictions between the official story and the Flight 77 FDR data, and acknowledge that the story is bogus.
Aye, there's the rub. ;)

I'm going to have to look into the pilots for 9/11 website, and have always wondererd (being in the business) what happend to the flight 77/93 SSR/PSR radar recordings, operator voice recordings/transcripts, flight plan information and FAA incident reports. i'd like to recreate the entire event for myself electronically and draw my own conclusions.
 
Doc I'm getting confused here: first W Stutt is claiming the flight deck door wasn't a required parameter, now he's saying there's data there, when surely if the parameter isn't even listed then there shouldn't be anything at all regardless of it's meaning?
 
Bigfoot73 said:
Most other truthers have had the great good sense not to get involved in the interminable bickering over theories...

You don't seriously mean that do you?

and it can get tedious, particularly when you're right. :twisted: ;) :p

Yes, I'm sure that's how Rob Balsamo felt when he was banned from the Loose Change forums. ;)
 
You don't seriously mean that do you?
I was referring to this board and this thread, where it seems to me conspiracists are as rare as , well, 8igfoot.

Yes, I'm sure that's how Rob Balsamo felt when he was banned from the Loose Change forums.

I know nothing of this.
 
I just watched the Pilots for 9/11 Truth Pandora's black box films, and now I feel sick.
 
Again, what witness reports are there for missiles?

Wembley your last posts quote previous comments I made prior to my reply to my reply to Wowbagger, which you still do not seem to have read.

The Science Daily report you linked to claimed there was anywhere between 100 and 100 tons of potentially toxic chemicals and an unspecified quantity of glass fibres ( and I think it fairly safe to assume it wasn't much) - out of 100 000 tons of dust.
Because it's such a good example of the way conspiracy theorirsts throw up wild theories without evidence and without checking. That's been the story ever since 9/11.
Evidence? Checking? I was expecting a thorough debunking of the idea that the dust was predominantly concrete and the ScienceDaily report doesn't even come close, and was addressing the toxicity issue anyway. It's failed debunkings like this that have characterised the story of 9.11 analysis.
 
I agree, and if this kind of strategy works for terrorist cells, drug pushers, and the mafia hit men, then there's no reason that a double blind heirarchy won't work in government. By double blind i mean the idea of you not knowing who you are working for or what part you are playing, and the people that work for you have the same deal all the way down the chain. I'm sure there's a nice term for this but can't think of it right now!

I know what you mean. The whole thing is seriously feasible.

I just watched the Pilots for 9/11 Truth Pandora's black box films, and now I feel sick.
Impressive, aren't they? Good luck with the graphics stuff.[/quote]
 
There was 100 000 tons of dust. How did that get there?
 
Bigfoot73 said:
There was 100 000 tons of dust. How did that get there?

It was left over from when those massive yet curiously silent explosives vapourized 600,000 tons of concrete into thin air.
 
You don't say? Funny old things these labyrynthine false flag corporate fraud concealing fake terrorist plots. :p
 
Bigfoot73 said:
Again, what witness reports are there for missiles?

Wembley your last posts quote previous comments I made prior to my reply to my reply to Wowbagger, which you still do not seem to have read.

Would you care to copy anything you think is relevant?


Bigfoot73 said:
The Science Daily report you linked to claimed there was anywhere between 100 and 100 tons of potentially toxic chemicals and an unspecified quantity of glass fibres ( and I think it fairly safe to assume it wasn't much) - out of 100 000 tons of dust.

Which goes to show how wrong your assumptions tend to be:

"Another study (http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/1 ... -full.html) found that half or less of the dust in their samples was concrete, and the other half was fibers of various kinds"




I was expecting a thorough debunking of the idea that the dust was predominantly concrete

Why? I never suggest that the dust was not predominantly concrete, just that much of it was not.

You, on the other hand, did suggest that most of the concrete turned to dust, a claim which you have not yet sunstatiated: it looks like another one of your unwarranted wild assumptions.

As far as I can tell the total mass of dust was some tens of thousands of tons (detailed calculations here - http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics1.HTM ) - a small percentage of the total mass of the towers.

Now, about those missiles - any sign of any witnesses at all?

And is there any reason to think that those lights were anomalous?
 
Would you care to copy anything you think is relevant?

No I wouldn't. Why keep banging on about this when you don't bother reading my posts?

The dust has been analysed in great detail.
See, for example http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091033.htm

Lots of glass fibre, asbestos, organics etc - what you would expect from a normal building.
(though actually a lot of the dust is not from concrete).

Lots of glass fibre? Lots of the dust not being from concrete?

Actually, a lot of the concrete in the World Trade Center was in the base. The floors were about 8 cm thick and supported by steel sheets and a truss system, so the actual amount in the towers was quite a bit less.
A lot less. An awful lot less. The foundations were concrete, sunk 65 feet into landfill. With the floors being only 8cm thick and foundations of 65 feet it's pretty obvious where most of the concrete was - out of the way of the collapses, and not liable to be turned to dust.
Most of the concrete from the towers really was turned to dust. Most of that dust, nearly all of it, was from concrete. The proportion that wasn't is barely worth commenting on and certainly not enough to contradict the claim that most of it was concrete.

Which goes to show how wrong your assumptions tend to be:
Who's assumptions and how wrong? Yet another ineffectual debunk attempt. Don't bother asking me about lights or missiles again.
 
Bigfoot73 said:
Would you care to copy anything you think is relevant?

No I wouldn't. Why keep banging on about this when you don't bother reading my posts?

I've read your posts.
Would you mind answering?


Most of the concrete from the towers really was turned to dust.

Would you care to provide some support for that claim? (go on...)

The proportion that wasn't is barely worth commenting on and certainly not enough to contradict the claim that most of it was concrete.

I wasn't contradicting that - I simply said that a lot of it was not concrete. And that the proportion of glass fibre was very much higher than you assumed.

Yet another ineffectual debunk attempt.

You'd have to have some facts to support that.

Don't bother asking me about lights or missiles again.

I assume that means you have given to trying to make any defence of either.
The evidence suggests that no witnesses reported missiles, it was simply something that was cooked up afterwards.
Ditto 'mysterious lights'.
 
Would you care to provide some support for that claim? (go on...)

That pseudoscience article you linked to was just that. It fudges the issue of exactly how much concrete was in the actual towers by conceding "a lot" of the concrete was in the bases i.e. the foundations, probably because the authors recognized the implications for the sceptics' claims re: the concrete dust issue.Nowhere do they actually crunch the numbers on how much was above ground level.
The volume of the landfill material removed to lay the foundations was 1.2 million cubic yards: even allowing for voids such as underground car parks it's pretty obvious where most of the concrete was. I don't feel burden of proof can be placed on me when you have nothing to support your claim that most of the concrete in the towers was not turned to dust.

You're still trying to claim that "a lot" of the dust wasn't from concrete when the corresponding statistics just don't justify using the term.
I never made any claims regarding the proportion of glass fibres other than referring to the Science Daily report you linked to.
I assume that means you have given to trying to make any defence of either

Well, yes. If you had actually read my response to Wowbagger then you would have noticed that I did exactly that. I am not as dismissive of the witness statements as you are, but accept that the available evidence falls far short of reasonable proof.
 
WowBagger said:
As for what actually went on and how they pulled it off, many if not most people would find it very hard to conceive of how such a labyrinthine plot could be fomented and executed with- in my opinion - so very few people actually being on the team or knowing the whole story. Most of those involved in the nuts and bolts stuff were just doing their everyday jobs unaware of anything sinister. The only ones with anything to blow the whistle about are those who wanted it to happen, and they're not telling.

I agree, and if this kind of strategy works for terrorist cells, drug pushers, and the mafia hit men, then there's no reason that a double blind heirarchy won't work in government. By double blind i mean the idea of you not knowing who you are working for or what part you are playing, and the people that work for you have the same deal all the way down the chain. I'm sure there's a nice term for this but can't think of it right now!

Agreed. I would add that a mafia hitman confessing spontaneously is certainly an occurence of the rare'st kind. I don't understand why officialists expect that perpetrators would come out.
Now they are driven to withdraw to their usual last resort arguments (how did they bring the explosives, it takes months to... etc...). Or to speak of spontaneous combustion. This will lead nowhere. But for those who are interested, I'm coming back to the 'hijacked hijacking exercise" theory.

There was a wide array of military tests this very day : Vigilant Guardian, Northern Vigilance, Amalgam Warrior, Global Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Crown Vigilance... Involving simulations of attacks from foreign military planes or missiles, crash on a federal building, hijackings... The four airliners were part of these exercices, as a simulation of a terrorist hijacking. And a test of terrorist countermeasures, i.e. taking control of an hijacked plane at distance. Air companies, pilots, some passengers, traffic controllers and military staff were involved. It would help to account for their lack of reaction. When they understood that things were not happening as planned, it was too late.

This was heavily contested, but tests of remote controlling devices were fulfilled prior to 911 :
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.js ... y=raytheon

October 2, 2001: Remote Controlled Passenger Airplane Flew Before 9/11, Despite Claims to the Contrary
A Raytheon 727 lands in New Mexico in August, 2001. [Source: Associated Press]It is reported that the US company Raytheon landed a 727 six times in a military base in New Mexico without any pilots on board. This was done to test equipment making future hijackings more difficult, by allowing ground control to take over the flying of a hijacked plane. [Associated Press, 10/2/2001; Der Spiegel (Hamburg), 10/28/2001] Several Raytheon employees with possible ties to this remote control technology program appear to have been on the hijacked 9/11 flights (see September 25, 2001). Earlier in the year, a specially designed Global Hawk plane flew from the US to Australia without pilot or passengers. [Independent Television News, 4/24/2001] However, most media reports after 9/11 suggest such technology is currently impossible. For instance, the Observer quotes an expert who says that "the technology is pretty much there" but still untried. [Observer, 9/16/2001] An aviation-security expert at Jane's Defence Weekly says this type of technology belongs "in the realms of science fiction." [Financial Times, 9/18/2001; Economist, 9/20/2001] Even President Bush appears to deny the technology currently exists. He gives a speech after 9/11 in which he mentions that the government would give grants to research "new technology, probably far in the future, allowing air traffic controllers to land distressed planes by remote control." [New York Times, 9/28/2001]

This theory also accounts for the unusual proportion of people from the aeronautical industry and the militaro-industrial complex among passengers, in shark contrast with the unusally low filling rates of the flights. Notably, there were a number of Raytheon employees. Raytheon specializes in remote-control techniques. And they possess a number of A3 Skywarriors. From various sources, it seems too they had an office in the South Tower, 91th floor ... http://911review.org/Alex/RAYTHEON_TRW_ ... _9-11.html ; http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/tr ... ants2.html ;

Plus they build laser-guiding bunker-busting bombs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-28

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/20 ... every.html :

Flight 11:
Peter Gay was Raytheon's Vice President of Operations for Electronic Systems and had been on special assignment to a company office in El Segundo, Calif.
This division is one of two divisions making the Global Hawk.
Kenneth Waldie was a senior quality control engineer for Raytheon's electronic systems.
David Kovalcin was a senior mechanical engineer for Raytheon's electronic systems.

Flight 175:
Herbert Homer was a corporate executive working with the Department of Defense.
And for some very strange reasons he was listed for several days as having died in the while working in the Pentagon.

Flight 77:
Stanley Hall was director of program management for Raytheon Electronics Warfare. One Raytheon colleague calls him "our dean of electronic warfare."
Charles S. Falkenberg: He worked on "EOS Webster" a mapping system which provides Landsat Images, which are part of the mapping system for the Global Hawk technology.
Raytheon is working on Global Hawk piloltless aircraft program.

Other people from the militaro-industrial world were also present. On AA77, this was put in evidence by investigator Pino CABRAS in his book Strategie per una guerra mondiale :

John D. Yamnicky Sr, former military pilot, Veridian Corp aeronautic engineer, involved in missiles and fighter projects.
William E. Caswell, US Navy physicist, involved in highly classified projects.
William Flagg, US Navy admiral, and pilot for American Airlines. Despite being retired, he still had an office at the Pentagon, where he gave technical advice.
Bryan Jack, analyst and director of DoD Tax Economy Division.
Chandler Raymond Keller, engineer for Boeing Satellite Systems.
Dong Lee, engineer for Boeing Co.
Ruben Ornedo, engineer for Boeing.
Robert Penninger, engineer for BAE Systems, a Pentagon contractor.
Robert R. Ploger III, software engineer for Lockheed Martin Corp., and his wife Zandra Cooper.
John Sammartino, executive from XonTech Inc., mil.-ind. company specialized in missiles and military sensors.
Leonard Taylor, from XonTech.
Charles F. Burlinghame III, pilot of the flight, former US Navy pilot, alledgely previously involved in a number of tests.
Plus a number of Republican collaborators, like Barbara Olson.
 
Back
Top