9/11

[PolyNewbie]

"I heard that the towers were squashed with a ginormous copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, telepathically wielded by Illuminati Templar Lizard People."

I think that is more likely than the official version but no one knows exactly what did happen but we can see what did not happen. The official version did not happen. Osama Bin Laden did not attack the most sophisticated military succesfully three times in a row in 1/2 hour intervals from a cave in Afganistan using beer guzzling womanizer Islamic fundamentalists to give up their lives for 72 vergins in the afterlife because they hate Americas freedom.

[kimmy]

kimmy:...or I'm a "logistics and deployment expert".

Or you are just a fool that doesn't recognise his own limitations and understanding.

This is typical of you. You can't argue with anything I wrote, so you have no recourse except to insult me.

Just come clean. Admit it. You can't provide a single plausible explanation as to how conventional explosives could create an EMP more powerful than one created by lightning.

Or, provide me an explanation otherwise. I'm actually really hoping you try. I'm really looking forward to it, in fact. I'd go so far as to say I'm trying to bait you into providing one of your crap theories. I dare you. I double dare you. Please please please, it would make me so happy. Please?

kimmy:well, maybe, but I'm not the one claiming that a little BC aircraft maintenance and repair company can turn a jetliner into a pulse-jet engine,

I could do it with some duct tape, explosives and maybe a hammer. The airplane wasn't converted to a pulse jet engine in the literal sense - the explosion inside behaved like one. Its like if you put gas in a beer bottle and set a match at the top - a flame shoots out.

Fire shooting out of a beer-bottle isn't "like a pulse-jet" either. Even your beer-bottle is being awfully generous to the plane, which more likely behaves like a firecracker (ie, the thin aluminum walls and lightweight windows aren't strong enough to contain an explosion, particularly one powerful enough to create the "high energy effects" you think might be able to cause an EMP.)

Hey, when you filled the beer-bottle with gas and lit it on fire, did the lights go out? Did it interfere with radio reception?

Anyway, what makes you think think Hawkins was speaking figuratively? He used the phrases "pulse jet" and "pulse detonation engine" repeatedly. He specifically states "a General Electric Pulse Detonation Engine," in fact. He even provides a link to a schematic design for a Pulse Detonation Engine. Does that sound like a guy who's speaking figuratively?

Anyway, it's not like the pulse-jet story is the only example of how Hawkins works.

He starts with a crappo theory, throws in a couple of links (that don't actually even support his claim) as "proof", and writes an Official Sounding Open Letter to someone of note.

"Dear London Insurance Bureau, I recommend that Lloyds of London initiate insurance fraud and racketeering lawsuits against CAI Funds based on my awesome research that proves that Cascade Aerospace modified Boeing 757 aircraft numbers 11, 175, 77, and 93 to explode due to GE Pulse Detonation Engines set up in the cabin." His supporting evidence: Cascade Aerospace press announcement that they won a Boeing contract to modify Boeing 737 aircraft... dated December 4, 2003.

Wow, you can't argue with logic like that. Here's another example of his work:

9/11, Hawks CAFE had recognized "telltale indicators"

Wed Jun 8, 2005 02:26

64.140.159.41

Canadian telltale indicators signal bio-weapon, power utility attack on U.S.A.

...

Dear Mr. Gamble, Mr. Hiebert and Ms. McLeod:

Before the bombing of the USS Cole and the hijackings of 9/11, Hawks CAFE had recognized "telltale indicators" of possible attacks on America at the web site of Macdonald Dettwiler and Associates, then (as now) controlled through proxy votes extorted by 28+ special investors in the CAI Private Equity Group.

http://www.mda.ca/news/pr/pr001004A.html

http://www.mda.ca/news/pr/pr2001050301.html

http://www.mda.ca/news/pr/pr91223A.html

http://www.davidhawkinsresearch.com/source/ibat-001a.html

CAI appears to have prepaid sub-contractors such as MDA and Paul Martin's Lansdowne Technologies, to procure SWAT teams, war rooms and disruptive technologies to destroy America and execute the radical agenda of Canadian privy councilor, Maurice Strong, and the so-called Global Custodians.

http://www.lansdowne.com/News/2004-01-01.htm

http://www.lansdowne.com/New%20Services/pm.htm

http://www.buttonwood.com/index.html

In the context of telltale indicators of terrorist attacks, we believe Canada's $3.2 million prepaid contract to MDA, on behalf of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and a U.S. electrical utility (below), signals an imminent bio-warfare attack on America's agriculture and farming communities with a simultaneous [laser-based?] disruption of U.S. electric power utilities.

http://www.mda.ca/news/pr/pr2005060701.html

Yours sincerely,

David Hawkins

Imminent bio-warfare attack? Lasers disrupting electrical utilities? SWAT teams? Wow! Sounds serious! His Virtual Reality Prototyping Software must have been working overtime to spot these telltale signs!

His supporting articles?

-a press announcement that MacDonald Detweiller Associates won a contract to provide air-traffic control software for the US Air Force

-a press announcement that Defence Research And Development Canada bought e-learning software from a subsidiary of Paul Martin's company.

-a press release that MacDonald Detweiller Associates won a contract to provide geographic information systems for the US Department of Agriculture.

Wow, how can you argue with evidence like that? Great forensics, Hawk. Good thing this biowarfare attack never materialized. Probably it was Hawkins' Open Letter that foiled the attacks.

uh huh.

His resume indicates that he has a Bachelor's degree in Mechanical Engineering (not "high energy physics" or electromagnetics, I notice...) and that he has "invented a machine for Virtual Reality Prototyping", designed a monorail, and participated in a variety of vaguely described projects in his past.

awesome. Great source of info.

-k

[kimmy]

Kimmy:When it comes to speculating why a pulse-jet engine would create an EMP, you defer your opinion because you don't know enough about "high energy physics" or chemistry to speculate on the matter.

But when it comes to structural engineering, you say over and over how "it's obvious" or "anybody can see" why this or that should have happened. You're unwilling to speculate as to whether blowing up an airplane with conventional explosives would create an EMP, and yet you believe that anybody with two eyes and a computer is qualified to assess the structural damage done to the twin towers.

Right - anyone with two eyes can see the collapses were unnatural and controlled because the buildings collapsed straight down. For the building collapses to occur symetrically like that all supports on each floor would have to collapse at the same time. That would be like throwing a 100 basket balls onto a pile and have them all balance directly on top of each other to form a straight vertical tower that is 100 basket balls high - impossible.

And what's really funny is that you apparently don't see any contradiction between the two positions.

No, I don't. Explain.

You aren't prepared to accept that exploding conventional explosives wouldn't create an EMP, because you feel that particles moving at high-velocities and so-on could have effects that aren't obvious to a lay-person's understanding of physics.

And yet you feel that any lay-person can assess the dual-tube design the Twin Towers, assess the damage done, assess how steel reacts when subjected to heat and stress, and assess how it would behave in the event of a structural failure.

You feel a conventional explosion is too complicated to rule out an EMP. But you and your friends on the Truthwagon feel that the Twin Towers are sufficiently simple that you can model it using Jungo-sticks, Lego-blocks, bricks and rabbit wire, trees with Keebler Elves living in the side, and now apparently Basketballs stacked on top of each other.

You recognize that particles moving at high speeds are complex, but you believe that skyscrapers are such simple structures that everybody can form an educated opinion on how they would fall.

If you don't see a contradiction between the two positions, you're beyond help.

-k

[PolyNewbie]

kimmy:You aren't prepared to accept that exploding conventional explosives wouldn't create an EMP, because you feel that particles moving at high-velocities and so-on could have effects that aren't obvious to a lay-person's understanding of physics.

I just really do not know anything about chemistry. Anything I ever did know I have forgotten. I would rather shove rusty nails up my nose than read a chemistry book or deal with molecular behaviour of materials.

And yet you feel that any lay-person can assess the dual-tube design the Twin Towers, assess the damage done, assess how steel reacts when subjected to heat and stress, and assess how it would behave in the event of a structural failure.

You don't have to be a vet to know pigs don't fly. The tower collapse is an unstable process and it could not possibly continue straight down the center without a control mechanism. Yes, I am quite comfortable talking about this having studied controls and mechanics.

[PolyNewbie]

“[building designer] John Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.”

See a list of WTC designer quotes with sources from WTC Designers

This is obvious from (1) Past Experience from building structures (2) Knowledge that damage would not have exceeded the structural capabilities of the building to remained standing (See NIST diagram on damage & heat & consider overbuild factors of supports + half strength due to heat) (3) Observed behaiour of the building after the crash. Its natural frequency did not change it was therefore solid. Fires were not horrendous and mainly low temperature.

[Riverwind]

“[building designer] John Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.”

Skilling's analysis was done in the 60s and is certainly not the final word. Every engineer who builds a building wants to believe that they covered every possibility but Skilling was wrong. In fact, his co-designer admits that they did not take into account the effect of the fire on damaged structure. Their analysis only considered the effect of the impact.

Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, “I designed it for a 707 to smash into it,” though does not elaborate further.

...

In 2002, though, Robertson will write, “To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.” [Robertson, 3/2002] The planes that hit the WTC on 9/11 are 767s, which are almost 20 percent heavier than 707s. [scientific American, 10/9/2001; New Yorker, 11/19/2001]

[GostHacked]

EMP Pulse Engines don't exist. Or if they do, they have no application for standard flying. If the engines always let out an EMP then the whole plane would shut down because of the pulse. The first thing to be affected would be the plane on the tarmac when it fires up the engines. Resulting in going nowhere. All the electronics would become useless in the airplane.

So eventhough I think 9/11 was allowed to happen or to an extent carried out by the US government, this theory of EMP engines is just absurd. You lost me again Polynewbie.

So how can one contain an EMP ??? Can it?? No.

Also as someone with flying experience (never went for my license) controlling a plane without the tail is impossible. Even with the tail still in tact, the plane would have been a one in a million shot of comming out of thatg spiral dive. When I was flying, you were trained to get out of a spiral dive. So I had to purposly put the plane into a spiral dive in order to know how to get out of it.

First thing is you put FULL POWER to the plane. Since you are spiraling down, pulling back on the stick will get you nowhere. You need to generatge lift on the wings, which really is not happening in a spiral dive. Full power then you straiten out the plane and come out of the dive. This will cause a good deal of stress on the airframe.

I went into the spin at 10,000 feet, 15 to 20 seconds later after comming out of the dive, I was at 4500 feet. That was in a little Sesna 160 Aerobat (I think) So a commercial jet airliner would have been a fucking bitch to get out of one of those dives. An experienced pilot would still have great great difficulty with it.

[PolyNewbie]

Ghost Hacked:So eventhough I think 9/11 was allowed to happen or to an extent carried out by the US government, this theory of EMP engines is just absurd. You lost me again Polynewbie.

That is not what was said. The question is that would a high powered explosive going off in an airplane cause an EMP pulse. I don't know. It certainly would behave like a pulse jet engine.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:Skilling's analysis was done in the 60s and is certainly not the final word. Every engineer who builds a building wants to believe that they covered every possibility but Skilling was wrong. In fact, his co-designer admits that they did not take into account the effect of the fire on damaged structure. Their analysis only considered the effect of the impact.

There is no reason to believe heat from fires caused the failure. You can see the diagrams of damage and heat from NIST and you can find that the core was made to 6 X overbuild and the outside 20 X. The building should stood after the damage and fires. The designer of the building was right and you are wrong.

The designer of the building was hard to reach to get a comment on 911. If 911 was an inside job and he said anything that would help believe that he would lose government contracts just like everyone one else who has influence that says 911 was an inside job.

[Riverwind]

There is no reason to believe heat from fires caused the failure.

Sure there is. The buildings collapsed and that is only plausible explaination. It is up to the structural engineers to figure out exactly why.

You can see the diagrams of damage and heat from NIST and you can find that the core was made to 6 X overbuild and the outside 20 X. The building should stood after the damage and fires.

Read the NIST report. It explains that the buckling of the floors pulled outer columns inwards - this weakened them and triggered the collapse. The overbuild factor on the columns only describes the vertical load that the undamaged columns can support. The load bearing capacity of the outer columns would drop rapidly when they were bent by the buckling floor.

[GostHacked]

Ghost Hacked:So eventhough I think 9/11 was allowed to happen or to an extent carried out by the US government, this theory of EMP engines is just absurd. You lost me again Polynewbie.

That is not what was said. The question is that would a high powered explosive going off in an airplane cause an EMP pulse. I don't know. It certainly would behave like a pulse jet engine.

It would depend on what type of explosion occurred. Most conventional bombs do not give off EMPs, or if they do, they are not that strong to effect any electronic systems. Nuclear weapons definately give off an EMP because of the nature of the explosive. You can devise an 'EMP bomb' and not have it do any physical damage, but the EMP blast can be effective.

If it was a conventional bomb then the plane would have been destroyed in the air. If it was an EMP bomb, then the result of the EMP blast would have rendered the plane useless. The plane would become nothing but an unpowered uncontrolled missle. All electronics (if not encased in very thick lead, kind of like the black box, which I doubt would still survive a good EMP blast) would be instantly fried. Impossible to control any large commercial aircraft without electronicly controlled FWB (fly by wire).

[PolyNewbie]

I prefer to stick with only facts. I do not spend much time speculating what did happen. I know what didn't and that makes it an inside job.

[GostHacked]

I prefer to stick with only facts. I do not spend much time speculating what did happen. I know what didn't and that makes it an inside job.

So what facts do you know about EMP ?? I thought I came of ass insane to my friends to saying that there was some government involvement in 9/11, but you make me look totaly sane.

You make me want to change my beliefs in the 9/11 inside job angle. Juse for the way you present it all. Pompous like. Nose up in the air like.

If you stick with only facts, then you don't have many facts. Much of this is speculation, as is with the official story. Both have some holes you could fly planes through.

Do you know the difference between a conventional weapon and an EMP weapon?? Do you know that they are fundamentaly different? (well except the case of a nuclear weapon.

So what did happen on that plane? An EMP type engine would render the plane useless. A pulse engine is different from an EMP device. Show me your facts.

SHOW ME YOUR FACTS !!!!

[Canadian Blue]

Gosthacked come over to our side, the water's great!!!

[GostHacked]

Gosthacked come over to our side, the water's great!!!

Not just yet. I will wait for some more global warming. I find the waters a bit chilly right now.

[PolyNewbie]

Ghost Hacked:So what facts do you know about EMP ?? I thought I came of ass insane to my friends to saying that there was some government involvement in 9/11, but you make me look totaly sane.

I don't think that this part of 911 is really even worth discussing. wtc7 collapse and the collapse of the twin towers proves 911 was an inside job. The other crashes cannot be used to prove anything definitively so I don't pay much attention to the Pentagon or Pennyslyvania crashes.

I don't write off theories because I think I know everything either. It seems to my that Hawkings made some good points and didn't say anything I could discount.

Even as far as wtc1 & wtc2 goe, I do not speculate on how they collapsed. I know it was a controlled event by the way the buildings collapsed and therefore it was an inside job. Personally I think a nuke was dropped down the center of the buildings in the case of wtc1 & wtc2 but I could likely be shown to be wrong because its just a guess. In the end it doesn't matter how they did it to me.

[PolyNewbie]

Ghost Hacked:So what facts do you know about EMP ?? I thought I came of ass insane to my friends to saying that there was some government involvement in 9/11, but you make me look totaly sane.

I never said an EMP did what it did in the Pennslyvania crash. I think you need some help with your reading because I have written enough about this and repeated my above posts often enough for almost anyone to *get it*. You do not apparently but also consider yourself an intellectual giant like many other members of this forum.

[PolyNewbie]

Ghost Hacked:It would depend on what type of explosion occurred. Most conventional bombs do not give off EMPs, or if they do, they are not that strong to effect any electronic systems.

Do you actually know anything about this ? I'm not saying I do but I am a little sick of hearing from self proclaimed experts.

[stignasty]

Do you actually know anything about this ? I'm not saying I do . . . .

You're not saying you do!? What!?

This thread is 85 pages of you proclaiming the "truth."

. . . . but I am a little sick of hearing from self proclaimed experts.

How do you think the rest of us feel about you after over 1200 posts in this thread?

a) a little sick of hearing from a self proclaimed expert.

b ) a little sick of hearing from a self proclaimed expert.

c) a little sick of hearing from a self proclaimed expert.

d) all of the above.

[Black Dog]

I don't think that this part of 911 is really even worth discussing. wtc7 collapse and the collapse of the twin towers proves 911 was an inside job.

No they don't. Again: even if the towers were brought down by means other than a structural failure resulting from the plane crash, there's no proof of responsibility there. It could have been the Mooninites.

The other crashes cannot be used to prove anything definitively so I don't pay much attention to the Pentagon or Pennyslyvania crashes.

They can, however, be used to demonstrate the stupidity of the "inside job" thesis. Which is why you ignore them.

[PolyNewbie]

Black Dog: They can, however, be used to demonstrate the stupidity of the "inside job" thesis. Which is why you ignore them

How ? (I think this is logically impossible)

[Black Dog]

How ? (I think this is logically impossible)

Because you can't explain where they fit into the broad scope of the conspiracy (though you've made half-assed efforts with both the Pentagon and Flight 93). What happened to Flight 93, and what role did it play in the conspiracy? Was it, as you've alleged before, shot down by mistake? Or was the crash, as you've also alleged, faked and the plane taken elsewhere? And why? If the manner in which the WTC fell "proves" it was an inside job, what does Flight 93 prove?

[PolyNewbie]

Black Dog:Was it, as you've alleged before, shot down by mistake? Or was the crash, as you've also alleged, faked and the plane taken elsewhere? And why? If the manner in which the WTC fell "proves" it was an inside job, what does Flight 93 prove?

I don't think anything can be proven from those events because of what we do not know about them. We know enough about the NY collapses to prove it was an inside job. That proof is that they collapsed straight down at near freefall speed and that the (melted steel shown on video) heat involved shows that something other than jet fuel was involved in the collapse.

I think flight 93 was shot down because Rumsfeld accidentally said so and from the evidence - lack of large airplane parts & no bodies. The guy from Popular Mechanics was saying that they found all the bodies underground after the crash in a debate with Dylan Avery on Democracy Now. Hmmm. Its hard to know anything for sure but a hundred bodies just don't bury themselves and airplanes don't bury themselves in the ground in accidents either.

[GostHacked]

Ghost Hacked:It would depend on what type of explosion occurred. Most conventional bombs do not give off EMPs, or if they do, they are not that strong to effect any electronic systems.

Do you actually know anything about this ? I'm not saying I do but I am a little sick of hearing from self proclaimed experts.

I never proclaimed to be an expert, but I know about things you do not. You always go back to WTC 7 'proved inside job' but again you fail to see how all the other shit that went on that day fits in. INCLUDING the flight crash in Pensylvania.

I think it was shot down to prevent more damage to it's target.

And since you don't know the difference between an EMP bomb and a conventional bomb, you have lost credibility and the power of neutral observation.

I have seen a pattern with you Polynewbie. And it is now 85 pages long. State facts, someone says something different, you pooh pooh then and continue on with "FACTS". You are one of the types of people that the general public tends to stay away from because of how you present things.

You need more proof then what was rehased over 85 fucking pages. Try something different. Try another angle or something. Stop bashing your head on the wall.

And you have no clue what the difference is between an EMP and a pulse engine. And on that note, I am not sure either, for I had never heard of a pulse engine untill you mentioned it here.

[Black Dog]

I don't think anything can be proven from those events because of what we do not know about them.

How convienient for you.

We know enough about the NY collapses to prove it was an inside job. That proof is that they collapsed straight down at near freefall speed and that the (melted steel shown on video) heat involved shows that something other than jet fuel was involved in the collapse.

What about the Mooninites?

I think flight 93 was shot down because Rumsfeld accidentally said so and from the evidence - lack of large airplane parts & no bodies.

Except there were parts and bodies found.

The guy from Popular Mechanics was saying that they found all the bodies underground after the crash in a debate with Dylan Avery on Democracy Now.

That's not what he said.

If you look at the sources that were used throughout that (Loose Change) clip, they’re all things that came up in the first day or two after the attacks. In some cases, somebody is standing across the field and saying, “I don't see a plane.” Well, when a plane strikes the ground at 500 miles an hour, flying almost straight down, there typically isn't much visible above ground.

They also quote the coroner in the Shanksville area. We talked to the coroner. He had the horrific job of collecting the body parts and cataloging and performing all the necessary tests. Those bodies were identified. The plane wreckage in the pieces -- the tiny pieces it was in after it had hit the ground was, you know, collected from the hole, cataloged.

Of course I posted this before and your response was, essentially "Nuh-uh! He's lying!"

Its hard to know anything for sure but a hundred bodies just don't bury themselves and airplanes don't bury themselves in the ground in accidents either.

What do you mean "bury." Do you have the faintest idea of what the term means in this context?