9/11/MLK/RFK

[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?

[Matt Grantham]

Through the hole that it made in it.



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

What is the size of the hole ?

 Do you agree Skilling was one of leading engineers of the time and made his calculations based on established science This is the starting point in the discussion 

 Are you asserting NIST ever made a calculation for the entire global collapse of the structures?

[Tim Nickerson]

What is the size of the hole ?

About 50 feet in width.

Do you agree Skilling was one of leading engineers of the time and made his calculations based on established science This is the starting point in the discussion 

Yes.

Are you asserting NIST ever made a calculation for the entire global collapse of the structures?

I have not made that assertion.

[Matt Grantham]

About 50 feet in width.

I assume that is there are some supports still standing in the 50 foot width you are describing And your explanation for the wings, tail rudder, and engines?
[/quote]

Yes.

[/quote]

That is objective of you

[/quote]
I have not made that assertion.
[/quote]

 If you agree that Skilling, and others at the time of their construction of the towers, represented the leading edge of scientific understandings of building engineering and behavior then the collapse of the towers should have been seen as anomalous in 2001 Therefore it is odd that none of the media made any note of the anomalous nature of said event But the only question I am asking you is in regard to the nature of the NIST explanation. I don't want to put words in your mouth but I assume their failure to either provide a scenario for a global collapse and not making any of their results for peer review, is justified either by the idea that releasing such information could be used by terrorists in future attack or simply concluding that since they collapsed after the impacts of the planes that said proximate cause was the ultimate cause I get that to a degree, but it is not science

 There is also the question of the collapse time I am probably going to explain this more poorly than usual since I have some kidney stone issues and am on meds and it is difficult to explain anyway Maybe I will dig up the You Tube that made it clearer to me The example they used that helped me was simply  showing two automobiles smashing into one another and explaining that the force, as in speed and mass is converted into damage of the vehicles Thus when the towers fell if they destroyed material below them required force to be lost from the upper portion This is why the pancake theory could have worked since it did not really require destruction of the lower portion of the buildings but unfortunately the fact was the material was pulverized Amateur hour is over for now

[Tim Nickerson]

I assume that is there are some supports still standing in the 50 foot width you are describing

Hmmm...I think not.  Although,  it's hard to tell from the images.

And your explanation for the wings, tail rudder, and engines?

The wings folded back towards the fuselage. Do the tail rudder and engines need explaining? I'm not positive about this but I seem to recall that the engines were found at the exterior of the building.

If you agree that Skilling, and others at the time of their construction of the towers, represented the leading edge of scientific understandings of building engineering and behavior then the collapse of the towers should have been seen as anomalous in 2001 Therefore it is odd that none of the media made any note of the anomalous nature of said event But the only question I am asking you is in regard to the nature of the NIST explanation. I don't want to put words in your mouth but I assume their failure to either provide a scenario for a global collapse and not making any of their results for peer review, is justified either by the idea that releasing such information could be used by terrorists in future attack or simply concluding that since they collapsed after the impacts of the planes that said proximate cause was the ultimate cause I get that to a degree, but it is not science

 There is also the question of the collapse time I am probably going to explain this more poorly than usual since I have some kidney stone issues and am on meds and it is difficult to explain anyway Maybe I will dig up the You Tube that made it clearer to me The example they used that helped me was simply  showing two automobiles smashing into one another and explaining that the force, as in speed and mass is converted into damage of the vehicles Thus when the towers fell if they destroyed material below them required force to be lost from the upper portion This is why the pancake theory could have worked since it did not really require destruction of the lower portion of the buildings but unfortunately the fact was the material was pulverized Amateur hour is over for now

Skilling's statement in 1993 was lacking in detail. The claim was that the buildings were built to withstand an impact from a Boeing 707 and from the burning of the fuel within the building. That's it. Nothing more was offered. But surely an impact at the 106th story level would result in different stress variables than an impact at the level of the 80th floor or lower. What was the velocity of the impacting 707? How much fuel was onboard? How many passengers were on board?

Are you familiar with Leslie Robertson? He was the lead structural engineer for the construction of the twin towers.

I won't try to speak for NIST. As far as explanations for the tower collapses go, I recall reading a paper by an engineer by the name of Frank Greening. It was fairly easy to understand and was quite convincing. I can look it up for you if you like. Greening also wrote a critique of NIST's building 7 collapse theory.

[Richard Rubio]

RFK Jr. seriously questioning the events of the RFK assassination:

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Who-killed-Bobby-Kennedy-His-son-RFK-Jr-doesn-t-12946227.php

[Richard Rubio]

Michael Medved has as a regular feature on his show, "Conspiracy Thursday" (or Wednesday,  I forget which day)... when 911 truthers call, he refers them to the Popular Mechanics debunking of 911, for whatever that's worth.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a49/1227842/

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

I see other links out there, some alleging to debunk what Popular Mechanics said. Since, I am not going through these links thoroughly and have no idea what kind of websites they are, I would say, one can find them for oneself.