|
Post by turbonium on Sept 28, 2005 22:08:20 GMT -4
I infer from your behavior that your sympathy for the 9/11 survivors takes a back seat to your irrational distrust of authority. Your inference is wrong.
Pointing out the flaws in competing theories is indeed part of that process, but it is not the only part of it. Of course, it's only one part of it. I never would have been discussing possible alternatives for 40+ pages if I didn't think so.
You can try to weasel out of it or post-justify it in any way you feel is appropriate, but this is merely the last and most egregious in a long chain of misrepresentation and selective quotation that you have forged for some 30 pages of this discussion. I am not considering this incident in isolation, but in the context of many similar incidents.
Sigh - if I was trying to be deceptive, I would not have even mentioned that I knew about the retraction. What is so difficult to understand about that fact is beyond me. And if this is one of a "long chain of misrepresentation", show me this "chain" through examples I have "forged".
Small-business paper-pushing decisions have little or nothing to do with scientific inquiry.
LOL! You may think my career has been one of solely "paper pushing", you are wrong.
Have you ever been in a position where your skill at science literally decided human life or death? Yes or no.
Yes.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 28, 2005 2:29:53 GMT -4
This is why JayUtah is getting frustrated with you and I'm just getting bored: somebody gives you an answer and you respond with "yea, but..." You didn't give me an answer, you proposed a theory on what may have happened on 9/11 re: bombs carried by terrorists. I asked you some questions that came to me, thinking you could address them for me. I am being asked countless numbers of questions on my posts. I don't respond with disrespect or disdain to the members here who raise points and would like replies to them.
I keep coming back here because I keep hoping for an intelligent conversation. I have a baby on my lap, and many hour go by with conversations consisting of nothing but vowels. I think I'll go back to the vowels and the "Booga Booga" song now.
Good idea. If you want to discuss something intelligently, please remember it takes at least two people to have a discussion without resorting to labels of "arm-chair Generals", which bring the level of the threads down to the lowest common denominator. I replied to your post in a civil manner. I only ask for the same in return.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 28, 2005 2:13:24 GMT -4
You talk about wanting justice for the victims and identifying inconsistencies in the "official" story. But your own story -- which you admit you can't substantiate -- is a hare-brained tale riddled with its own inconsistencies and suppositions, and you don't seem to care that you're dealing with real people and real reputations in your theory. You have no idea about my true intent - I do care about the people and their integrity involved in this issue. Most of all, I am disgusted with how the victims families have been mostly marginilized and ignored for over 4 years trying to get answers about what the truth is. Their loved ones died that day, and they haven't been told the full and true story. And the official "hare-brained tale" is the one I find most ridiculous of them all.
Suppose I hadn't bitten at the Romero story. Suppose your deliberate misrepresentation of his opinion had gone unchallenged. Do you have any sympathy for what you will have done to Dr. Romero by having misrepresented him? I will again say to you that Dr. Romero's statements were being anticipated to be addressed separately. You have taken this issue and are trying to claim you know what my intentions were - for some sort of deliberately misleading or nefarious reason. You are totally off base about what my intentions were. To be specific, I originally deliberated about putting both articles together, but felt it too cumbersome to address in the post - the nature of the post was a basic reply to peter about what my view of the events were on 9/11. Then arguments could be made on any specific points I raised, which was what I obviously expected. Like peter said after my post, "As I’m sure you expected, I have some questions on your answers."
You have obviously never been in a situation where your words and actions had real consequences. Unfortunately I've been in a position of having my scientific findings determine, in large measure, the fate of entire companies -- hundreds of millions of dollars and hundreds of jobs at stake. I didn't know that when I started the analysis; it became apparent as the conclusions were drawn. You should stop making bold conclusions about what I have been personally accountable and responsible for over my 10+ years of founding and building my own business, and over another 15 years before that. You are so far off the truth you have no idea.
I don't play games when it comes to real people and real historical occurrences. If you want to convince me that you are honorable, then you had better start behaving honorably. I have zero patience for the kind of game you're playing here. Point addressed above on all this. You are taking my true motive and distorting it into the most negative slant you can think of. I suggest this point has been covered, and issues relevant to 9/11be the focus going forward.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 27, 2005 3:35:05 GMT -4
Ask him yourself and quit playing games. If you have any shred of integrity you'll accuse him to his face and bear the consequences if you're wrong. I did not "accuse" Romero of anything. I suggested he may have been pressured into a change of opinion. That is like saying I 'accused' somebody of keying a car at gunpoint. Accusation implies blame, that the person has done something illegal or immoral through his own intent. I wouldn't blame him if he was facing external pressure to change his opinion. I actually feel really bad for him if that is the case.
And I emailed him, even though he has been deluged with calls and mail over this issue in the past. I hope to hear back from him.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 27, 2005 2:49:42 GMT -4
So you knew about the retraction and decided not to mention it. What other important information have you intentionally withheld regarding your claims? And why should we continue to take you seriously given that you now admit selectivity in your sources?
I'm through playing silly rhetorical games with you, Turbonium. This is apparently just some sort of sick game for you.
No other "intentionally withheld information" has been done by me. You seem to be playing up being appalled and shocked by 'my devious games'. Even the dreaded 'CT' sites show the retraction article! I pointed out that I did it to isolate on an argument I knew you would bring up. It's not a "sick game" to me. Whether you believe me or not.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 27, 2005 1:30:43 GMT -4
rocketdad - your theory is certainly worth considering.There are terrorists who could, and would if given the chance, blow themselves up in the towers to help carry out the collapses. That is actually what Van Romero suggested in the original article - that terrorists often use an initial diversionary event (the plane impacts) and then use secondary explosives.
But what about the lack of air defense? And how would the bomb carriers be able to get access to the right locations?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 27, 2005 0:54:25 GMT -4
He changed his mind after reviewing additional data.
I knew you'd mention that. I wanted to reply to that separately.
There are only two brief, contradictory quotes in the retraction article. First, Romero says that "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail". The article says this is because of subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape. He now makes such an assertion, as being certain that fire was the cause of the collapses, only 10 days after 9/11? The investigations had not even been initiated at that point! He provides no evidence to support this bold new conclusion, nor even allude to anything specific that made him change his opinion. Who were these supposed engineers? He doesn't say. How did they know that it was "certainly the fire" that caused the collapses? Before even a preliminary investigation?
But the only other quote he makes is then "I'm very upset about that," he said. "I'm not trying to say anything did or didn't happen."
Now he is "certainly" uncertain about what happened!!
He makes three very different statements about the collapses over the two articles. The original article has him saying that explosives were the most likely cause of collapse. The retraction has him saying it was certainly due to fire, but then that he isn't saying what did or did not happen.
Only the original article has his detailed explanation for why he asserted that explosives were the most likely cause. The retraction only has two brief and contradictory quotes.
Of course, the original article also mentions that Romero "said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech. [New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, where Romero is Vice President for research.]"
If his company was being funded by the Pentagon, I honestly have to wonder if he was pressured into his cryptic retraction.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 26, 2005 21:46:28 GMT -4
Firstly, when challenged about how explosives could create pools of molten metal, you said that if the explosives were at the base of the building, that result could be achieved. Fine, but when the buildings collapsed, the collapses started around the impact points. In other words, the bases of the two buildings were the last parts to stand. If explosives had gone off there, I’d expect the bases to disappear first, and the rest of the buildings above to collapse into the gape.
Secondly, can you explain why no *other* residue of explosives was found on the site? Sulphur would appear not to be the only residue of an explosion, so if explosives of some sort were used, it would leave a detectable remnant.
Thirdly, can you propose a possible storyline for what happened that day, according to the evidence as you understand it.Hi peter, sorry for the delay in answering your questions. First - the molten steel pools in the basements. The towers had six basement floors, and you can see diagrams at this link www.nytimes.com/library/national/index_WALL.htmlWhat I am suggesting, and has been verified by William Rodriguez, WTC janitor (and at least 14 other witnesses, he says now there are 27 other witnesses), is that explosives were set in the basements of the buildings. See this link for more about it proliberty.com/observer/20050714.htmThe two men who saw the molten pools said they saw them three or four weeks after a lot of rubble was finally removed, when they could finally access the basements. As to the sulfur, there was sulfidation and oxidation, another possible result of explosives being used. As to other residues of explosives not being found, remember that there were only a relatively small number of steel samples selected for the testing. There may have been residues present among the vast majority of steel either already removed prior to the salvage, or not picked out during the salvage. Now - a storyline for what happened on 9/11. This is a summary account, and is only my personal view on what most likely happened. First, I don't think 19 hijackers, or at least the 19 as officially listed, were the actual people involved in flying the 4 planes. There is no evidence to support that they were, from any information released by officials. I believe these planes were taken over remotely and 2 of them flown into the towers. I remain skeptical about Flt. 77 and Flt. 93 in the official account. I think Flt. 93 was shot down by US fighter jets in Shanksville, PA, before reaching it's target (possibly the White House), and one early official account also said the same thing. There were wargames actually underway on 9/11, done to purposely create mass confusion among NORAD, and US defence systems. That would explain the lack of response from Andrews AFB and other bases. Explosives were also used, in my view of what happened. Van Romero is the director of research at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. In an article and interview actually on Sept.11, 2001 from the Albuquerque Journal, he.. studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.'...assists in forensic investigations into terrorist attacks, often by setting off similar explosions and studying the effects.Van Romero reported that he had studied the videos of the WTC collapse and concluded that the towers were most likely destroyed by carefully placed demolition charges. He told the 'Journal': The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.
"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that..It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said.....Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures This is basically, as i see it, what happened. I am not claiming this is 100% supportable with current evidence, so don't take it as having that intention. Just my personal opinion on 9/11. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 26, 2005 21:24:42 GMT -4
My claim that the panel is anonymous comes from De Grande Pre's interview with Alan Jones in which he tells Alan he will never reveal the identities of those on his panel. Just to correct the name - it's Alex Jones, not Alan.
The questions is whether the WTC and/or Pentagon airliners were flown by remote control, not if it's possible. What is the evidence that remote-control was used? The panel answers this question simply by begging a diffrerent one: that the operation is claimed to be too complex to have been enacted by the terrorists. We don't know all the details of their report, so you're making a conclusion based only on the bits of information that de Grand Pre mentioned in the interview/article. Until it's known what is in the full report, making definitive statements about what wasn't discussed is entirely premature.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 26, 2005 21:14:24 GMT -4
Do you have a link for the quote from Mary Schiavo? The quote is from a GNN video, which I don't believe is online, but I'll try and find it for you. Btw, the below is some information which relates to your AFB... Major Gen. Larry Arnold, commander of the Continental U.S. NORAD Region at Tyndall AFB in Florida, confirmed the F-15s from Otis were traveling about 1,200 mph. “Our pilots were coming at about 1.5 Mach, which is, you know, somewhere - 11 or 12 hundred miles an hour.” [Dateline NBC Sept23/01; Aviation Now.com Oct1/02]This seems to contradict the idea that these jets were not capable of flying at high speed for the intercepts. It also raises more questions about if they actually did fly at mach speed, and if so, when did they take off to not reach the WTC sooner? The more disturbing point is that Andrews AFB was much closer, with two fighter squadrons on 24/7 standby alert, and was not called into action until after the Pentagon had already been hit.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 26, 2005 0:00:37 GMT -4
Remember I posted the average speed of the F-15's from Otis AFB as being about 483 mph, to reach the WTC 153 miles away. Below I have a link for info on the F-15 and also posted a couple of specs.... Cruise speed: 570 mph Range: typical: 2,120 nm (3,930 km)www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f15/The link below also lists the combat radius... F-15C Eagle => 1,222 miles (intercept mission)www.globalaircraft.org/qboard2.htmSo they flew almost 100 mph below even their cruising speed. I don't see any reason these jets should have reached their target on an intercept mission slower than cruise speed.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 25, 2005 7:55:10 GMT -4
I find the idea of expert military pilots saying AWACS could remotely control airliners just plain ignorant. The term "in-credible" comes to mind.I don't dispute your statement regarding AWACS as not being so equipped during your time in service. But, there are several articles I have read regarding the capability of installing remote control systems on to AWACS or certain other aircraft. The link below from 2002 discusses the latest UCAV system as being possibly installed into AWACS. www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2002/May/Unmanned_Bomber.htm The link below, with an excerpt I've posted, is an interview with Chuck Yeager in 1991, who mentions how AWACS could, in a few years, remote control unmanned fighter jets Remote control, you will see maybe in the future, six or eight years down the road. Ten percent of your fighter force will probably be remote control stuff. You control from AWACS airplanes, small, miniature fighters with no crew, launched from C-130s or ground launched with air to air missiles and sensors. You can sit there and look out of a video camera out of the nose, in your AWACS airplane, in a nice soft chair, drinking coffee and shoot the guys down. It's pretty neat, a pretty neat setup.www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/yea0int-8There are other articles which discuss AWACS being capable of having remote control systems installed as well. The symposium pilots throwing around the possibility of remote control being used, take into consideration that the AWACS would have to be specially equipped with remote control capability. The de Grand Pre article has a quote from one pilot who asks "If there was an AWACS on station over the targeted area, did it have a Global Hawk capability? I mean, could it convert the commercial jets to robotic flying missiles?" There is at least one pilot named as well, mentioned in the article below from The News (Portugal), so it is not entirely an anonymous panel. And another pilot, independent of the panel, and also mentioned by name, agreed with the findings of the panel... In evidence given to the enquiry, Captain Kent Hill (retd.) of the US Air Force, and friend of Chic Burlingame, the pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, stated that the US had on several occasions flown an unmanned aircraft, similar in size to a Boeing 737, across the Pacific from Edwards Air Force base in California to South Australia. According to Hill it had flown on a pre programmed flight path under the control of a pilot in an outside station. Hill also quoted Bob Ayling, former British Airways boss, in an interview given to the London Economist on September 20th, 2001. Ayling admitted that it was now possible to control an aircraft in flight from either the ground or in the air. This was confirmed by expert witnesses at the inquiry who testified that airliners could be controlled by electro-magnetic pulse or radio frequency instrumentation from command and control platforms based either in the air or at ground level.
The credentials of the pilots involved in this study are impressive. In addition to Captain Hill there is an Air Force Colonel, and a third Air Force officer who flew over 100 sorties during the Vietnam war. The group also includes professional civilian aircraft pilots. The reporter verified their conclusions with an independent expert:
THE NEWS, in an attempt to further substantiate the potential veracity of these findings, spoke to an Algarve-based airline pilot, who has more than 20 years of experience in flying passenger planes, to seek his views. Captain Colin McHattie, currently flying with Cathay Pacific, agreed with the independent commission's findings. However, he explained that while it is possible to fly a plane from the ground, the installation of the necessary equipment is a time-consuming process, and needs extensive planning.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 24, 2005 4:05:47 GMT -4
The panel reveals all manner of absurd and erroneous assumptions, such as whether the pilots were able to fight back or signal distress. They do not even consider the common belief that the pilots were immediately killed or incapacitated. Why should they not consider what the pilots would have been able to do? The pilots were in control of the 4 planes for times of at least 13, 23, 30 and 46 minutes respectively after takeoff. I don't know where you get the "common belief" they were killed or incapacitated right away. Below are excerpts from the 9/11 Commission Report on the official timeline...
At 8:00 on September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 11 began its takeoff roll at Logan Airport in Boston....At 8:13, the controller instructed the flight to "turn twenty degrees right," which the flight acknowledged.
United Airlines Flight 175, a Boeing 767 carrying 65 passengers from Boston to Los Angeles, took off from Logan Airport at 8:14. At 8:37 Boston Center polled United 175, along with other aircraft, about whether they had seen a, "American 767," American 11 that they were looking for. And United 175's pilots said they had seen it.
American 77 began its takeoff from Dulles International Airport at 8:20...The controller instructed the aircraft to climb, and at 8:50 cleared it to its next navigational aid. American 77 acknowledged.
United 93 took off from Newark at 8:42.. At 9:28, United 93 acknowledged the transmission from the controller.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 24, 2005 1:51:51 GMT -4
No, you just call me a sheep: When did I call you a sheep?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 24, 2005 1:46:02 GMT -4
The conspiracy theorists are telling us Hani would have had trouble controlling the 757 because of his apparently dubious skill. But they are ignoring the very real evidence that remote-piloting an airliner at low altitude is exceptionally difficult too. No, the pilots I have mentioned, including the group panel symposium headed by Col. de Grande Pre, are the people telling us Hani was incapable of performing the described skills with a 757. And they are also the ones telling us how remote technology was the best explanation for what happened.
Or are you calling the pilots CT's?
|
|