another intelligent 9-11 debate

since the info in the last thread hit so close to home that instead of locking the thread, it had to be deleted, can not let the truth air out for too long.

i will be complete in my research here, done MOSTLY with the us governments OWN reports.

let us start with understanding what a "theory" is.

Quote:

---

The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.


In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition.

---

so in other words, for the government's theory of how the wtc buildings failed, it has to have happened before or be able to be tested and acheive the same results.

so to begin with, we now all understand that the government is GUESSING as to what happened.

sort of like how in the 30's the government guessed pot smoking would lead to you doing heroin and killing your family...lol


now, where is the evidence to back up the governments guess?

well they have alot of "this is what must have happened" in the nist and fema reports, but even there own research shows this was not possible.

let us get some stuff out of the way first

Quote:

---

Everyone, including the NIST, agrees that the twin towers survived the initial Boeing 767 impacts on September 11, 2001â??â??â??despite serious damage. The buildings survived because the WTC was hugely overbuilt: redundant by design. The towers simply transferred the load from the severed/damaged members to other undamaged columns.

---

ok now some tests done on the steel that was super heated in 45 mins to the point of collapse.

Quote:

---

Because the NIST did not have the necessary facilities, it contracted Underwriter Laboratories to conduct a series of fire endurance tests on trusses like those in the WTC. (The recovered truss samples were too badly deformed during the collapse to test them directly, so NIST fabricated new trusses identical in design.) The purpose of the tests was to establish a baseline, and the results were surprising. Not one of the truss assemblies failed during a series of four tests, not even the truss sprayed with the minimum amount of fireproofing. â??The floors continued to support the full design load without collapse for over two hours.â?�

---

Quote:

---

Another finding: The WTC steel turned out to be significantly stronger than expected. Tests showed that the yield strengths of 87% of the perimeter/core columns, and all of the floor trusses samples, exceeded the original specifications by as much as 20%. â??The yield strengths of many of the steels in the floor trusses were above 50 ksi, even when specifications required 36 ksi.â?�[53] (1 ksi = 1,000 lb/per square inch) The NIST performed similar tests on a number of recovered bolts, and found that these too were â??much stronger than expected, based on reports from the contemporaneous literature.â?�[54] Notice, none of these findings support the NISTâ??s official explanation for the WTC collapse. On the contrary.

The Fire Tests:
Core Weakening?

Another series of tests sought to address the alleged weakening of the WTC support columns. During a first-run investigators placed an uninsulated steel column in a 2,012ºF (1,100ºC) furnace and measured the rise in its surface temperature. Notice, this laboratory furnace was significantly hotter than the fires on 9/11 caused by jet fuel or any other combustible in the WTC. The column reached 600ºC in just 13 minutes, the temperature range where significant loss of strength occurs. When the test was repeated again with an insulated column, the steel did not reach 600ºC even after ten hours. The NIST concluded that â??the fires in WTC 1 and WTC 2 would not be able to significantly weaken the insulated....columns within the 102 minutes and 56 minutes, respectively, after impact and prior to collapse.â?�[55]

---

more?

Quote:

---

It certainly was not supported by the NISTâ??s metallurgical analyses, which showed that not even one of the 236 steel samples, including those from the impact areas and fire-damaged floors, showed evidence of exposure to temperatures in excess of 1,110ºF (600ºC) for as long as 15 minutes.[56] In fact, out of more than 170 areas examined on 16 recovered perimeter columns, only 3 reached temperatures in excess of 250ºC (450ºF) during the fires.[57] And why ? Well, perhaps, in part, because, as Shyam Sunder, the lead NIST investigator, admitted, â??the jet fuel....burned out in less than ten minutes.â?�[58] Also, NIST scientists made another surprising discovery: The actual amount of combustibles on a typical floor of the WTC turned out to be less than expected: only about 4 lbs./sq. foot. Furthermore, â??the fuel loading in the core areas....was negligible.â?�[59] The shocking fact is that the World Trade Center was fuel-poor, compared with most other buildings. The NIST estimated that a fire in a typical area of the building would have burned through the available combustibles at maximum temperatures (1,000ºC) in about 15-20 minutes.[60] Not nearly long enough even at that temperature to cause exposed steel to lose 80% of its strength.

---

Quote:

---

Although the NIST took the position that â??temperatures and stresses were high in the core area,â?�[61] as Iâ??ve noted the investigation suffered from a persistent lack of information about real conditions at the core. The NIST had no hard evidence about the actual amount of protective insulation damaged/dislodged during the impacts. The NIST report acknowledges this,[62] then goes on to assume that all structural members in the debris path at the time of impact suffered 100% loss of insulation.[63] Surely, we are safe to conclude that the Boeing 767 impacts did cause damage to, or strip away, a substantial portion of the fireproofing material. Exactly how much is not knowable. But even if the NIST estimate of total loss of fireproofing is correct, there is virtually no chance that the fires on 9/11 weakened the WTCâ??s core piers within the allotted span of time: 56/103 minutes.

A Vast Heat Sink

The reason for this, nowhere acknowledged in the NIST report, ought to be obvious: The WTCâ??s support columns did not exist in isolation. This was no laboratory furnace. The columns in each tower were part of an interconnected steel framework that weighed at least 100,000 tons; and because steel is known to be an excellent conductor of heat this massive steel superstructure functioned on 9/11 as an enormous energy sink. The total volume of the steel framework was vast compared with the relatively small area of exposed steel, and would have wicked away much the fire-caused heat. Anyone who has repaired a copper water pipe with a propane torch is familiar with the principle. One must sit and wait patiently for the pipe temperature to rise to the point where the copper finally draws the solder into the fitting. While it is true that copper is more conductive than steel, the analogy holds, regardless. The fact that only three recovered steel samples showed exposure to temperatures above 250ºC indicates that the steel superstructure was indeed behaving as a heat sink. The fires on 9/11 would have taken many hours, in any event, much longer than the brief allotted span of 56/103 minutes respectively, to slowly raise the temperature of the steel framework as a whole to the point of weakening the exposed members.

---

now what about those raging fires in the south tower?

Quote:

---

But perhaps the most serious challenge to the official view that fires were gravely weakening WTC 2 comes from an audiotape released in August 2002 by the Port Authority of New York. The tape, which was lost or neglected for more than a year, is the only known recording of firefighters inside the towers. When city fire officials belatedly listened to it they were surprised to discover that firemen actually reached the impact/fire zone of WTC 2 about 14 minutes before the building collapsed. On climbing to the 78th floor sky lobby Battalion Chief Orlo J. Palmer and Fire Marshall Ronald P. Bucca found many dead or seriously injured people, but no raging inferno. The audio transmission between Palmer and another fireman shows no hint of panic or fear, as the following transcript shows:

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones.

Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."

Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Tower one. Battalion Seven to Ladder 15."

Battalion Seven Chief: "I'm going to need two of your firefighters Adam stairway to knock down two fires. We have a house line stretched we could use some water on it, knock it down, okay."

Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're coming up the stairs. We're on 77 now in the B stair, I'll be right to you."

Battalion Seven Operations Tower One: "Battalion Seven Operations Tower One to Battalion Nine, need you on floor above 79. We have access stairs going up to 79, kay."

Battalion Nine: "Alright, I'm on my way up, Orio."[67]

Here, Battalion Chief Orlo Palmer calls for hoses to be brought up to put out the fires. His expression â??10-45 Code Onesâ?� refers to dead bodies, of which, evidently, there were many. The tape shows that the firemen were not turned back by heat, smoke, or a wall of flames. They were able to function within the impact zone and were prepared to help the injured and combat the small fires they found. Palmer even mentions that the stairwell up to the next floor, i.e., 79, was passable. Minutes later the building came down on their heads.

Inexplicably, the NIST never considered this important evidence. The question is why? Their omission is especially damning, since, as Iâ??ve stressed, the NIST investigation suffered from a persistent lack of information about actual conditions at the core.[68] Here was real-time testimony from firefighters who were on the scene, and the NIST simply ignored it.

---

notice reference numbers in the above quoted text


almost every single one of them comes from nist themself

Quote:

---

53. NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, p. 67.
54. NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, p. 67.
55. NIST NCSTAR 1, WRC Investigation p. 130.
56. NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation p. 88.
57. NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation p. 176.

58. Andy Field, â??A Look Inside a Radical new Theory of the WTC Collapse,â?� Fire/Rescue News, February 7, 2004. Sunder made a similar statement during an October 19, 2004 presentation. See â??World Trade Center Investigation Status,â?� S. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, NIST. This paper can be downloaded as a pdf file at NCST Advisory Committee Mtg. Oct. 19-20, 2004

59. The NIST makes this important point in two seperate places in the text. NIST NCSTAR 1-5, WTC Investigation, pp. 49 and 51.
60. NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation p. 127.
61. NIST NCSTAR 1-6, WTC Investigation, p. lxvix.
62. NIST NCSTAR 1-2, WTC Investigation, Executive Summary, p. xli.
63. NIST NCSTAR 1-5, WTC Investigation, p. xliv.
64. NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, p. 126-127.
65. NIST NCSTAR 1-5, WTC Investigation, p. 121.
66. NIST NCSTAR 1-6, WTC Investigation, p. lxvix; also see NIST NCSTAR 1-5, WTC Investigation, p. 51.

67. Jim Dwyer and Ksvin Flynn, 102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers, Times Books, 2005, p. 206; also see Jim Dwyer and Ford fessenden, â??Lost Voices of Firefighters, Some on 78th Floor,â?� New York Times, August 4, 2002; Christopher Bollyn, â??Feds Withhold Crucial WTC Evidence,â?� American Free Press, August 8, 2002.

68. NIST NCSTAR 1-2, WTC Investigation, p. 5.
69. NIST NCSTAR 1-3, WTC Investigation, p. 95.

---

The missing wings

Quote:

---

The analysis is, for the most part, of the simplest type, such as any reasonably bright high school student might follow.

---

Quote:

---

The analysis presented here is based entirely on standard and/or official sources, such as the engineering report issued under the auspices of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), as directed by an army engineering officer as chair. (ASCE 2003)

---

Quote:

---

Our general approach to the analysis that follows is to assume, whenever a range of options presents itself, that the White House version of events on September 11 is the correct one. For example, in determining the alignment of the incoming Boeing 757 engines with the support columns of the Pentagon, we have arranged the aircraft so that the engines were most likely to miss the columns that remained standing after the impact, in spite of the fact that a) this particular alignment was rather unlikely and b) the engines would probably have taken out both columns, even with this alignment.

---

Quote:

---

It can be adopted as a general, commonsense principle that if a large, wide and heavy object, moving at a speed of hundreds of kilometers an hour strikes but does not pass through a physical barrier, it must remain on the side of the barrier it struck. Although, large, heavy objects may be destroyed or damaged by such impacts, neither they nor their debris vanish after such an event.

---

Quote:

---

Here are the possibilities:

1. Could the damaged wings have been carted off by cleanup crews?

The cleanup of the site did not begin until well after the morning hours of the day in question.

2. Could the damaged wings have â??telescopedâ?� into the body of the aircraft, as claimed by the Dept. of Defence?

This claim was clearly meant for reporters, whose technical competence, as a general rule, would be unequal to the task of evaluating such a statement. There would have been no significant lateral force acting along either wing axis and there is no possibility of a wing actually entering the fuselage of the aircraft. If you fixed a Boeing 757 firmly to a given piece of ground, then used a team of bulldozers to push the wings into the body, the wings would merely fold up like an accordion or crumple and bend.

3. Could the wings have been entirely fragmented by the explosion of the fuel tanks after the aircraft struck the building?

The fuel tanks of a 757 are located under the fuselage, as well as in the wing roots. The entire fuel storage area of a 757 would easily fit inside the initial entry hole and, consequently, any explosion would have been largely confined to the buildingâ??s interior. As we shall see, the wings could not have entered the building, where they might possibly have encountered such a fate. The blast, as such, had little effect outside the building, as cable spools near the entry hole remained standing, for example.

4. This raises the question of whether the wings could have folded as the aircraft entered the building, bending backwards and following the aircraft in.

Except for fuel tanks, wiring and hydraulics, spars and ribs, wings are otherwise hollow. The spars could be described as locally rigid and globally flexible. In other words, a wing may flex (up and down) along its length when an aircraft encounters turbulence, for example, but, over much shorter distances, cannot bend significantly. Given sufficient force (applied either up or down) against a wing, it will simply break off. Sometimes the wings of older aircraft developed cracked spars. Even hairline cracks can be dangerous, as the slightest shearing force on the wing could widen and deepen the crack, causing catastrophic failure and the loss of a wing.

Of course, the force in question would not have been vertical, but horizontal. This makes the folding even more improbable, as the force of impact would be acting along the only possible fold axis, rather than at right angles to it. Try folding any material, say a piece of cardboard, by applying itâ??s edge (not itâ??s surface) to a tabletop. Folding horizontally is not an option, since all the spars would be lined up in opposing (momentarily) the folding force. Being locally rigid, the spars would simply snap within milliseconds of the impact against a support column that did not yield to their impact; they would fail as soon as the force of impact exceeded the elastic limit of the material. If they did not fail and if the support columns did not give way, the only remaining possibility would be for the aircraft to remain almost entirely outside of the Pentagon.

Only one possibility remains.

5. A devilâ??s advocate might bring up the fire that burned inside the building for approximately seven minutes before being extinguished. Although the colour temperature of the fire appears too bright for kerosene (i.e., jet fuel), we will invoke the White House interpretation of events, as mentioned earlier. Kerosene burns at approximately 860 degrees celsius in ambient air and less in a confined space where the fire tends to use up oxygen. (ASCE 2003)


Could such a fire have destroyed both wings to the point of near invisibility? The simplest answer is that the left wing was exposed to fire only near the wing root, the more distal portions being completely beyond the reach of flames or heat sufficient to melt the aluminum, let alone to burn it. The window frames to the left of the initial hole are all intact, so any heat radiated from the fires in the building would have had to come through the windows to the outside, largely missing any sections of wing that might have been lying outside them.

2. At six meters from the fire, even under direct exposure, the heat would have been insufficient to raise the temperature of the aluminum skin much above 500 C, well below the melting temperature of aluminum, namely 660 C (NASA 2003).

In other words, it would have been a physical impossibility for any portion of the port wing beyond about four meters from the fire to be melted, vaporized or in any way destroyed by it. Thus, at least 16 m (52′ 6″) of that wing ought to have remained (and to have been clearly visible) on the left of the entrance hole. In fact, no such debris appears in any of the pictures taken of the Pentagon that morning.

---

ok guys here is your chance to tell the phd's what happened, highlighted for your reading ease

Quote:

---

Until we hear of a completely different means by which both wings could have disappeared, we must assume that neither a Boeing 757 nor any aircraft of similar size struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001. We would be happy to hear from any readers with serious alternative suggestions for how the wings might have disappeared before, during, or after the impact event.

---

Quote:

---

Counterfactual evidence

If the Pentagon attack was essentially a massive deception, it would be very much in the interest of the real perpetrators to sidestep the analysis presented here. Since it cannot be argued against successfully, the perpetrators would be forced to adopt a counterfactual strategy: explain why the crash must have occurred as described. Such an approach would be merely puzzling to anyone who understands this article. If it could not have happened, it did not happen. To someone in the media, however, with eyes glazed over from reading our simple argument, the counterfactual approach would carry telling weight.

---

Quote:

---

The authors thank members of the S.P.I.N.E. Panel, in particular, Derrick Grimmer, Jim Hoffman, Joseph D. Keith, and Martha Rush. We also thank independent investigators Richard Stanley, Jim Hoffman and MIchael Elliott for providing critiques of an earlier version of this article. We also wish to thank John Dorsett and Marianne Sanscrainte for assistance in locating appropriate imagery.

About the authors

A. K. Dewdney is a mathematician and computer scientist who lives in London, Ontario, Canada. <www.csd.uwo.ca/~akd/>

G. W. Longspaugh is an aerospace engineer who makes his home in Fort Worth, Texas, USA.

---

General Statement by the Panel: "We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations. Our analysis of the detailed evidence implies a staged attack employing a variety of deceptive arrangements. Indeed, every element of the September 11 attacks, including cellphone calls from fast-moving aircraft, has an alternate means of creation." Panel members are scientists, engineers, and other professionals. All contribute through search and research. Members of S.P.I.N.E. may be contacted by emailing [email protected] and entering the name of the member you'd like to contact, along with a brief message.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




List of members: See the up-to-date list at ( you dont really want to see this list of phd's saying that the government is telling you lies do you?)

ok then


SPINE Directory


i guess they dont know what they are talking about either.

Please post links to all your quotes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VisionaryUrbanTactic

since the info in the last thread hit so close to home that instead of locking the thread, it had to be deleted, can not let the truth air out for too long.

---

You want the truth? Here it is.....when a member acts like a sarcastic fool we take measures to make sure it doesn't happen again. THIS was the only way of getting your attention so there ya go. IF you keep it up with the slams, you'll be joining your deleted thread.

Have a good one!

I'm not even gonna debate this thread as it is badly written and I have no idea where you get these quotes from. Kinda like writing a random letter with newspaper clippings. You use someone else's quotes ,NIST does not refer to itself as "the NIST" and then you seem to quote from NIST on the next one. Stick with one sorce and post links for reference.

the effort's certainly appreciated, but you really are wasting your time...some people are more comfortable believing the 19 freedom hating muslims who really hate freedom a whole lot because they're bad evil freedom hating muslims conspiracy theory...it doesn't even begin to explain 1% of all that happened on 9/11, all that led up to it, and what's happened because of 9/11...

it doesn't matter how glaringly obvious it's become that 9/11 was an inside job.

all you can do is post the info and then let others read it.

If the conspiracy people really want to prove that the towers should have withstood the attacks, then they could build two towers exactly like the WTC ones, fill them with similar things as the orginials, get two large planes filled with jet fuel, with remote piloting, and make them crash into the buildings exactly like it happened on 9/11. Half a million tons of debris from 9/11, and theories from engineers and amateurs alike, are not going to show nearly as much as an experiment such as this could.

If they collapse, then MORE conspiracy theories would start - about the experiment itself.

flight 93


couple things about flight 93 that are troubling to me.

one is the phone calls, now for a play by play of every call made go here

Physics911, by Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001


to see Project Achilles: Cellphone Experiments in a Light Aircraft

go here Physics911, by Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001

take a look here to see how real research is done.

Quote:

---

23 (and counting) of the 44 people on Flight 93 were not supposed to be on the flight that day. Is this really just a coincidence?

---

Quote:

---

Many people have asked questions about the small number of passengers on each of the hijacked planes on Sept 11th, each flight was on average a quarter full. Flight 93 in particular had a very small load on board, only forty four people in total, including four suspected hijackers. Thirty seven passengers (excluding crew) on a plane that holds around two hundred people would make you wonder how an airline could possibly make a profit on such a flight.

---

Quote:

---

1. Christine Snyder.

Snyder wanted to build up frequent flier miles on her United account. That morning, she called to check on her flight, Flight 91, due to leave after 9 a.m. She moved up to Flight 93 for an earlier start. Flight 93: Forty lives, one destiny

2. Deora Bodley

She was supposed to take United Flight 91, but decided the night before to take one an hour earlier
so she could get home sooner to her family and boyfriend http://www.thereview.com/Site%20Arch...922apwire.html

3. Donald Peterson.

They weren't supposed to be on United Flight 93, but they got to the Newark airport early, and their original flight was late and crowded. http://www.hazlitt.org/united/whotheywere2.html

4. Jean Peterson

5. Jeremy Glick.

Jeremy Glick was supposed to have been on Flight 93 a day earlier, but missed the Monday flight after getting stuck in traffic on his way to Newark Airport. The Final Moments of United Flight 93 - Newsweek National News - MSNBC.com

6. Lauren Grandcolas

Originally scheduled on a later flight, she had been pleasantly surprised to easily get a standby seat on Flight 93 at the airport. The Final Moments of United Flight 93 - Newsweek National News - MSNBC.com

7. Louis Nacke.

Some of the passengers had never planned to be on the flight. Nacke had booked his seat only the night before. Out to dinner with his family, he had a received a phone call from one of his customers who needed help with an inventory problem. The Final Moments of United Flight 93 - Newsweek National News - MSNBC.com

8. Mark Bingham.

Mark Bingham, 31, was also supposed to have flown to San Francisco last Monday. But he hadn't recovered sufficiently from the 30th birthday celebration of his roommate in Manhattan,
so he decided to wait until Tuesday morning. He overslept a 6 a.m. alarm and just made his flight http://www.the-review.com/Site%20Arc...922apwire.html

9. Alan Beavan.

Alan Beaven of Oakland, bCalif., was on Flight 93 reluctantly. He was staying with his wife and young daughter at an ashram in New York, preparing to begin a year volunteering as head lawyer for the Syda Foundation in Bombay. Yet, the environmental attorney had unfinished business one
last Clean Water Act lawsuit for his firm before his trip overseas. When settlement talks broke down last Monday, Beaven was duty-bound to fly back to San Francisco to handle
the case. http://www.the-review.com/Site%20Arc...922apwire.html

10. Nicole Miller.

Nicole Miller's flight last Monday had also been cancelled. The 21-year-old college student and waitress at a Chili's in San Jose had gone back East at the urging of her boyfriend, who wanted her with him when he visited his family. Because she had agreed to go at the last minute, Miller and her boyfriend had to make return reservations on different flights. http://www.thereview.com/Site%20Arch...922apwire.html

11. Thomas Burnett.

Like Bodley, Thomas Burnett was leaving New Jersey early to be with his family. The 38-year-old San Ramon, Calif., resident was supposed to have flown out that afternoon on Delta, but switched to Flight 93 to get home to his wife, Deena, and their three daughters. http://www.thereview.com/Site%20Arch...922apwire.html

D. Keith Grossman, president of Thoratec Corp., of Pleasanton, Calif., was
in Cleveland to meet Deitrick and ask what his company could do to help. Grossman said he could
do no less. One victim on the flight was his employee and close friend, Tom Burnett. "We were both in New York that day," Grossman said. "He was supposed to go home on Flight 91 later in the day, but he switched it to get on Flight 93." http://clevessf.dev.advance.net/911/...560150570.html

12. Jason Dahl
(Pilot).

Dahl was planning to take his wife Sandy to London for their fifth wedding anniversary Sept. 14, and by moving up his flight schedule, they would have more time together overseas. Sandy, a United flight attendant, went onto United's computer system and shifted him to Flight 93. flight93.org

13. Wanda Green.

Wanda Green wasn't originally supposed to be on Flight 93. The 49-year-old divorced mother of two grown children had been scheduled to fly Sept. 13, but Green, who also worked as a real estate agent, realized she had to handle the closing of a home sale Sept. She'd phoned her best friend, fellow flight attendant Donita Judge, who opened United's computerized schedule and shifted Green to the Sept. 11 flight. Flight 93: Forty lives, one destiny

14. Deborah Welsh.

Welsh, who had been a flight attendant for more than 25 years, usually avoided early-morning flights, but she had agreed to trade shifts with another worker. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._heroes02.html

15. Honor Elizabeth Wainio.

Since she was scheduled on a flight that stopped in Denver, Colorado, she changed her reservations to a direct flight into San Francisco at the last minute. Wainio was able to borrow a phone from a fellow passenger and contact her stepmother during the attack. Honor Elizabeth Wainio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

16. Georgine Rose Corrigan

She was returning from a series of business and personal trips. She was not scheduled to take flight 93 but decided to leave early to return for a trade show. Georgine Rose Corrigan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

17. Toshiya Kuge.

Toshiya was a second-year student in the science and engineering school at Waseda University, in Suginami Ward, Tokyo. According to relatives, he left Japanon August 29 and had planned to return Wednesday, September 12, 2001 United Hero: Toshiya Kuge

18. Patricia Cushing.

Mr. Hasenei said the family printed out maps to help Mrs. Cushing get around San Francisco. She had planned to return to her home in Bayonnenext week. baltimore sun

19. Jane Folger.

She was travelling with Patricia Cushin. United Heroes: Patricia Cushing, Jane Folger

20. LORRAINE BAY

A 37-year United veteran, she had chosen Flight 93 over another flight because it was nonstop
http://www.unitedafa.org/res/o/911/m...rraine_bay.htm

21. SANDY BRADSHAW

Married US Airways pilot Phil Bradshaw cut her flights to the bare minimum -- two two-day trips a
month from Newark to San Francisco or to Los Angeles. She was in economy because she'd picked up Flight 93 late in the planning. Ordinarily, she liked working first class. It was a good fit with her gregarious ways. 404 Page Not Found

22. TODD BEAMER

They returned home on Monday, Sept. 10, at 5 p.m. While Beamer could have left that night for a Tuesday business meeting in California, he wanted to spend time with his sons and his wife, who is due
in January with their third child. Passenger: Todd Beamer

23. LEROY HOMER,

It's been a year since that day I saw your name scroll on the TV, listed as one of the victims of the terrorist hijackings. I couldn't believe my eyes, I felt a hole open in my soul, I couldn't fathom that
you were gone from this Earth. I remember I had told Jackie that the chances of you flying that day were slim, and that you'd be OK. I was wrong. Dear LeRoy

24. Edward Porter Felt

He was on a last minute business trip to San Francisco for BEA Systems. Another employee of BEA Systems, Kenneth W. Basnicki was visiting the World Trade Center for a conference and died in the attack.

---

more problems?

Quote:

---

Let's start in 2002:

Three-minute discrepancy in tape
Cockpit voice recording ends before Flight 93's official time of impact

[Extracts]

THE FINAL three minutes of hijacked United Flight 93 are still a mystery more than a year after it crashed in western Pennsylvania - even to grieving relatives who sought comfort in listening to its cockpit tapes in April.

A Daily News investigation has found a roughly three-minute gap between the time the tape goes silent - according to government-prepared transcripts - and the time that top scientists have pinpointed for the crash.

Several leading seismologists agree that Flight 93 crashed last Sept. 11 at 10:06:05 a.m., give or take a couple of seconds. Family members allowed to hear the cockpit voice recorder in Princeton, N.J., last spring were told it stopped just after 10:03.

The FBI and other agencies refused repeated requests to explain the discrepancy.

But the relatives of Flight 93 passengers who heard the cockpit tape April 18 at a Princeton hotel said government officials laid out a timetable for the crash in a briefing and in a transcript that accompanied the recording. Relatives later reported they heard sounds of an on-board struggle beginning at 9:58 a.m., but there was a final "rushing sound" at 10:03, and the tape fell silent.

Vaughn Hoglan, the uncle of passenger Mark Bingham, said by phone from California that near the end there are shouts of "pull up, pull up," but the end of the tape "is inferred - there's no impact." [Philadelphia Daily News, 9/16/2002]


Philadelphia Daily News | 09/16/2002 | Three-minute discrepancy in tape


Okay, so the above article states the last three minutes of the cockpit tape were missing, there is no mention of maniacal hijackers, and the tape ended with a "rushing sound".

Let's move on to 2004:

The passengers continued with their assault, trying to break through the cockpit door. At 10:02 a.m. and 23 seconds, a hijacker said, "Pull it down! Pull it down!"

"The hijackers remained at the controls but must have judged that the passengers were only seconds from overcoming them," the report concludes.

"The airplane headed down; the control wheel was turned hard to the right. The airplane rolled onto its back, and one of the hijackers began shouting, 'Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.'

"With the sounds of the passenger counter-attack continuing, the aircraft plowed into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 580 miles per hour, about 20 minutes' flying time from Washington, D.C." [CNN, 7/23/2004]


CNN.com - Flight 93 hijacker: 'Shall we finish it off?' - Jul 23, 2004



The story has completely changed. We are now told maniacal hijackers flew the plane into the ground at 10:03 with one of them shouting "Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest." The seismic recordings documenting that the plane crashed at 10:06 have been "forgotten".

Now let's move on to 2006:

Three minutes after 10 a.m., passengers seem to be breaking through the cockpit door, fighting with the hijackers in a futile effort to take back the throttle. "Go! Go!" they encourage one another. "Move! Move!" But the terrorists have flipped the plane upside down. They spin it downward.

"Shall we finish it off?" a hijacker asks in Arabic.

In its final plunge, the hijackers shout over and over in Arabic: "Allah is the greatest! Allah is the greatest!" [SFGate, 4/13/2006]

Terrifying tape of Flight 93's final moments / Evidence at Moussaoui trial


Now ALL of the hijackers are shouting "Allah is the greatest! Allah is the greatest!".

Why do I get the feeling that the last minutes of Flight 93's CVR are fabricated?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VisionaryUrbanTactic

The missing wings

















ok guys here is your chance to tell the phd's what happened, highlighted for your reading ease










General Statement by the Panel: "We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations. Our analysis of the detailed evidence implies a staged attack employing a variety of deceptive arrangements. Indeed, every element of the September 11 attacks, including cellphone calls from fast-moving aircraft, has an alternate means of creation." Panel members are scientists, engineers, and other professionals. All contribute through search and research. Members of S.P.I.N.E. may be contacted by emailing [email protected] and entering the name of the member you'd like to contact, along with a brief message.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




List of members: See the up-to-date list at ( you dont really want to see this list of phd's saying that the government is telling you lies do you?)

ok then


SPINE Directory


i guess they dont know what they are talking about either.

---

source= Physics911, by Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VisionaryUrbanTactic

since the info in the last thread hit so close to home that instead of locking the thread, it had to be deleted, can not let the truth air out for too long.

i will be complete in my research here, done MOSTLY with the us governments OWN reports.

let us start with understanding what a "theory" is.



so in other words, for the government's theory of how the wtc buildings failed, it has to have happened before or be able to be tested and acheive the same results.

so to begin with, we now all understand that the government is GUESSING as to what happened.

sort of like how in the 30's the government guessed pot smoking would lead to you doing heroin and killing your family...lol


now, where is the evidence to back up the governments guess?

well they have alot of "this is what must have happened" in the nist and fema reports, but even there own research shows this was not possible.

let us get some stuff out of the way first



ok now some tests done on the steel that was super heated in 45 mins to the point of collapse.







more?








now what about those raging fires in the south tower?





notice reference numbers in the above quoted text


almost every single one of them comes from nist themself

---

NIST and the World Trade Center : Publications

all the important info from above, can be found with numbers by them, directing you to the part of the nist report they are located in, it could not be any easier, i mean really.