I read that there were others that survived from other claims but that was suppressed. I also read that it's a virtual impossibility that FDRs in general would not survive airplane crashes. They are made to survive any kind of crash. It's possible that they may not be found, for example, if the plane crashed in the middle of an ocean, but these planes all crashed on land. I read the printed material and scanned through the many pages of parameters and graphs (plots of SSFDR data) from the attachments. There is not one single page that contains: 1. A detailed verifiable chain of custody for the PHYSICAL FDR. 2. A verified photo or other proof depicting the PHYSICAL serial number of the FDR. 3. A verified photographic or other verifiable match to the log(s) that would clearly prove the FDR did indeed belong to the actual airplane designated as UA Flight 93. Now I will never claim to be an expert in forensic airplane crash investigations but I do know quite a bit about software. IMO, a legitimate forensic investigation would include a minimum of the above to positively identify the PHYSICAL FDR to the plane in question. Without that, no one can know for certain that that specific FDR does indeed belong to UA 93. Data, programs and documents can always be rigged/forged to make something look like what one wants to make it look like. But thanks anyway for that information, unfortunately, it does nothing to show that a detailed forensic airplane investigation was ever conducted. The document also says nothing about a physical inventory of any other recovered airplane parts and the matching of the serial numbers from those parts to the logs for UA 93. But keep trying if you must, it's OBVIOUS all you want to do is constantly defend the indefensible and question nothing about it. If it was genuine, it would not require your rabid defense, it would stand on its own merit.
One of your premises is not quite accurate. Collisions between aircraft are not always fatal to both, though they usually are. In the late 70's out near San Diego, a Cessna collided with an airliner, I think 727, and both crashed. In the early 70's as I recall, a helicopter collided with a Bonanza. The airplane was lost, but the Gazelle helicopter landed fine. There have seen several instances of small aircraft colliding in such a manner than both go to the ground, but nobody is harmed. Jes sayin'....
The reports are fraudulent and not based on any legitimate investigation. For the twin towers, the "detailed engineering studies that explained the building collapses" consists of "the collapses were inevitable". For WTC7, the "detailed engineering studies that explained the building collapses" consists of a column 79 failure THEORY that uses fabricated data and omits critical structural components. I agree, see above. See above. There's more detail on that subject in the thread titled "Tony Szamboti Discusses his WTC7 Discovery". http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/456693-tony-szamboti-discusses-his-wtc7-discovery.html And I'm going to post additional material in that thread shortly.
"There have seen several instances of small aircraft colliding in such a manner than both go to the ground, but nobody is harmed." Are there any records to be had?
The statement that you defend and he does not believe has not been proved by the person making the statement (inevitable), and cannot be proved by you. WTF should he believe a claim that has not and cannot be proved?
so again you totally refuse to actually discuss any of your points, what, afraid your glorious points will be proven lame?
Over the years I have seen pictures of an event in which one small aircraft did not see the other small aircraft in front of and below it, as they were both landing at a small grass runway with no control tower. They both went to the ground and nobody was harmed, though the aircraft were damaged. Call this anecdotal evidence if you wish, but it can and has happened.
Two things, this involved two smaller aircraft, and was done at low speed. in the case of the 9/11/2001 events, the aircraft was allegedly traveling very fast ( 540 mph ..... ) or?
FDR's are not designed to withstand the impact of a skyscraper falling on them. That explains the destruction of those two FDR's. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...214/what-would-it-take-to-destroy-a-black-box The Pentagon impact consisted of 6 walls of 10" reinforced concreted plus 33 steel reinforced pillars. If the FDR hit even a single one of those objects at 500+ mph it would have been destroyed because it is not designed to withstand impacts in excess of 310 mph. There is an in depth engineering discussion on the pentagon impact at this site; http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x35144 These two posts provide the calculations and the relevant data. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x35144#35224 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x35144#35227 Given all of the above the FDR's were never designed to survive what happened on 9/11. I have already exposed the fallacy that there was no FDR investigation on the sole surviving FDR above so I see no point whatsoever in pursuing this any further. The facts already exist for those whose minds are open and capable of understanding what the investigations have uncovered.
WTC7 was a cascading failure. Nitpicking over exactly how the original beam failed is irrelevant since the end result is same. The WTC towers were also a cascading failure but of a different sort. In both instances it was the fact that fires were burning out of control to the point where the supports were weakened past their ability to continue to carry the load on them. Once that point was reached and the initial failure occurred the rest of the supports would no longer have been capable of withstanding the additional loads placed on the them hence the cascading collapses.
"FDR's are not designed to withstand the impact of a skyscraper falling on them. That explains the destruction of those two FDR's." To address this point, the search of the rubble turned up small bits of human remains in addition to bits specifically identified as pieces of computers, and peoples ID, key rings ( etc... ) So with this noted, why was there not even any identifiable bit of an FDR found in the rubble? The pulverization of everything was so complete as to erase any trace of there having been FDR boxes in the rubble?
From the link you provided: "It is extremely rare for a black box to be destroyed," says Hamilton. "Black boxes have traditionally outperformed their design." Hamilton says he cannot think of a single case in which both devices have been damaged to the point of there being no useful data. "It would take a concentrated fire beyond its design strength, or an impact so high that it would be beyond what it could withstand." It doesn't say anything about the "impact of a skyscraper", that's just your opinion. But given that the WTC towers were blown to bits, you could be right. But that they weren't found is in dispute anyway: http://www.consensus911.org/press-releasesept-10-2014/ And the claim is that the black box for Flight 77 was indeed recovered, despite the allegedly incredible impact, therefore also contradicting your claim (if it is in fact the real McCoy black box and not a plant). You can't have it both ways but I know you try real hard because rather than question anything, it's always all about defending the indefensible Mr. Apologist. You haven't exposed anything except your own fallacy. The claim and the fact is that there was forensic airplane crash investigation into any of the alleged 4 airplane crashes on 9/11 and there is nothing available that contradicts that claim and the document you provided is not it Mr. Apologist. But certainly do stop pursuing this any further, your opinions have little to do with reality and a lot more to do with defending the indefensible. And certainly what the pretend investigations covered up. But that's for those whose minds and eyes are open, it's not for rabid OCT defenders who question nothing about the OCT, that would be those who wear blinders.
Yes, it "cascaded" mostly in one piece, like any other CD. It's not about "nitpicking" over how one alleged beam "failed" as theorized by NIST, it's about a massive fraud perpetrated by NIST. A fraud that is a good portion of the OCT that was/is being used as pretext to commit genocide and other human rights atrocities by the US government, if you mean that "nitpicking". Yes they were, a cascading failure from being blown to bits top down in sequence. Yes I'm quite aware of NIST mythology, there's no need to regurgitate it, unless you're being well paid for it of course, then there is good reason. No questions then? I understand, you're not being paid to ask questions (if you're being paid of course, because if you're doing this free that's a whole different animal).
You don't need a forensic investigation when you know why they crashed. Besides, this was an FBI investigation so the NTSB provided the data they had to the FBI.
The mountains of rubble at the WTC site were not sifted through to identify what was human versus what was furniture, building materials, furniture, luggage, computers, plumbing, etc, etc. It was literally only things that survived by accident that could be readily identified, such as a shoe, that were set aside as a means to identify victims. The pile of rubble burned for weeks afterwards so the orange paint on the FDR's would have been charred assuming that it miraculously survived the impact way beyond it's design specifications. Then being burned followed by being pulverized in the collapse means that whatever pieces were left were unrecognizable and any "data" would have been destroyed. Given the number of people involved in the cleanup afterwards if anything resembling the FDR's was to be found it would have been spotted and reported. Yes, I know some of the people who were at ground zero cleaning it up and some even suffered from PTSD as a result. It was a traumatic experience and no one was trying to hide anything.
Nothing was "covered up" and a panel of self selected "9/11 truthers" doesn't have a whole lot of credibility given that they still swallow the debunked nonsense that the towers were "blown up" after planes just "magically happened to hit the exact right place on the towers". Climb a tree and sit down on a limb that can bear your weight. Now start sawing through the limb between yourself and the tree. At some point the limb breaks, right? You don't need to saw all the way through the limb. You only need to saw through the limb to the point where your weight times the distance to the cut exceeds the ability of the remaining limb to bear your weight. The exact same principle applies to what happened on 9/11. The planes severed the towers thereby compromising the supports ability to bear the weight of the portion of the buildings above the point of impact. The fires then proceeded to weaken the remaining supports until they could no longer handle the weight. No explosives were needed to bring down the towers.
One of the features that is totally unprecedented is the level of destruction of everything, the North tower had a restaurant at the top, and this would have included all sorts of utensils, heavy cook-ware, refrigerators, freezers, ovens .... and what of all that gear was identified post - collapse? not to mention the heavy electronic gear that would have had to be in place to feed that large antenna on the roof. One of the firefighters is quoted to have said "you don't see a desk, a chair, a computer, ..... all I saw of a telephone was a piece of a keypad" There are all sorts of things missing from the towers, junk-food machines, microwaves, drinking fountains, doorknobs .... whatever, WHY should the destruction be so complete. and people make excuses by saying that things do not survive well when a 110 story skyscraper falls on them, but this is really inaccurate, because the stuff from the restaurant at the top of the north tower would have fallen on top of most of the rest of the building and could not possibly be described as having a 110 story skyscraper fall on it.
You keep repeating the same silly nonsense. It has nothing to do with YOUR needs or what YOU think YOU know, this is basic SOP (do I need to explain what that is for you?) in any and every airplane crash. No one can possibly know anything for certain without such an investigation and it's not just for the purpose of identifying what may or may not have caused the crash, there are many other issues that can be uncovered in such an investigation. No one can know what those may or may not be without conducting an investigation. And what may or may not be uncovered may or may not lead to factors that require further investigation. They claim they didn't even recover most of the FDRs, that makes it even more critical to conduct a forensic investigation. You have no understanding whatsoever of the purpose of a forensic investigation. In this case, this was after all the worst terrorist attack in modern US history. That was nice of them but it has nothing to do the reality that ALL airplane crashes require a forensic investigation as long as there are parts available, there are (or there should be) absolutely NO exceptions.
The roof of the building had been accelerating during the fall from 110 stories so it would have pulverized whatever was in the restaurant below it when it impacted. The roof was strong enough to hold the antenna and the viewing deck so it wasn't flimsy plus it had all of that momentum from the fall.
"The roof of the building had been accelerating during the fall from 110 stories so it would have pulverized whatever was in the restaurant below it when it impacted. The roof was strong enough to hold the antenna and the viewing deck so it wasn't flimsy plus it had all of that momentum from the fall." Have you seen the drawings of the "hat truss" ... its a lattice work of steel, and this was allegedly the cause of the total pulverization of all that stuff? and then when the hat truss got to ground level, it just self destructed, right? Just like in the Bazant paper. The total destruction of three skyscrapers without CD is such a total fiction, its an elaborate hoax, the cosmic improbability generator would have to be working over-time!
Has any conspiracy theorist ever actually been on the construction site of a skyscraper? Have any of them ever actually seen an I-beam in real life? Do any of them know how much a single I-beam weighs? Do any of them understand the basics of mass times speed and how that momentum will increase the impact?
Sorry to disappoint you but it was an FBI investigation and everyone except the insecure conspiracy theorist knew why they crashed.
Is it documented anyplace, exactly how much of either FLT11, FLT175, FLT77 or FLT93 was recovered and how was all that wreckage verified as to have actually been part of the aircraft? Where are the airplanes?
So where is the forensic report from the FBI for all 4 alleged airplane crashes? Just saying there was an FBI investigation doesn't mean anything. It doesn't matter what everyone thinks they know or don't, it has nothing to do with the fact that there is no record of any forensic airline crash investigation for any of the alleged 4 airplanes (SOP), which is unprecedented. You can repeat your irrelevant mantra all you want, it doesn't change the facts.
