Sunday, December 10, 2006

Clunkity Clunk

On this week's episode of Truth Jihad, Kevin Barrett interviews "Sophia", the creator of 9/11 Mysteries. Sophia comes off rather bizarrely, rambling on about spirituality, and how she handed out 9/11 Mysteries DVDs to a group of 12 year old boys who questioned whether "Bush is a fag".

This particular passage nearly made me fall off my couch from laughing so hard. I think Sophia is giving Judy "Keebler Elves Death Star" Wood a run for her money with her billiard ball theory. If you want to listen to it, it is at the 10:15 mark of the second hour of yesterday's show.

Sophia: Right, people want me to be absolutely precise. Umm, I say that the demolition wave is moving faster than gravity itself. It is making the path for the demolition, which is falling at free fall speed. Virtual free fall speed. Again it is hard to determine how long did it take for the towers to fall visually, and I know there is seismic data that pegs it, you know, a little more accurately.

Regardless, I tell people, these buildings fell in 10 seconds, they’re 110 stories. Now let’s just use our mouth to demonstrate this. If a pancake collapse can be described as “clunkity clunk” How many times can you say that in 10 seconds? And if one floor is “clunkity clunk clunkity clunk” you cannot say that 110 times in 10 seconds. So let’s even give it the benefit of the doubt, let’s just take off the “clunk”. Let’s just say “clunkity”. You can’t say that in 10 seconds, 110 times.

Caller: You’ve done such an excellent job of bringing that forward.


No, this is not a parody. These people are serious.

95 Comments:

At 10 December, 2006 11:14, Blogger rocketdoodle said...

Now I know what the sound of one moron patting herself on the back is--

"clunkity-clunk."

Useful information.

 
At 10 December, 2006 11:23, Blogger S. King said...

The rocks in her brain are going "clunkity clunk, clunkity clunk" fast enough.

Amazing.

_______________________________________________
Professional psychological assessment of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Minds on vacation, mouths working overtime.

(With apologies to Mose Allison)

 
At 10 December, 2006 12:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder if my physics professor will accept "clunkity clunk" answers for my mechanics exam.

 
At 10 December, 2006 12:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm a LIHOP CT'ist, I have written many articles on Liberty Forum that go way beyond any typical 9/11 conspiracy (i.e. WTC 7, Demolition, Norad stand down, "Bush is fag", "clunkity clunk") LOL, that's why I try my hardest to keep myself away from these 'twoofers'.

Anyways, check out my new blog: conspiracytonight.blogspot.com

 
At 10 December, 2006 12:53, Blogger James B. said...

I want to see you try using "is moving faster than gravity itself" on your exam.

 
At 10 December, 2006 13:05, Blogger remdem said...

There is no way she seriously believes this. She has to be secretly mocking them. I'm sure not even the troofers would believe this.

And yet, they do. So much for my faith in humanity.

 
At 10 December, 2006 13:09, Blogger Alex said...

I always used "the CIA stole my homework" to good effect.

 
At 10 December, 2006 13:23, Blogger shawn said...

I'm a LIHOP CT'ist

Then you aren't a critical thinker, and stop insulting those of us who are by using the phrase.

 
At 10 December, 2006 13:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of the callers had this ingenious revelation:

"I've always felt that it would be great, an incredible project if somebody went and tried to interview the hijackers that are still supposedly alive. You find a couple of those folks that are still alive and it would blow the roof off the one side of this story."

Hmmm, I wonder why we haven't seen a video interview with any of the 9 staged hijackers who are still alive. This would be the first real evidence that something's foul.

Too bad you can't talk to the dead.

 
At 10 December, 2006 13:32, Blogger CHF said...

Hey isn't 9/11 Mysteries the flick that BG's always telling us is sooo much more serious that LC?

 
At 10 December, 2006 14:08, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shawn, what I mean is that I believe in the LIHOP CT. When you first read the word 'LIHOP', what came to your mind?

 
At 10 December, 2006 14:24, Blogger Just Me said...

I love the world of conspiracy thoery physics...it cracks me up how clueless these people are and they actually think they sound intelligent...they'd appear to be more intelligent if they just kept they mouths closed.

The "moving faster than gravity itself" part is my favorite. Somehow in all of my physics classes I must have missed that gravity moves. The "virtual free fall speed" is great too. Guess what? Sometimes things do fall at "virtual" free fall speed, what good would physical models (equations) be if they didn't describe physical phenomena fairly accurately when they're used(correctly, which is a stretch for some people)??

Is it so hard to crack a book and at least make an attempt to understand what you're talking about? Seriously, these people know (and by "know" I mean they know the words, not that they have any understanding of them) just enough technical sounding terms to sound knowlegable (sp??) to people who are more clueless than themselves.

 
At 10 December, 2006 14:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

CHF said...
Hey isn't 9/11 Mysteries the flick that BG's always telling us is sooo much more serious that LC?


I haven't seen 9/11 Mysteries, nor have I recommended it.

 
At 10 December, 2006 14:57, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm considering if Sophia should be added to my suspected disinfo agents.

Here's my favorite so far.

Ms. Tralla

Honesty, I think Sophia is just kind of a trippy sounding gal.

 
At 10 December, 2006 15:05, Blogger shawn said...

What bg doesn't really is crying "disinformation" all the time is a form of disinformation.

Don't ya just love irony?

(PS There are no disinformation agents. There's no need for them.)

 
At 10 December, 2006 15:07, Blogger James B. said...

BG, prove you aren't a disinfo agent.

BTW you come up with an explanation of what was dishonest about that post I made about DRG lying about missiles at the Pentagon? You have had 5 months to come up with an answer.

 
At 10 December, 2006 15:09, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I found to references to "Sophia Shafquat", which tie her to being the Sophia in quesiton.

1. Arctic Beacon

2. Text toward middle of web page Welcome to the 911 Truth DVD Project web site.

Does anybody know, is Shafquat a real name? Is it Native American? Why would you avoid using it?

 
At 10 December, 2006 15:13, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James,

I made several posts of explanation what I thought was dishonest and why. If you think I'm been unfair in making a accusation toward you that I'm not willing to support, I'll have to go back and review the details. Would you post the link of the post (or describe the title) so I know what you are reffering to?

 
At 10 December, 2006 15:22, Blogger James B. said...

You never addressed the original post you made the accusation on. It is linked in the recent DRG post that I made.

 
At 10 December, 2006 15:32, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James,

I thought the following pretty much sumed up where we stand:

R.Lange said...
Does the post that James made here attack and refute the meat of DRG's arguments?

Did it ever claim to?

Absolutely not.

I wasn't assuming tha R.Lange spoke for you, but I didn't see you disavow his words.


I thought this comment exchange pretty much established my reason for calling you dishonest.

If you indeed has refused to deal "in toto" with DRG, and choose to pick at the edges without an overall willingness to discuss how right he is in say, his book about the 9/11 Commission performance, it is dishonest.

 
At 10 December, 2006 15:35, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Based on further googling, looks like "Shafquat" is a somewhat common Arabic first name for a male.

 
At 10 December, 2006 16:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So this is 9/11 Mysteries on Google Video

Sounds like Sophia narrating.

I have seen part of this before. I may have even recommended it. I think I still recommend it.

I read somewhere that one objection to this vid is that the guy at the very beginning who says he's a conservative Republican is fibbing.

 
At 10 December, 2006 16:03, Blogger Pat said...

BG, she was referred to by that name (actually I think the first name is Sofia) in a recent article in the East Valley Tribune.

I strongly suspect that's not her real name.

 
At 10 December, 2006 16:09, Blogger Pat said...

BG, yes, she admitted in an Air America Phoenix interview that Brad was not a conservative.

It's a typical CD movie, but she does get into the Rick Siegel footage as well. Embarrassingly, she points to Siegel's reported times of explosions in the South Tower, and says, "Then the tower fell," while showing us the collapse of the North Tower (you can tell by the antenna). A huge goof, the kind that somebody who's been paying attention to this stuff for a month or two might make.

 
At 10 December, 2006 16:21, Blogger James B. said...

So I am not allowed to point out where David Ray Griffin is dishonest, unless I point out absolutely everything he says that is dishonest? A bit of a impossible high standard. This is you typical ADD approach, I could post 50 things that he misrepresented, and you would always change the subject to yet one more thing that he said that I haven't talked about.

I have never claimed to come up with absolutely definitive accounts of everything that deals with 9/11, but the one thing I do claim is that if you investigate the claims of any 9/11 denier, you will find that they use lies and misrepresenations. Always, every time, it doesn't matter who they are. We won't have the time to get to all of them, but if you picked any one of them at random, you would find this.

That should tell you something.

 
At 10 December, 2006 16:23, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pat,

"....A huge goof..."

With respect to Sophia, I'm inclined to withdraw any suggestion that she's a "op", "spy" or disinfo agent.

I would certainly prefer a higher quality spokesperson for those of us questioning the official story.

Whether you find it convincing or not, I believe that this video, with it's focus on the Towers, makes a much tighter and cleaner argument than Loose Change. Perhaps you would say that's faint praise.

I make the comparison to Loose Change because my point has been for quite a while that those of you who are cold to the arguments of Loose Change should examine videos such as 9/11 Eyewitness for more direct video evidence and focused argumentation.

 
At 10 December, 2006 16:23, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pat,

"....A huge goof..."

With respect to Sophia, I'm inclined to withdraw any suggestion that she's a "op", "spy" or disinfo agent.

I would certainly prefer a higher quality spokesperson for those of us questioning the official story.

Whether you find it convincing or not, I believe that this video, with it's focus on the Towers, makes a much tighter and cleaner argument than Loose Change. Perhaps you would say that's faint praise.

I make the comparison to Loose Change because my point has been for quite a while that those of you who are cold to the arguments of Loose Change should examine videos such as 9/11 Eyewitness for more direct video evidence and focused argumentation.

 
At 10 December, 2006 16:32, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

I would certainly prefer a higher quality spokesperson for those of us questioning the official story.

LOL!!!

 
At 10 December, 2006 16:39, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 10 December, 2006 16:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James B. said...
So I am not allowed to point out where David Ray Griffin is dishonest, unless I point out absolutely everything he says that is dishonest? A bit of a impossible high standard. This is you typical ADD approach, I could post 50 things that he misrepresented, and you would always change the subject to yet one more thing that he said that I haven't talked about.

I have never claimed to come up with absolutely definitive accounts of everything that deals with 9/11, but the one thing I do claim is that if you investigate the claims of any 9/11 denier, you will find that they use lies and misrepresenations. Always, every time, it doesn't matter who they are. We won't have the time to get to all of them, but if you picked any one of them at random, you would find this.

That should tell you something.


James,

Based on what you are saying here, I should withdraw my the label of "dishonest" to describe your posts here. Taking you at your word, your lack of balance and understanding must be related to your lack of review of materials and sources of evidence rather than dishonesty.

Let me ask you this question. Have you been a Rush listener over the the past 5 or 10 tens? Even if you have not, are you familiar with his basic style? Are you familiar his skill that he used on air to support Republicans, disparage democrats or liberals? I don't know how much help he had, but as the Bush Presidency has proven to be more and more dysfunctional, Rush continued "carrying the water" for Bush until the repudiation of the Nov. election, and then he admitted, he had defended the indensible with Bush. In Rush's case, I don't think I'm out of line to point out a clear dishonesty in Rush's behavior. I would assert that he was using the logic that the ends (of supporting Repubicans in general) justified the means, which is sometimes an argument that I can support.

Now why am I bringing up Rush and Bush. Of course, there's no direct correlation of this to 9/11. However, there is a correlation between the "slime your opponents" style that Rush uses, and the approach this this blog is taking. I think there is a huge similarity. And I find it hard that anyone (except the insiders responsible for 9/11, and those who have benefited) would support the ends justify the means argument with respect to covering up 9/11.

 
At 10 December, 2006 16:53, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 10 December, 2006 16:55, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Based on what you are saying here, I should withdraw my the label of "dishonest" to describe your posts here. Taking you at your word, your lack of balance and understanding must be related to your lack of review of materials and sources of evidence rather than dishonesty.

F****n Douchebag

 
At 10 December, 2006 17:03, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

That is clasic!!
The interview begins with Sofia being pissed that Kevin kept her waiting and commening about his "long introduction?

LOL kids made fun of her the other day "saying rude things about Bush"
LOL!!

 
At 10 December, 2006 17:04, Blogger James B. said...

BG, I have never claimed to be impartial. This is not the New York Times, I write my opinion and am proud of it.

I do claim, however, to maintain the highest levels of honesty. I have never lied about or misrepresented anything. The fact that you may not happen to like my conclusions is irrelevent.

I can post dozens, if not hundreds of examples of blatant mispresentations by just about every member of the movement. In fact many of them you yourself has denounced as "disinformation". Yet when asked to show a single case of dishonesty, in the nearly 1000 posts Pat and I have made, the closest you can come is to disagree with our conclusions, or bring up yet another item in your infinite list of items that we should have addressed instead.

You have admitted more cases of dishonesty in your own movement (you conveniently label this disinfo) than you can come up with us. That should tell you something.

 
At 10 December, 2006 17:07, Blogger shawn said...

BG, I have never claimed to be impartial. This is not the New York Times

The Grey Lady? Impartial?

I must be reading the faux New York Times or something.

 
At 10 December, 2006 17:11, Blogger James B. said...

Claiming to be impartial, and being impartial are two different things.

 
At 10 December, 2006 17:21, Blogger shawn said...

Claiming to be impartial, and being impartial are two different things.

Indeed.

 
At 10 December, 2006 17:35, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Wasnt it BG who I started my posting of debunking David Ray Griffin for? Should I just continue. I think I got up to his 15th of 105 points before I got bored debunking him. He is so easy, because his CT believes are the garden variety, well debunked groul we all hate to eat.

TAM

 
At 10 December, 2006 18:11, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James,

I appreciate you comments.

As of result of your exposition and its logic, I will endeavor to take a more respectful tone, although it certainly seems to me like you and Pat are being unnecessarily provocative in the tenor of your posts.

With respect to one of your comments, to wit, 'In fact many of them you yourself has denounced as "disinformation"', I'd like to clarify something.

As much as some of you here may be surprised to hear this, when it comes to what factors I consider when trying to evaluate an "9/11 truth advocate", I look for what all of us seem to agree on makes an individual a good expert witness in court or elsewhere.

I know it's kind of boring to go over, but if we are to be in the position of trying to review the facts of any situation, we all value traits such as:

the witness divulging his/her real identify, his background, his demonstratable areas of expertise, his affiliations, his previous work product.

I haven't ever been on a jury, and I only know of expert witnesses being used based on information from a few lawyer friends, but I don't think the concept of what lends credibility is too controversial. Of course, there are cases where there may be monkey business going on behind the scenes, but in general I would be likely to take the facts at face value (as far as police reports, eye-witnesses, etc.).

I know some of you may hoot me down when I say this, but I'm not a conspiracy freak.

So what's my point? My point for now, with reference to "Sophia" is that she's a terrible source, for reasons that have nothing to do with the content of the video she was part of making, or the possible truth of accuracy of what she claims about 9/11.

I don't agree with slaming her as silly as some of you are doing. However, there is so much about her that I would guess the average person would find discrediting that I would say:

"If this is the best we've got to put forward as a face to the public, we should really stop wasting our time on this and do something productive."

 
At 10 December, 2006 18:22, Blogger James B. said...

I haven't ever been on a jury, and I only know of expert witnesses being used based on information from a few lawyer friends, but I don't think the concept of what lends credibility is too controversial.

No kidding. Which is why if I were a lawyer on a case involving the collapse of a building, who would I call as an expert witness?

A. A retired philosophy professor
B. A unemployed mechanical engineer who compares skyscrapers to trees.
C. A 22 year old pizza boy who makes videos on his laptop.
or
D. An entire staff of Ivy League trained structural engineers who spent years and millions of dollars going over the collapse.

Think about this one for a minute and get back to me.

 
At 10 December, 2006 18:46, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Think about this one for a minute and get back to me."

I don't need to think about it. If we are talking about pure logic, such as in a chess game, and we had a board position where you had a queen left and I only had a pawn, I would agree (assuming I've got my chess logic right), I'm toast.

This isn't a game however. We are talking about the truth of who is behind an event of tremendous consequence.

It's not like any of us who have serious doubts about 9/11 are ever given a choice:

You can have DRG as a spokesperson, or you can have xyz structural engineer phd.

By pointing out how pathetic our team is, you aren't telling me anything new, or creating a better case than you already had by being pedantic about this.

My guess is that the major divergence between your argument and my argument seems to be:

Your Side:

1) Analysis of what happened on 9/11 is best left up to the experts.

2) There no reason to veer from #1 based on extenuating circumstances.

The way the situation lays out for 9/11 GSS camp is that:



1) There is no reason that some of the evidence is out of our reach as average joes to comprehend.

2) The are many incontrovertible reasons to believe the experts can't be trusted to deal with the totality of the obvious malfeasance.

So, if one thinks his understanding of a situation is accurate and one stands true to one's core principles, the fact that one's expert witnesses are bush league (no pun intened) is just something you try to work around.

 
At 10 December, 2006 18:58, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Clarification:

I said you aren't

'creating a better case than you already had "...

I should have qualified that by saying you are not changing my mind or the way I look at the evidence.

Quite possibly, your rhetoric (of generally making truthers look silly) may elevate the power of your argument other readers eyes and you certainly have every right to aim for that goal.

 
At 10 December, 2006 19:10, Blogger CHF said...

Hear that everyone?

We can't trust experts but we CAN trust BG.

He's got da twoof.

 
At 10 December, 2006 19:15, Anonymous Anonymous said...

CHF said...

Hear that everyone?

We can't trust experts but we CAN trust BG.

He's got da twoof.


Perhaps the following will sound pathetic. It's not, it's just what I need to say.

I don't deserve your abuse. Could you consider stopping? If you don't agree and keep it, that's you choice and I'll quit asking.

 
At 10 December, 2006 19:29, Blogger R.Lange said...

I don't deserve your abuse.

Prove it.

 
At 10 December, 2006 19:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

R.Lange said...

How would I prove it? What is the appropriate behavior for those who find themselves at variance with this blog's message?

 
At 10 December, 2006 19:38, Blogger CHF said...

BG,

you are a coward, a shameless liar, and an illogical fool. You have proven it over and over and over again.

I tried reasoning with you but it's a waste of time.

I will stop mocking you when you prove that you are deserving of something more.

 
At 10 December, 2006 19:47, Blogger Lavoisier said...

BG.

Let's take hypothetical engineer A, Joe. Joe went to a good high school, and upon graduating attended Cornell University for an undergrad degree in engineering, 4.0 GPA, magna cum laude. Went to MIT for graduate school, worked under a very well respected advisor, produced a great dissertation. Joe got his Ph.D. in engineering and moved on to a professorship in a top-tier instutition.

Engineer Joe worked on the NIST report, with many like-minded colleagues, and believes that his work is solid engineering and good science.

Do you believe that you have the same ability to contribute to Joe's line of work?

 
At 10 December, 2006 19:49, Anonymous Anonymous said...

chf,

I guess it's back to the slugfest then.

 
At 10 December, 2006 19:51, Blogger R.Lange said...

What is the appropriate behavior for those who find themselves at variance with this blog's message?

This, of course, is not my blog, so this isn't posted with any illusion of authority, but...

Civility is not a replacement for rational thought. In more than few places you've walked to the brink of understanding, then slinked away in fear of making the jump. (e.g. Points regarding WTC7. You agree that the preponderance of evidence points to it being a "natural" failure, yet, in the end, you still insist that it was demolished).

Basically, stop being intellectually dishonest.

 
At 10 December, 2006 19:53, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lavoisier said...

In the abstract, of course not.

If I could talk to Joe over the phone or in person, and ask him few questions about his involvement in looking at the evidence, and his involvement in producing the reports, it would be a major step in the right direction.

 
At 10 December, 2006 19:53, Blogger CHF said...

BG doesn't need an education in these issues, Lavoisier.

He's got the Internet which, as everyone knows, is the same thing.

Why I'm sure BG could build a skyscraper tomorrow if he really wanted to.

 
At 10 December, 2006 19:56, Blogger R.Lange said...

If I could talk to Joe over the phone or in person, and ask him few questions about his involvement in looking at the evidence, and his involvement in producing the reports, it would be a major step in the right direction.

Interesting. You've never implied that you even tried this approach with the actual NIST investigators. What gives?

 
At 10 December, 2006 19:57, Blogger Lavoisier said...

So are you saying that Joe, and his colleagues, were compromised?

That they did bad science for a bribe, or they were coerced, or threatened?

 
At 10 December, 2006 19:59, Blogger CHF said...

So are you saying that Joe, and his colleagues, were compromised? That they did bad science for a bribe, or they were coerced, or threatened?

Don't ask BG to get specific. He hates that.

All the twoofers know is that experts are wrong.

Don't ask how; they just are.

 
At 10 December, 2006 20:06, Anonymous Anonymous said...

avoisier said...

With respect to NIST, my most basic questions starts with:

1. Who set the agenda for the work that was done?

2. Who wrote the final reports?

We basically already know that, even though the FEMA WTC 7 report had included an admission of a complete failure to explain the collapse, the steps to assemble the necessary resources and for these resources to do there work, drags on as we speak.

No one at NIST has stepped forward to defend their reports in a Q/A forum.

Regardless of how smart and qualified the researchers were that did the work, this is outrageous.

I think I'm correct in the understanding that NIST won't even release details on much of the modeling they did to support their conclusions.

I simply don't think it's unreasonable to ask for accountability behind the reports.

 
At 10 December, 2006 20:09, Blogger CHF said...

OK. BG

Let's say the NIST and FEMA reports were complete shite.

Who would you trust to write a more accurate one?

Names please.

 
At 10 December, 2006 20:12, Blogger CHF said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 10 December, 2006 20:17, Blogger Lavoisier said...

BG.

Let me see if I understand your argument.

1. The NIST report supports the official story.

2. I, BG, don't support the official story.

3. Because they are very smart people, and skilled at what they do, there must be a polluting agenda there.


Is this all you have, or do you have specific scientifically based reasons for not accepting their report? And if so, what are your qualifications to have these objectsions?

 
At 10 December, 2006 20:28, Blogger R.Lange said...

Regardless of how smart and qualified the researchers were that did the work, this is outrageous.

Why?

 
At 11 December, 2006 00:43, Blogger Democrat said...

Hé, I studied sample #34 of the mere 236 steel samples (0,3% of the steel) and found something strange. It doesn't necessarily mean anything, but I'm reporting this to my boss. If he doesn't follow up, I'll start writing letters to his boss or his boss or the newspapers or...

to wind up just like Kevin Ryan trying to bring up one very small and non-conclusive item in the towers' collapses: fired.

Don't ask questions.

 
At 11 December, 2006 04:11, Blogger telescopemerc said...

to wind up just like Kevin Ryan trying to bring up one very small and non-conclusive item in the towers' collapses: fired.

You ignore waterboy's professional dishonesty. Pretending to be something you are not, and pretending to represent someone you are not is not bringing up 'one very small issue'. Oh, and he lied about ther issue, thank you.

Ryan deserved much more than to be fired.

 
At 11 December, 2006 06:21, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

CHF-You think they should hold a Q/A forum where NIST engineers face the kooks and get screamed at about laser beams, thermite and how they're all working for the Jews?

No, CHF I don't think that would work. How about the NIST engineers produce a report that does not violate the Quality Control Act, two a report that can be used in a court of law, and three be interviewed by the public in a public setting?

That is beyond a resonable request.

 
At 11 December, 2006 07:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The first thing I thought, when I saw the quote from Kevin Ryan in Loose Change, was "Who the heck did they get from the UL to say that, the janitor?!" It was really amazingly ignorant and wrong in everything it said, far too much so to come from anyone credible and willing to attatch their name to it.

When it turned out he was a water filter tester, that was hilarious. He wasn't fired for whistleblowing or anything like that, either. First of all, I would expect to be fired from my company if I presumed to speak for us, but was not authorized, even if what I was saying was correct. But, he was so far off base, both professionally and scientifically, that removing him was the very least that the UL could do to disassosciate themselves with him and his statement.

 
At 11 December, 2006 08:43, Blogger Alex said...

How about the NIST engineers produce a report that does not violate the Quality Control Act

What the hell's a quality control act? You mean the Air Quality Control Act? Not sure how that applies...

two a report that can be used in a court of law

That's not the purpose of NIST, but regardless, their report certainly could be used in a court of law if any lawyer chose to do so. I'm not sure where exactly you're getting THAT particular piece of "twoof".

and three be interviewed by the public in a public setting?

That's not the purpose of NIST either, but I'm sure it could be arranged if there were A) any point to it and B) a request by a prominent and reputable organization. However, when the only people asking for that are twoofers, I can't really blame the guys at NIST for ignoring you.

That is beyond a resonable request.

Ah, I see your English has failed you again. The phrase "beyond a reasonable request" in fact means "unreasonable request". So, while your words may have failed you, at least this time one of your sentences was the literal truth.

 
At 11 December, 2006 08:52, Blogger Manny said...

That's not the purpose of NIST, but regardless, their report certainly could be used in a court of law if any lawyer chose to do so. I'm not sure where exactly you're getting THAT particular piece of "twoof".

Actually, that little bit is in fact true. 15 USC 281a provides that
No part of any report resulting from such investigation, or from an investigation under the National Construction Safety Team Act [15 U.S.C. 7301 et seq.], shall be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in such report.


So whilst the assertion itself is true, the twoofers' proposed cure is for NIST to violate the law (or more accurately, for a proposed litigant to violate the law, since of course NIST doesn't bring actions for damages on its own behalf).

 
At 11 December, 2006 09:59, Blogger Alex said...

Interesting. Thanks manny, but if I read that right, it says it can't be used in a CIVIL suit. Doesn't say anything about criminal proceedings.

Either way, I'm curious as to why that is. Maybe it has something to do with liability of NIST, and them not wanting to be involved in civil actions? Anyone know?

 
At 11 December, 2006 10:48, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Alex I'm sorry but I assumed you have read the report and critiques of the report. I was referring to Data Quality Control Act.

I guess you already know Manny has proven you a liar.

Instead of classifying a meeting with the NIST and Troofers, try the NIST and U.S. Citizens, which excludes you.
Second, you don't think there are structural engineers and other experts that would like to question their data or at least view the computer models?

The assertion is that could be used as evidence in a court of law, which of course it can't. In other words, the family members who refused the money from the 'hush' fund, who decide to take legal action against the airports, leaseholders/owners of the WTC complex, or the U.S. government can't use this piece of scientific work as evidence. But yet we as a populace MUST accept it as evidence for the cause of the collapse. Gotcha! Move on citizen.

 
At 11 December, 2006 11:10, Anonymous Anonymous said...

this is brad from 911 Mysteries.

sofia does not use her last name because this is promotion she is doing for the movie, not for her personal benefit, as the above attacks prove.

second i am a life-long conservative republican, if a label is required, although i do have a lot of concern for corporate activities related to supression of inventions and sustainability.

brad
Question911.com

 
At 11 December, 2006 11:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Testing out Anonymous....

If this works, I wish the James or Pat would shut down Anonymous comments.

 
At 11 December, 2006 12:20, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree.

 
At 11 December, 2006 12:20, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I disagree.

 
At 11 December, 2006 12:20, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would like some fruit loops.

 
At 11 December, 2006 12:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I want some Canadian bacon.

 
At 11 December, 2006 12:36, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

the twoofers' proposed cure is for NIST to violate the law (or more accurately, for a proposed litigant to violate the law, since of course NIST doesn't bring actions for damages on its own behalf).

I'm not sure where you get 'violate the law' at. But it would be nice to have the report AS EVIDENCE that could be used in a court of law to be scientifcally defended or attacked, proven or proven wrong. But alas it can't. We must accept it at face value.

Speaking of that, has the NIST report been peer reviewed?

 
At 11 December, 2006 13:34, Blogger Alex said...

Alex I'm sorry but I assumed you have read the report and critiques of the report. I was referring to Data Quality Control Act.

Oh, you mean the Data Quality Act. Jeezus. So when you say "Quality Control Act" you mean "Data Quality Act". And you wonder why people think you're retarded.

Alright, even though you're proven your lack of intellect over and over, I'll give you a chance: show how the NIST report fails to meet the guidelines of the DQA.

I guess you already know Manny has proven you a liar.

Ah. You're one of those "Bush Lied, People Died" idiots aren't you?

Instead of classifying a meeting with the NIST and Troofers, try the NIST and U.S. Citizens, which excludes you.

If any organization of US citizens without mental diseases were to demand such a meeting, I'm sure it could be arranged. Unfortunately for you, no such organization has sown any interest.

Second, you don't think there are structural engineers and other experts that would like to question their data or at least view the computer models?

If there are, we'll hear about it. That is, after all, the target audience of the NIST report. The whole thing is meant to illustrate problems with the design of the WTC buildings which led to it's collapse. From this, engineers can figure out what NOT to do in the future in order to avoid a similar collapse. If there's any serious flaws in the report, you can bet your ass that engineers will want to know what happened.

The assertion is that could be used as evidence in a court of law, which of course it can't.

As I said, this seems to pertain to civil courts only, but I'll deffer to anyone with legal training. And no "Democrat", this doesn't include you, since I'm fairly certain you're full of shit.

I'm not sure where you get 'violate the law' at.

Because using the NIST report as evidence in civil proceedings would be a violation of the law. NIST publishing a report for this purpose would also be a violation of the law. How do you not understand this? You're the one arguing that the NIST report can't be used in a court, but you don't even understand why? Are you kidding?

Speaking of that, has the NIST report been peer reviewed?

OK, I KNOW you're kidding with that part. Good one bud. Very funny. I'm laughing on the inside.

 
At 11 December, 2006 14:10, Blogger Manny said...

Either way, I'm curious as to why that is. Maybe it has something to do with liability of NIST, and them not wanting to be involved in civil actions? Anyone know?

I don't know, but I've got a decent WAG. NIST doesn't have the power to compel testimony that, say, the NTSB does. I suspect that the reason is to encourage people to be forthcoming in their analyses, even their self-analyses, in the interest of generating the best possible report. If people are afraid they'll end up being sued or spending their lives testifying in someone else's suit they might be tempted to hold back information which would be helpful to future designers.

As to criminal matters, I imagine that that would have to come from other federal sources like the FBI. Much like the hijackings themselves -- the NTSB doesn't do criminal investigations even when there is evidence of criminality. That said, I do know that the NTSB does refer factual findings to law enforcement from time to time -- the Valujet crash comes to mind. So I dunno whether there would be a similar procedure for NIST or NCST. Happily, I think that there are few enough instances that it's probably an untested procedure.

 
At 11 December, 2006 16:12, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

It has probably been mentioned, but I will again, for emphasis:

The NIST disclaimer says that the contents of the report cannot be used in a court case WHERE DAMAGES ARE BEING SOUGHT. It makes no claim or disclaim with respect to CRIMINAL CASES!!!

I repeat

IT MAKES NO CLAIM WITH RESPECT TO CRIMINAL CASES!!!!!!!

 
At 11 December, 2006 16:28, Blogger R.Lange said...

SD and his Data Quality Act.

Note: "The DQA has been criticised by the scientific community as a ploy of corporations to suppress the release of government reports contrary to their economic interests."

Oops! Are you a corporate-government shill, SD?

 
At 12 December, 2006 05:28, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Rlange Not the last time I checked. Do you get a bonus at X-mas if you are one?

 
At 12 December, 2006 05:34, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Yes, RLange, and your point being?

 
At 12 December, 2006 06:35, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

I suspect that the reason is to encourage people to be forthcoming in their analyses, even their self-analyses, in the interest of generating the best possible report. If people are afraid they'll end up being sued or spending their lives testifying in someone else's suit they might be tempted to hold back information which would be helpful to future designers.

WHAT!!!??? Let me get this straight. Your guessing the report can't be used in a court of law because people will hold information back for fear of being sued? 'People' wouldn't get sued, the agency would.
So now that it can't be used, they have released all information? That doesn't jive.

There are two plausible explanations. The U.S. government knows that the NIST findings could not withstand the rigors of cross-examination.

Second, the U.S. Government does not want to provide scientific evidence in a civil suit against itself.

This may also explain the use of “probable” frequently – such as “probable cause” and “probable collapse sequence, etc. because they don't really know.

Violation of the QDA
True to its mission statement – NIST did not approach its research on how WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 collapsed from a forensic science perspective. It did not treat its investigation as a crime scene investigation. It based its research on the predetermined conclusions fed to it by the U.S. government. NIST only had one working hypothesis when it started its investigation into how the twin towers collapsed – the 9/11 commission was flawless and complete. NIST did not set out to reach a different conclusion. It purposely set out to validate the conclusion that had already been determined by the media and by the White House – that the twin towers miraculously collapsed in 10 seconds (South Tower) and 11.4 seconds (North Tower) due to the impact of aircraft and ensuing fires. (Yes the seconds are up for debate, however, the fact remains the same.)

If the NIST scientists responsible for the “probable collapse sequence of WTC-1 and WTC-2” had to take the stand in a civil court proceeding, it would quickly be discovered by the world that NIST failed to perform and disseminate its research regarding the collapse of the twin towers in accordance with its own Data Quality Act guidelines. Even a rookie attorney would be able to quickly dissect and dismiss as irrelevant, the NIST conclusions. NIST simply refused to consider and vigorously pursue a second working hypothesis; that the twin towers collapsed as the result of controlled demolition.
Remember all the eyewitnesses, and more importantly, they


The NIST has also violated its own mission statements:
Dissemination means agency initiated or sponsored distribution of information to the public. Dissemination does not include distribution limited to government employees or agency contractors or grantees; intra- or inter-agency use or sharing of government information; and responses to requests for agency records under the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act or other similar law. This definition also does not include distribution limited to correspondence with individuals or persons, press releases, archival records, public filings, subpoenas or adjudicative processes.
As a member of the public, please explain to me where I can gain access to the computer models the NIST used in its report? Explain to me how I can view their evidence? I can't, hence the violation of their own statement.

NIST has violated this mission statement:
Transparency is not defined in the OMB Guidelines, but the Supplementary Information to the OMB Guidelines indicates (p. 8456) that "transparency" is at the heart of the reproducibility standard. The Guidelines state that "The purpose of the reproducibility standard is to cultivate a consistent agency commitment to transparency about how analytic results are generated: the specific data used, the various assumptions employed, the specific analytic methods applied, and the statistical procedures employed. If sufficient transparency is achieved on each of these matters, then an analytic result should meet the reproducibility standard."

In others words, transparency – and ultimately reproducibility – is a matter of showing how you got the results being disseminated.


Sorry Alex, let me clean that up a bit:
According to the OMB: Peer review involves the review of a draft product for quality by specialists in the field who were not involved in producing the draft.

On top of that, the particluar Agency chooses who peer reviews the product.
Sound familiar to the Steven Jones peer review episode?

For agency-sponsored peer review conducted under Sections II and III, this Bulletin strikes a compromise by requiring disclosure of the identity of the reviewers, but not public attribution of specific comments to specific reviewers.

In other words, if a peer reviewer found fault with the science of the report, we would have no idea what the fault was, but only the reviewer's name.

Agencies may decide that peer review should precede an opportunity for public comment to ensure that the public receives the most scientifically strong product (rather than one that may change substantially as a result of peer reviewer suggestions).

I guess the NIST chose not to allow a public peer review period for their report. I wonder why?

Who peer reviewed the NIST report prior to dissemination to the public?

 
At 12 December, 2006 08:39, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Swing Dangler said...


My compliments for your excellent exegesis on NIST, US Govt., etc.

 
At 12 December, 2006 09:51, Blogger Manny said...

WHAT!!!??? Let me get this straight. Your guessing the report can't be used in a court of law because people will hold information back for fear of being sued?

No. I'm asserting with 100% certainty that the report can't be used in a (civil) court of law because the law specifically proscribes that. I'm speculating that the law proscribing it, which was written a generation before the 9-11 terrorist attacks, prohibits reports' use in civil court to encourage parties to structural failures to be more open about why they happened.


'People' wouldn't get sued, the agency would. There would be no cause of action against NIST. You're just making stuff up.

Violation of the QDA

You have no idea what the DQA says, why it exists or how NIST complies with it.


It purposely set out to validate the conclusion that had already been determined by the media and by the White House – that the twin towers miraculously collapsed in 10 seconds (South Tower) and 11.4 seconds (North Tower) due to the impact of aircraft and ensuing fires. (Yes the seconds are up for debate, however, the fact remains the same.)

Everyone who is not insane or a terrorist supporter knows that the towers collapsed because planes hit them and fires ensued. NIST's job was to find out the exact mechanism. That said, they did address the insane and/or evil hypothesis that explosives were used. There was no evidence to support that hypothesis.

The NIST has also violated its own mission statements:

(snip)

As a member of the public, please explain to me where I can gain access to the computer models the NIST used in its report? Explain to me how I can view their evidence? I can't, hence the violation of their own statement.


Actually, if you've got a copy of LS-DYNA lying around on your home Cray I'm sure they'd be happy to supply the input data.

According to the OMB...

You also know nothing about the OMB peer review proposals. You only need to know two things for purposes of the NIST report. 1) The OMB proposals do not apply to it because it is not a statement of Influential Scientific Information and 2) In any case the OMB rules apply only to projects initiated after their adoption; the NIST report would not qualify.

Who peer reviewed the NIST report prior to dissemination to the public? NIST is not an academic organization and doesn't use peer review in the sense that a journal does. That said, every man, woman and child in the United States was given an opportunity to read the draft report and comment on it prior to final issuance. Everyone from the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers to Nico Haupt (yes, really!) commented on it; any criticisms of the report are right there for the public to see.

 
At 12 December, 2006 15:10, Blogger Alex said...

That said, they did address the insane and/or evil hypothesis that explosives were used. There was no evidence to support that hypothesis.

This is, ofcourse, the important bit. NIST doesn't engage in baseless speculation. Sure, in some theoretical sense, the buildings could have been brought down intentionally by someone other than the terrorists. However, the chance of such an occurrence are so infinitesimal that it's hardly worth considering, and even more importantly, there's absolutely no scientific way of proving it. So why would NIST focus on a theory that is both unlikely and unprovable?

NIST is not an academic organization and doesn't use peer review in the sense that a journal does.

Bang on. Might as well complain that the moon landing never happened because NASA didn't bother submitting their research for peer review.

 
At 13 December, 2006 07:44, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

There would be no cause of action against NIST. You're just making stuff up.
I'm making it up eh? So your saying Federal Agencies do not get sued? What exactly are you saying? Explain to me what part in my post I was 'making up'?

You have no idea what the DQA says, why it exists or how NIST complies with it. That is comical. I just posted more about the DQA than you have ever heard and its relation to the NIST. This is a curve ball meant to detract your own personal lack of knoweldge about the DQA.

There was no evidence to support that hypothesis. There was plenty of evidence. The NIST either was not aware of the evidence or ignored it. Take your pick.


NIST is not an academic organization and doesn't use peer review in the sense that a journal does. Again perhaps you should re-read the fine details of the report and the QDA. This statement truly shows your lack of knowlege in the content area we are discussing. You provide no supporting evidence other than your own fallacious statement by trying to compare the two. Again re-read the peer review pre-dissemination process regarding the QDA. I have. Which is why I'm calling you on your lie.
Second, I accept the point about the public peer review pre-dissemination period, which case in point proves the first part of your statement wrong. I'm curious why you didn't catch yourself proving your self wrong. However, the question still is vaild.

Who peer-reviewed the report prior to the public peer review period?

I will acknoweldge your acceptance that the NIST violated its own mission statements buy your lack of addressing my issue. Thank you.

Alex You also display your lack of knowlege on the content we are discussing by jumping on the -I'm with stupid- bandwagon in regards to Manny and his lack of undertanding regarding the peer-review process. Gentlemen, go read.

Alex, you also ignore the overwhelming evidence of CD at the complex itself. Which is apparently what the NIST did.

 
At 13 December, 2006 07:48, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Computer models by the NIST

In their final report they state that they tweaked the internal parameters of the model so that the buildings would collapse in the observed manner, and I, like many others, would very much like to know just how much tweaking occurred. To my knowledge this is the first FOIA attempt that addresses this specific issue.


Here is an update on the computer models used by the NIST.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/totuus/
doc/foia-nist.html


FOIA: NIST WTC computer model

Brief update 2006-10-01: I have been in contact with an interested party who has filed a FOIA of his own just for the SAP2000 data files and who is willing to pay $2500 to get them.

(Updated 2006-AUG-06)

On 2006-JUN-04 I sent this Freedom of Information Act request to the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology in order to obtain the computer model they used to simulate the collapses of the World Trade Center towers on September 11.

In their final report they state that they tweaked the internal parameters of the model so that the buildings would collapse in the observed manner, and I, like many others, would very much like to know just how much tweaking occurred. To my knowledge this is the first FOIA attempt that addresses this specific issue. If not, please let me know.

I will almost certainly not have the capability to fully understand or even run the model, but if I'm successful at acquiring it, I plan to share it with interested and capable parties. Check back to this page in a couple of months!

Update 2006-JUL-05: I have received confirmation of my FOIA request. I have been categorized as an "All Other Requestor", which doesn't sound very promising, but the letter did contain some information that was new to me at least:

"NIST used four different software packages to run its computer models." Three of these are commercially available, and one is available for free from NIST:

* LS-DYNA "was used to conduct the analysis of the aircraft impact into the towers."
* NIST used ANSYS "to conduct the thermal analysis (taking data from FDS and applying it to the structural elements to determine how they heated over time) and to conduct the structural analysis up to the point of global instability. NIST also write[sic] some code within ANSYS that allowed the transfer of the thermal data to the structural model since these models used different finite elements."
* SAP2000 "was used to construct a model of a tower and conduct baseline structural analyses."
* "The fourth computer model runs on FDS (Fire Dynamics Simulator) and SmokeView. These are software programs developed by NIST" and are publicly available.

I have clarified that the commercial software packages are not part of the request, but the modified code definitely is. In fact, if the model was jimmied, that's where it may have occurred: an innocent 'transfer' might be an opportunity to introduce energy that would not be present in reality.

Update 2006-AUG-06: Well, the truth is available, at a price: US$2,534.33. That's how much it would cost, minimum, to obtain the computer model. I'm told that most of the cost is associated with item 3, the actual model data, so a more tightly focused request would be unlikely to yield a significantly more affordable payment. Instead, after this request expires, I may try to get classified as an "Educational Institution Requester".

 
At 13 December, 2006 09:06, Blogger Alex said...

That is comical. I just posted more about the DQA than you have ever heard and its relation to the NIST.

You called it the QDA and made some stupid comparison to crime scene analysis. Please. You're utterly clueless, and it shows.

There was plenty of evidence. The NIST either was not aware of the evidence or ignored it. Take your pick.

Your idea of evidence is Larry Silverstein saying "pull it". Unfortunately, when it comes to ACTUAL evidence, there's zero. Otherwise you wouldn't be grabbing at every loose straw when it came to trying to prove your "theory".

Again perhaps you should re-read the fine details of the report and the QDA.

It's DQA you idiot. That's the SECOND time, so you can't just blame it on a typo any more.

You also display your lack of knowlege on the content we are discussing by jumping on the -I'm with stupid- bandwagon in regards to Manny and his lack of undertanding regarding the peer-review process. Gentlemen, go read.

Read WHAT you moron? You haven't pointed us to ANY articles that back what you say. If you actually posted something relevant, you'd have the right to say that, but as it stands you have ZERO evidence to back your assertions, yet have the gall to treat us like your fucking students. Please. If you were here right now, I'd spit in your face for dating use such an illegitimate debating tactic. You're an utter disgrace.

 
At 13 December, 2006 11:54, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Alex I appologize for you lack of intellgience. I thought for sure you would be able to research the information yourself.

Instead of going off on a rant, perhaps you should have asked for the link. I'm not sure about Canada, but in America we have the OBM guidelines first. Two search for NIST pre-dissemination peer review process. That should keep you busy if you really care.

Alex I only wish you had the opportunity to spit in my face. It isn't a debating tactic at all. The information was there. Sorry, I assumed you knew how to read and research the information I just discussed. Start with the NIST and its procedures, then examine the OBM guidelines for the peer-review of scientific information.

Second, I don't stand behind Larry's statement as you assert I do. I mentioned that a month and a half ago. Pay attention, Alex, your meds are wearing off.

Three-their statements are in my post. Nothing to prove me wrong on. Now if you want to debate Candian government processes and procedures, you might have a chance.

 
At 13 December, 2006 12:06, Blogger Alex said...

In other words, you have absolutely no fracking clue what you're talking about.

Listen gluebag, either post the relevant info, or go away. You're not fooling anyone.

 
At 14 December, 2006 11:28, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Off Topic here but---

Disgrunteled employee or Truther?Interview with former Boston Center Air Traffic Controller and pilotsfor911truth.org member Robin Hordon. Visit http://pilotsfor911truth.org for latest analysis into the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

A former Boston Center air traffic controller has gone public on his assertion that 9/11 was an inside job and that Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon tracked three of the four flights from the point of their hijacking to hitting their targets. In an astounding telephone interview, Robin Hordon claims air traffic controllers have been ignored or silenced to protect the true perpetrators of 9/11.

A recording of the phone conversation was posted on Google video late yesterday by the Pilots For 9/11 Truth organization.

After having acquired a background in aviation, Hordon underwent rigorous FAA training to become an air traffic controller and was posted to Boston Center where he worked for eleven years. He did not work at Boston Center when 9/11 occurred but still knows people that did who concur with his conclusions. In comparing the stand down of air defense on 9/11 and what should have occurred according to standard operating procedure, he quickly concluded on the very afternoon of the attacks that they could represent nothing other than an inside job.

"On September 11th I'm one of the few people who really within quite a few hours of the whole event taking place just simply knew that it was an inside job, and it wasn't because of the visuals, the collapses, whatever....I knew that it was an inside job I think within about four or five o'clock that afternoon and the reason that I knew is because when those aircraft did collide and then we got the news and information on where the aircraft were and where they went....if they knew where the aircraft were and were talking to them at a certain time then normal protocol is to get fighter jet aircraft up assist," said Hordon.

Hordon said that from personal experience he knew the system was always ready to immediately scramble intercepting fighters and that any reversal of that procedure would have been unprecedented and abnormal. He had also personally handled both real hijacking situations in his airspace and other emergency procedures.

"I know people who work there who confirmed to me that the FAA was not asleep and the controllers could do the job, they followed their own protocols," he stated.

Hordon said that the only way the airliners could have avoided being intercepted was if a massive electrical and communications failure had occurred which it didn't on that day, adding that there was "no way" the hijacked airliners could have reached their targets otherwise.

He highlighted the fact that only an emergency handling of aircraft protocol change on that day could have interrupted standard operating procedure and hijacking protocol. Hordon said it was unbelievable how far American Airlines Flight 11 was allowed to go off course without the appropriate action being taken on behalf of flight controllers.

G

"What you do is you don't wait for the judge, jury and executioner to prove it's an emergency, if things start to go wrong you have the authority to simply say I am going to treat this craft as if it is an emergency, because if everybody's wrong then fifteen minutes later no big thing."

Hordon emphasized that the debate has deliberately been channeled by NORAD and the government to focus on reactions to hijackings, when the real issue is the emergency condition of the aircraft well before a hijacking is even confirmed.

He went on to explain how as soon as the hijacking of Flight 11 was confirmed at around 8:24am, the entire system, from every FAA center coast to coast, to the Pentagon, to the President were informed and knew of the hijacking.

"The system now had to make some phone calls and call up Rummy's Pentagon and Rummy's Pentagon is the one that would then make the decision."

"Well, Rummy's Pentagon on American 11 didn't answer the phone, neither 175, didn't answer the phone and they didn't answer the phone until they were absolutely embarrassed into answering the phone somewhere along the flight of United 93 and American 77 - first formal contact was at this particular time," said Hordon.

"That is all distractionary, that is all designed to keep people off the focus - the real focus is what the air traffic controller did immediately upon seeing that American 11 was in trouble and what we do as air traffic controllers is we get eyes and ears on this flight."

Hordon underscored the fact that after the confirmed hijacking of Flight 11, the entire FAA system would have been on full alert and obsessively watching the skies for any unusual activity, and that such activity as the hijacking of Flight 77 would have been immediately reported to supervisors instantaneously, as well as being continually tracked.

"If the air traffic controller were going by emergency procedures which he is trained to do, he would have reached out directly to ADC (NORAD) and say what do you see?" said Hordon.

(SD-which to highlight that point above, happens routinely when pilots encouter UFO's. Source-documentary on Discovery Channel or Sci-Fi. Easy to find. They actually played the recordings on the docu.)

This highlights the absurdity of Dulles controllers mistaking Flight 77 for a fighter jet as it approached Washington as was reported, and the plane's over 40 minute uninterrupted journey to the Pentagon after a hijack was confirmed.

Hordon debunked the recent Vanity Fair piece that whitewashed NORAD's response as a consequence of confusion and the supposition that NORAD needs exact flight coordinates to enact any kind of response, and that the planes were supposedly invisible to radar and couldn't be tracked properly.

"It's very clear now through testimony and documents given to us by the federal government that indeed....the Boston Center actually tracked American 11 as a primary target after it lost its radar, after it lost its transponder, all the way to World Trade Center," he said.

"Further information indicates later the NORAD radars had it tracked....the bottom line of the story is that all of those aircraft were always tracked all the time by the FAA air traffic control centers," said Hordon, pointing out that information showing air traffic controllers tried insistently to alert military command structures is being locked down because it points to finger of responsibility to Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon, who were also tracking all the aircraft from the point of hijacking to the impact on their targets.

This is the reason why, as Hordon stated, that we don't have complete access to flight data recorders and FAA tapes, which in the case of a conversation between six New York Air Route Traffic Control Center controllers was ordered to be shredded , because if studies of that evidence were undertaken it would become very clear as to who was really behind the attack.

"What they did is they cherry picked transmissions, communications and statements made all on these four flights that were able to paint and write a story that the public would look at and so ooh wow, this really happened - but it wasn't factual, it was a story and it tell not tell anything other than what the high perps wanted the public to hear - they cherry picked this information," said Hordon.

Hordon ended by saying that only with the testimony from the dozens of flight controllers who have been silenced or ignored would the true story about who carried out 9/11 begin to emerge.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9147890225218338952&hl=en

 
At 25 August, 2007 17:50, Blogger commen sense said...

"Clunkity Clunk".. is that a joke? that MIGHT, and i stress the word MIGHT be true for a normal skeleton frame, box design. which the twin towers were not. And with what you said on the 9/11 conspiracy show on the history channel.. jet fuel maxes out at 1,800 degrees and structural steel doesnt melt until 2,700 degrees. (sarcasticly) i didnt know steel had to be a liquid before it cant support weight.

 
At 09 September, 2008 06:54, Blogger Galahad said...

and my cat eat bush! my cat is osama and im the guru of Walt disney! and the cia fbi and nsa are the misteryman? do you belive really that?

good luck

 
At 12 March, 2009 04:11, Blogger 梦中林 said...

When the Wow Gold wolf finally found the Buy Wow Goldhole in the chimney he crawled wow gold cheap down and KERSPLASH right into that kettle of water and that was cheapest wow gold the end of his troubles with the big bad wolf.
The next day the cheap wow gold little pig invited his mother over . She said "You see it is just as mygamegoldI told you. The way to get along in the world is to do world of warcraft gold things as well as you can." Fortunately for that little pig, he buy cheap wow gold learned that lesson. And he just k4gold lived happily ever after!

 
At 15 November, 2009 15:17, Blogger John said...

I finally saw the "Clunkity Clunk" theory on the History Channel. I couldn't stop laughing. Here's a woman with a Doctorate in stupidity and a Masters in Paranoia.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home