NPR started a 9/11 Discussion

Hide All / Expand All

NPR started a Disqus discussion.

---

Señor El Once : Stacked Deck

2011-08-26

on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks

The deck was stack from the get-go given the interviewee list: one 9/11 Truther against two 9/11 coincidence theorists, one biased moderator, and a heavily biased producer/editor who gave the final spin on the interview with regards to the minutes broadcast from each side (and how many minutes from each landed on the cutting room floor).

---

Señor El Once : Newtonian physics taught in high school

2011-08-26

on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks

On the surface of it, Ms. Dibble, you don't understand the Newtonian physics taught in high school to be able to talk knowledgeably about 9/11.

The acceleration of the towers demolition (near free-fall), the pulverization of content, and the ejection of mass laterally at great speeds are energy sinks that cannot be accounted for by a Newtonian gravitational collapse, as the govt misleads us into thinking. In fact, as soon as you have destruction of content or ejection of content (let alone both), then energy has been consumed that can no longer be used to keep the upper mass accelerating at near free-fall to the ground.

According to NIST's own Shyan Sunder, free-fall means that no structural resistance is present below a falling mass to slow a mass from gravitational acceleration, 9 m/(s^2). This is precisely what WTC-7 blatantly exhibits over 100 feet. The acceleration of towers' collapse through the path of greatest resistance to the ground was measured in times pretty damn close to free-fall.

So how did these three structures collapse at near free-fall through their paths of greatest resistance while also pulverizing content and ejecting content (in the case of the towers)?

The answer is easy. Energy was added to the demolition so that gravity didn't have to account for it all.

Energy added means 19 hijackers in planes (whose whereabouts prior to 9/11 was known and didn't include extensive stays in NYC in order to configure demolition) didn't do it. They had help. INSIDER HELP, not just to the secure buildings but also to appropriate mechanisms of destruction.

This is the can of worms 9/11 opens, and that everyone from govt officials through complicit corporate media (and even this NPR report) are trying desperately these last 10 years to distract us from. Some were involved; most became involved in the cover-up after the fact, because they know that public revelation to these facts could, would, and should radically overthrow the status quo on so many levels -- certainly a purging of govt and its agencies, if not a re-drawing of region/nation lines within the USA.

Of course, a "radical overthrow of the status quo" doesn't have to mean violent. It could be very peaceful: "Hey, federal govt! You are no longer representing us and doing things for us in manners we find acceptable. You are no longer needed. Our region has its own laws. Federal govt get out, and expect no more money from us to fight your wars or pay the central bank."

Chandler Started but Didn't Finish

The following are one-side of three online exchanges with David Chandler. The links on the date stamp go to the source.

Expand All /
Hide All

Señor El Once : the paper you co-authored with Frank Legge

2011-09-19

Dear Mr. Chandler,


I studied the paper you co-authored with Frank Legge.


The core piece of information — the flight data recorder from the Pentagon plane — has authentication issues and chain-of-custody issues right and left. The kicker for me was the original FDR information was missing the final four seconds. Along comes a mysterious “John Farmer” who found a way to re-build/extract the flight path of those final four seconds. Lo and behold, the path went smoothly into the Pentagon, despite being in disagreement with the readings from other aircraft instruments that said the plane was never that low.


Why were those final four seconds missing from the FDR?

Why weren't they originally decoded, because they represent the money-shot time period?

Seems to me if the FDR really did have such a smooth flight-path into the Pentagon, it would have been made public sooner.


Back to the disagreement of the final four seconds with the readings from other aircraft instruments that said the plane was never that low. Those readings are explained away in your paper as being in error, owing to the aircraft speed, without analysis of why they would be in error and the direction that error would take. In other words, does a pressure-based altimeter give off measurements that are higher or lower than actual altitude when speed is increased?

The pressure based altimeter at high speed and high altitude is known to introduce errors. My meager research on the subject does not show indications of errors at low altitude at high speed or how the error would be manifested.


Thus, Mr. Chandler, in case you didn't recognize it, the above is a lynch-pin in your whole paper's premise, and it is one that you haven't proven.