UKC

http://www.globalresearch.ca/evidence-is-now-conclusive-two-ukrainian-gover...

As far as I can tell this is no Russian backed propaganda site
" The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) is an independent research and media organization based in Montreal. The CRG is a registered non-profit organization in the province of Quebec, Canada."

conspiracy theory BS or credible?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Global research do have an underlying theme of conspiracy and dissent .

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Its a wacky site isn't it?

"Since 2004, Global Research has provided detailed analysis and coverage of US-NATO-Israel preparations to wage a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran. "

so a decade later?

Basically they doubt anything from journalists 'embedded'.. their quotation marks..

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Research_on_Globalisation

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-911-attacks-keeping-the-lid-on-the-lie-med...

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Thx, I will mark it down as conspiracy theory BS then...

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Just like the theory that MH17 is actually MH370.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


I think its less conspiracy theory and more throw some shit around to try and confuse things.
Similar in both are complete bollox but slightly different aims.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Of course it's bullshit. Why would rebels shoot down an airliner at 33000 feet. Loads of aircraft flew that flight path that day, how could they possibly have thought that one was a military target. They'd have to be complete idiots to make a mistake like that. How could it possibly do anything than seriously damage their cause and piss off their paymasters? Wouldn't Russia be a little wary of giving a multi-million pound missile system to a bunch of morons who are going to randomly shoot down airliners in the hope of hitting what? A surveillance plane? And that's just logic, never mind all the available evidence. Russian and Asian news is totally discredited, American and European news channels report the truth - who's been the most aggressive nations this century? Who's power is falling to China? Ever heard the phrase 'the winner's write the history books'?

It takes alot to believe your being lied to. Most people never will. If your interested read every webpage you can, watch every conspiracy documentery on YouTube. Non of these people will have done that. Make your own mind up.

In reply to andreas:

Which side are you on?

In reply to SethChili:


That's no bad thing then!

In reply to woolsack:


Apart from when it is driven by a very clear agenda. The dissent is rather selective.

In reply to andreas:

And why would Ukraine? They have western support…

To risk being proven to shot down a plane to blame the rebels… just a crazy risk..

You may think Russia wouldn't take the risk, but the rebel forces HAVE shot down military planes, so they clearly have the infrastructure to do so and have been quite vocal about doing so…

Add that the Russian delegate being quite forceful in the UN that the Ukranian ATC was to blame for diverting the plane there…


So which is it? Why would it be a risk to divert the plane their at 35,000 ft if the rebels didn't have the infrastructure to shoot it down?

In reply to andreas:


What's the Chinese take on the issue, I wonder?




No, it doesn't.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

where are the UKC ballistics experts?
http://www.anderweltonline.com/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/Cockpit-MH017.pdf

In reply to malk:

Looks like it threw a cambelt...

In reply to malk:
Huge document.. can you provide a smaller link or copy and past, I just can't download it..

If its the 'machine gun fire' idea than that's easily explained.. ground to air missiles commonly explode outside the plane peppering the hull.. they don't slam into the plane as imagined in films..

As I thought.. this is nothing new and has been reported previously.. it's EXACTLY what you would expect to see… many pieces of shrapnel… as you'd expect from a missile strike..

if you google "MH17 machine gun fire" you'll find every crackpot blog running this story..

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

The Americans never went to the moon either!

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:





Ever heard of Scopie's Law?http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scopie%27s_Law#Scopie.27s_Law

In reply to IainRUK:

yes, i've just been reading about the annular blast fragmentation pattern of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous-rod_warhead
the pdf is a closeup of the cockpit apparently showing both entry and exit holes..

In reply to andreas:


It may be many things but it certainly isn't "logic".


Yep. Because if it's on the internet it must have some degree of credibility. It's not like any idiot sitting at home with a webcam and some software can't broadcast a presentation to the rest of the world is it....?

In reply to malk:

http://www.ibtimes.com/mh17-debris-shows-shrapnel-pattern-consistent-surfac...

In reply to malk:
>"where are the UKC ballistics experts?"

I had a look but couldn't come to a clear verdict.

My first thoughts were that the damage looked more consistent with messy air burst shrapnell than a regular line of machine gun holes. I'd also thought machine gun fire would be targeted on to the fuel holding wings rather than the side of the cockpit.

In reply to IainRUK:


i take it they all ignore the awkward question about why the rebels werent overly friendly towards the investigators. If my enemy had just shot down a civilian plane I would be doing everything I could to make sure they were able to investigate as quickly as possible.

In reply to JLS:




I think it's always going to be difficult to analyse photographs from our comfy armchairs (however expert) especially with no knowledge of exactly what has occurred between the explosion and the taking of the photographs- which haven't exactly been taken in crime scene conditions.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Apart from it being posted on a completely loopy conspiracy website, with a clear agenda, for those to be bullet holes, the aircraft would have had to be on a head-on crossing course. Pretty impressive and cool-headed shooting at a closing speed over 1000 mph to be able to shoot the pilot (and presumably the co-pilot and radio too). Doubly so to do it in a little ground attack aircraft with a lower speed and with a maximum altitude 4km less than the airliner.

In reply to dissonance:


They handed over the black boxes pretty rapidly didn't they? They also allowed the bodies to be taken away. I'd say they weren't being obstructive. Especially since they are trying to avoid being overrun by the Ukrainian Army as this is pretty much a front line

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I wonder if anyone can post a link to film footage of the tail smoke from the missile that is said to have done this? I've not seen any and if you look at Buk launches on Youtube they do make quite a large vapour/exhaust/smoke trail up into the sky. It was a clear day, someone must have had footage of the missile trail

Plenty of eye witnesses on Youtube who report seeing two military jets up under the airliner immediately before the crash

In reply to woolsack:


So where is the video of those two military jets following it?
Or do you require live footage in one case and random people claiming stuff afterwards in the other?

In reply to dissonance:

You're hard pressed to video a civilian airliner at 33,000 feet from the ground with a phone let alone identify two military jets. Until the airliner exploded and crashed to the ground, why would anyone actually see this as being worthy of filming anyway? Do you just randomly film planes going overhead?

In reply to woolsack:


That'll be the black boxes that didn't record anyone saying "Hey look at those jets. There's TWO of them...."

In reply to dissonance:


From what i read* on the news on the day ( * i.e. actually means f-all), the rebels said they'd allow the investigators free rein and freedom to do whatever they had to, and shortly after the Ukrainian government started an offensive in the area, which is what held the investigators.

It wasn't the rebels stopping them, it was the heavy fighting in the area that held them.

In reply to woolsack:


Yes. In the same way that I am always ready to record a smoke trail from a missile. Especially when I am in a place where people have used them several times over the last few days.

In reply to off-duty:

Have they released the cockpit recordings yet?

If the MH17 pilots were anything like my mate that flies for a well known ME airline they'll probably be too busy chatting up the hostesses or buggering about with their phones to notice two jets coming up behind them

In reply to dissonance:


Used what? Buk missiles?

In reply to woolsack:


Surface to Air missiles including medium altitude ones. Whereas on the other hand the number of air to air attacks is zero.

Out of curiosity what do you think the reason for the Ukrainian government shooting down a random plane would be? The rebels have a good reason eg mistaking it for a resupply plane for trapped Ukranian troops. The other way round though?
Also if they were going to shoot it down, bearing in mind they have Buks of their own surely it would make sense to use one of them in order to make it fit the story?

In reply to dissonance:

Treatment of independant inspectors by the Anti-Nazi peoples militias of Novorossya.

youtube.com/watch?v=Eiu2s-8MRJA&

Analysis of the Cockpit fuselage by a German pilot.

http://www.anderweltonline.com/wissenschaft-und-technik/luftfahrt-2014/shoc...

Analysis by an OCSE monitor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ze9BNGDyk4#t=21

Before the flight of MH17 *all* other flights, it was something like 10-14 in the preceeding days flew way further to the south and no where near where the Nazi Junta are attacking the people of Novorossiya.

MH17 was the only one told to go over this area.

Eye witnesses interviewed just after seen a fighter jet with MH17.

The US and Ukrainian junta as well as The Scum's claims about a Russian Buk are based on no evidence whatsoever.

In reply to Redacted:




>www.anderweltonline.com/wissenschaft-und-technik/luftfahrt-2014/shocking-analysis-of-the-shoo...







Possibly worth reading the OSCE's own report about the level of access they were allowed to the crash site : -
http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/121504

Might be worth considering Peter Haisenko's extensive cv - and in particular the amount of work he has done in crash investigation and ballistic analysis as well as his comprehensive knowledge of the effects of weaponry on aeroplanes ....(!!)

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.an...

And perhaps worth considering that the role of the OSCE is not to analyse missile debris and investigate aircraft crashes but instead is to monitor the security situation and facilitate the investigation.
I notice that even in your clip the OSCE member makes it clear "we do not have those trained eyes.. [to investgate missile damage etc] ..now there are those experts here who will be able to.."

In reply to Redacted: Welcome back Shona! Sorry you're bonkers as ever.

What do you think of Baz bombing ISIS?

In reply to off-duty:

I remember it well at the time and how Boroday was wondering where the investigators were and why they weren't coming to the crash site as the bodies needed to be moved as they were starting to decompose,it was all over social media.

http://rt.com/news/174200-international-experts-crash-site/

The Russians detected a Ukrainian jet fighter tailing MH17

http://rt.com/news/174412-malaysia-plane-russia-ukraine/

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Hi Rob but it looks as if your child murdering Bandera Junta have no evidence against Russia and the Donbass Peoples militias for this heinous act,in fact all the evidence points at your US backed child murderers.

In reply to Redacted:



Your recollections are sort of right. Might be worth seeing what the head of the OSCE mission on the scene had to say : -
http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/18/investigators-arrive-at-malaysia-a...

Oddly it's a slightly different account from the independent OSCE than it is from RT. Can't think why.



And in the same article they presented a case that it was a Ukrainian BUK missile. Nothing like hedging your bets is there.

In reply to Redacted:


of course it does. I suspect they used the same space laser on the plane that they did on the twin towers.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:





Here's a summary of the various "alternative" theories.
Might save a bit of time
http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2014/07/24/myths-lies-and-other-nonsen...

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Do you also believe that Elvis is alive and well and stacking shelves in the Lidl in Lochee?

In reply to Tim Chappell:

I think everyone should jump onto the David Icke forums for a few minutes and come back with the most outrageous conspiracy theory they can find...

In reply to ThunderCat:

Actually, I find the idea that Tony Blair is really a lizard completely credible

In reply to Redacted:

What evidence?

In reply to Tim Chappell:


http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/celebrity/non-shifty-blair-photo-does-no...

In reply to IainRUK:


The EVIDENCE that Russia Today SAYS SO!!!!! Don't you GET IT?

In reply to Tim Chappell: Tony Blair being a lizard is a promotion.

Actually he is a lower form of life, a sui generis category called a 'tonyblair'.

In reply to dissonance:


Well now that is a smashing wee argument you have there which just blows all of the others out the water.Well done,give that boy and all the usual suspects who howl and name call but little else a coconut or nuts.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

That Steven Pinker book arrived this afternoon, by the way...

In reply to ThunderCat:

Quality. These days, the Daily Mash is the only paper I read. The others are nothing but satire and self-parody, completely lacking in seriousness, and there isn't a word of truth in them

In reply to off-duty:


Not RT but Boroday the PM of Donetsk,do pay attention.


Show me where i hedged my bets because i didn't at any point...oh dear ! You are still always wrong i see,well at least you are consistant.

The UA moved BUKS into the area this is shown.

In reply to dissonance:




The US and it's lap dog are desperate to find reasons important enough to impose increased sanctions on Russia and rachet up tensions sufficient to kick off serious spending on Cold War 2™. Much more money to be made supplying that hardware. The war on terror was ticking along nicely but the ship builders and armour manufacturers weren't getting much business



Because it's easy to see the smoke trail leading back to the wrong guys. Pretty obvious isn't it?

In reply to Redacted:


Oh you should have said. I mean if you cant trust the leader of the rebels to be completely honest then who can you trust? Its not like they will have any potential conflict of interest is it?


They said the article did not you.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Why did Kiev junta divert MH-17 from the safe flight path? (Route L980)Why this plane and this plane alone to go over the combat area ?
Why did The Kiev junta move BUK's into the area ?
Why have the Kiev junta not mentioned the fact that 1 or 2 of their fighter jets were tailing MH17 ?
Why despite all the idiocy show by the ever loyal British patriots on this thread and their equally idiotic media is there not one shred of evidence to point at Russia and the people of Novorossiya ?
UA Nazi child murderers have BUK's in the area when MH17 was hit.
UA Nazi child murderers have jet fighters tailing MH17 but don't admit it.
UA Nazi child murderers had a part of their army trapped in a cauldron on the southern border and were getting their arses kicked *for the first time* big time ! just prior to this.
EU were stalling over further sanctions against Russia,this changed all that.
It has all the hallmarks of a false flag.

Show me *any* evidence to the contrary.

Dutch put up on line petition to apologise to Putin for the completely disgusting blame that was pointed at him by despicable western news agencies.

Why did Kiev put out a video purporting to be a recording of rebels and Russians discussing the crash, with a creation time stamp a day before the crash?

Russia has shown their missile photos, why can't the US show the photo of the SAM launch?
Why are there no signs or eyewitnesses of such a launch in the area they indicated?

In reply to dissonance:

They were waiting for the investigators from Kiev but the US and UK supported Nazi child murderers in Kiev wouldn't let them go.


In the article they didn't hedge their bets as if it is some sort of game where you are only allowed one cause.This is mass murder of innocents we are talking about here not a game. Mass murder of innocents which the Kiev Bandera Nazis (that we provide mercenaries and complete media whitewash for)used to get power in the first place and then everyday since.

The facts are there and that is what the article stated,the Kiev child murderers and no one else had BUK's in the area and the Bandera Nazis also had 1 or 2 fighter jets tailing it right until it went down.

US lies and complete media whitewash as well as use of multiple NGO's in their information mission and false flag to destroy Libya.

US lies and complete media whitewash as well as use of NGO's in their information mission to destroy Syria, also their Islamist cannibals false flag chemical weapons attack on the good Syrian people that was used by the US/UK as a pretext for bombing their target government.

I could go on all night about recent US/UK governments total and utter lies to mass murder innocents,completely destroy countries,create millions of refugees and get rid of their target leaders and governments.

In reply to Redacted:

You do realise that must of your "Why ...." should actually be prefaced "Why does RT say that...."

For which there is an obvious answer.

I guess we could always rely on the (to mimic your rhetoric) lying murdering military head of the Donetsk People's Republic in his own words..
http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-separatist-leader-boasts-downing-plane...

Whoops.

and as for the video time stamp conspiracy theory :-
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-mh17-video-timestamped-before-the...

In reply to off-duty:




This is a very interesting article if you actually take the time to study it because it gives a whole load of completely crazy senarios that no rational person would believe.But.When it comes to the only plausible explanation that most of the facts point to then it says-

"that a Ukrainian SU-25 close air support plane was taking off at the same time as MH17 was passing over eastern Ukraine. This SU-25 then moved to escort the jetliner and yadda yadda yadda, MH17 exploded"

and

" the SU-25 isn’t an interceptor and has a ceiling of just 23,000 feet – and MH17 was flying at 33,000 feet when it went silent. Also, the Russians aren’t actually saying what happened to MH17, just throwing stuff out there and forcing people to make their own judgments."

Now no where did the Russians say they took off at the same time and it has been shown above that a SU-25 can easily fly at those heights. And if the Russians not saying what "actually" "happened to MH17" makes them guilty then that also makes the bandera Nazis and the USA guilty to.Such flimsy moronic newsprint masquerading as something other than US pigswill to the average imbecile.

The desperate US arselicking blogger then goes on to say

"At this point, the most widely accepted theory is that Russian paramilitary militiamen in occupied eastern Ukraine, irregulars trained and armed by Vladimir Putin’s government, shot down the plane with a Russian-made Buk anti-aircraft missile system because they thought it was a Ukrainian transport jet. Intercepted phone calls, eyewitness accounts, investigative journalism and signals intelligence all corroborate this story."

Now,"intercepted phone calls" which were shown as poor fakes issued by the Bandera junta.
"Eye witness accounts" which show fighter jets with MH17.
"Investigative journalism" EH !The obvious signs of someone really running out of even a barely credible answer.
"signals intelligence" What signals would that be then ? None !

And in case you disbelieve this irrefutable evidence then you are a "Stooge","Shill",Russian thug" or perhaps you are one of the "Russian thugs trained and armed by Russians using Russian heavy weapons.

Is it possible to get the word Russian into such a short sentence so many times ?

But this is the kind of dumbass US script written by a halfwit that some undiscerning people will look at unquestioningly, and presume that if you don't believe the US/Bandera Nazi lies then you are someone who thinks it must have been done by Elvis in a flying saucer.

In reply to Mr Lopez:



That's about what I gathered, and it's still going on now, the Kiev regime is pushing an offensive even quite near to the site and this has made access difficult. It makes you wonder, if they have nothing to hide you would expect them to call a truce near the crash site.

Personally I'm waiting to see the results of the investigation, from both sides, especially as the Ukrainian army has already shot down a civilian airline a few years ago. It's more in their interest than the so called "separatists".

In reply to Redacted:

I posted the link as a humorous summary of conspiracy theories, not as a statement of my position.

Still, if you are going for the SU-25 shot down MH-17 theory, I look forward to your explanation of how an ground attack jet, with a maximum speed less than the 777 normal cruising speed, operating with a maximimum altitude of 10000 - 17000 feet below MH17, and equipped with weapons that are both too short range and/or ineffectual against a 777, managed to achieve this.

More importantly - what would be the point as the Ukrainians have other planes that ARE actually capable of shooting down a 777.

Still, despite your penchant for not actually addressing any points in an argument, it's good to see you back

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

And so have the Russians...

You are right, it could be either... But I suspect personally a Rebel f*ck up hence the tweets celebrating and Russian defense...

We'll see.. I'm know Ukrainian fan, all along I've said there should be an election as these incumbents are unelected..

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

How us it more in third interest?

They have public support in the west, EU and US..

What do they have to gain? No one has anything to gain... I think it was a f*ck up whoever did it...

In reply to IainRUK:

They gain big time if they can pin it on the Russians or E Ukrainian autonomists.

In reply to off-duty:




I'm guessing the Russians have a good idea of the SU-25's capabilities, their words:

“A Ukraine Air Force military jet was detected gaining height, it’s distance from the Malaysian Boeing was 3 to 5km,” said the head of the Main Operations Directorate of the HQ of Russia’s military forces, Lieutenant-General Andrey Kartopolov speaking at a media conference in Moscow on Monday.

“[We] would like to get an explanation as to why the military jet was flying along a civil aviation corridor at almost the same time and at the same level as a passenger plane,” he stated.

“The SU-25 fighter jet can gain an altitude of 10km, according to its specification,” he added. “It’s equipped with air-to-air R-60 missiles that can hit a target at a distance up to 12km, up to 5km for sure.”

In reply to woolsack:

The specified max altitude of the SU-25 is 7000m/23000 feet.

The R-60 missile is IR - so would hit the engine not the fuselage etc, and it's payload is so small that it is eminently "survivable" by a large passenger jet.

nb - I'm in no way a plane/military expert - but these statistics are eminently checkable.

In reply to off-duty:




The Russians built the things so I'd guess they have as good an idea of their capabilities as anyone. Their words, not mine.

From what I've seen elsewhere it was the cabin that was peppered with cannon shells not an air to air missile.

I would agree with you that it would be more likely to be a different jet they'd use but I'm just going off of what was in the Russian statement. The SU-25 is fast enough though

In reply to woolsack:




The speed figures I've seen suggest that the SU25 "might" be fast enough at max speed to match the cruising speed of a 777. Not clear whether that is fully laden.

If it was "peppered with cannon shell", it is almost unfeasible that the black box will not reveal what has happened.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

From what i read* on the news on the day ( * i.e. actually means f-all), the rebels said they'd allow the investigators free rein and freedom to do whatever they had to, and shortly after the Ukrainian government started an offensive in the area, which is what held the investigators.
It wasn't the rebels stopping them, it was the heavy fighting in the area that held them.

You need to apply some logic and perspective to this.
At the instant the plane 'crashed', the situation in the area was quiet and there was no real reason why independent investigators couldn't be allowed instantaneous access.
The only thing that stopped such access was blatant blocking by the so called rebels. Fact and with no ambiguity.

In reply to woolsack:


Not really - you are suggesting that there should be evidence that there isn't and ignoring evidence that there is.

Woolsack - do you still believe that 9/11 was an inside job? I ask just because I'm interested in whether over time your beliefs on issues change or not. Of course you might have seen lots more evidence over the last 8 years or so that SUPPORTS your original belief - but I'm just interested.

In reply to TobyA:

I'm glad you're back with another 'whataboutery'

What constitutes an inside job these days?

In reply to woolsack:

The ship builders have been pretty busy.
If by armour you mean armoured vehicles then they have been damned busy. Ok so no heavy tanks but all the trucks and landrover equivalents are being replaced with varying armoured versions.



No it isnt. Since you could get it close enough that your mythical observer who would be carefully watching and recording everything (well aside from fighter jets) is rather unlikely to get a landmark in.

In reply to TobyA:

Do you believe 911 was an inside job? Do you believe the offical report is untrue? See the difference there? The question is loaded, you want him to say yes so you can discredit him as a conspiracy loon. You have no interest in why he believes the buildings fell down.

I remember being discredited and called a loon because I said pancake theory is bullshit and I said that the theory that building 7 suffered anything other than fire damage was bullshit. I was right.

In reply to andreas:


No you were a loon. If you still believe those claims then you still are.

In reply to andreas:

Of course it was loaded - because he was asking if woolsack "STILL" believed that.

I remember being discredited and called a loon because I said pancake theory is bullshit and I said that the theory that building 7 suffered anything other than fire damage was bullshit. I was right.

Were you? (proved right that is)

In reply to off-duty:

Yes I was. Officially. Read the 2002 FEMA and the 2005 & 2008 NIST reports then get back to me if you've got anything interesting to say.

In reply to andreas:


Before I dive headlong into that task again - as I understand it you are accepting the conclusions of the FEMA and NIST reports?

In reply to andreas:


I notice that you said "the theory that building 7 suffered anything other than fire damage was bullshit. I was right."

If I read that correctly you are saying that WTC 7 collapsed because of fire damage.
In which case I, and I would imagine most of those reading, would agree with you (as indeed did NIST -
The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a single initiating event—the failure of a northeast building column brought on by fire-induced damage to the adjacent flooring system and connections).

Not sure who would call you a loon for that view.

In reply to off-duty:


The claim they were making was "anything other than fire damage". Which is incorrect as the NIST report states it was damaged by debris from WTC. Although without the fires, caused by the same debris, it would have likely survived.

In reply to woolsack: No whataboutery, I'm just interested as you were the most vocal proponent for alternative theories to al Qaeda doing 9/11 here on UKC; but that was ages ago. Just interested if you still believe the same thing on that now or whether your opinion has changed.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Ha, no. I posted the original link as I was unsure of the websites provenance , on the face of it (to me) it's background seemed plausibly legit and unbiased, but I thought a few on here would have a better idea . I was right and quickly dismissed it as conspiracy.

In reply to off-duty:

My point is this. Before the 2005 NIST report I said pancake theory is bullshit. People said, hey read the FEMA report you loon. The 2005 NIST report confirmed that pancake theory is bullshit. I also said there's no way projectiles destroyed columns, there's no way projectiles could reach WTC 7 with enough force. They said, hey you loon, read the 2005 NIST report. The 2008 NIST report confirmed that the theory the building fell was in part due to debris damage was bullshit. Now I'm saying there's no way building seven fell because it was on fire. Yet I'm still the disillusioned fool. That's why I stopped engaging with morons who won't even listen to or look at the evidence I painstakingly provide for them (and you can take that as a small compliment if you like).

In reply to TobyA:


What evidence has come to light that would have changed his mind?

In reply to off-duty:


practical ceiling 7000-10000m: http://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/aviakosmicheskaya-tehnika/84-cy-25

isn't it likely that Kiev diverted MH17 to escort/hide the jets over rebel airspace and it all went wrong?

In reply to andreas:

I don't know - that's why I asked him if anything has changed his mind.

In reply to off-duty:


And why would they want to anyway?

In reply to nufkin:


And also the rebels have shot down jets... I think it's possible Ukraine did this by mistake, but more likely from the tweets and Russian defence of them it was the rebels who screwed up.. But redacted et al will never believe that..

In reply to TobyA:


The 2005 NIST report that tells us the only collaspe of a skyscraper due to fire was caused by debris damage? Or the 2008 NIST report that tells us the only plausable explaination for the collapse of WTC 7 due to fire (debris damage) could not have happened? And that it collapsed because the sprinkler system failed? A building designed to withstand hurricanes and the infrastructual problems that are associated with them? Revised after the 911 truth movement pointed out steal could only travel that far if explosives had been used in the towers?

You don't seem to know much about the subject your hoping to discredit someone with Toby.

And why not email him if you're 'just interested'? He'd be more likely to give you an honest answer if you hadn't just brought up a totally random topic on a thread about the downing of MH17.

In reply to IainRUK:

But redacted et al will never believe that..


Crazy eh? People look at loads of evidence and come to a different conclusion to you, an academic doctor no less! What is the world coming to?

Did you manage to download the file showing entry and exit holes in the cockpit yet? Did you read the last paragraph of the link you posted saying the plane could only be downed by a surface to air missile or a bomb on board the plane? Did you wonder how a surface to air missile could leave entry and exit holes in the same piece of cockpit?

In reply to IainRUK:

Could you show me a photo of the tweets please? I've looked but can't find anything other than a Daily Mail mock up. I'd like to check how long they posted them after they shot down legitimate military targets with mid range shoulder launchers. Can't argue with your point about Russia denying they shot it down though. Everyone knows the Russians are sneaky lying bastards.

In reply to IainRUK:


If it was a set up by the Kiev regime, which contains some pretty odious people, how difficult would it be to send a few tweets or make telephone conversations to back it up? As for the latter, if they were intercepted, this alone proves that there is shady business under way, how hard would it be for someone to phone up? It would certainly make it easier to intercept the conversation, or do you think the Kiev people have the means to listen to all telephone conversations in E Ukraine?

It makes more sense to wait for the analysis of the black boxes and the wreckage rather than fly off the handle on such dodgy "proof". Unless, of course, one is more interested in proving what one has already decided is the "truth".

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Crikey Bruce, it must be wearing being such a saint all the time, the only person with vision and clarity.

IIRC there was quite a bit of evidence at the time: motive (the secessionists were attempting to take out Ukrainian military transports at the time), the capability (the Russians had supplied them with SAM systems that could do the job), radio intercepts (along the lines of 'We got one! Oops...') and behaviour afterwards, when the rebels did NOT initially cooperate with investigation teams, and there was evidence that they were compromising the wreckage (as well as looting the bodies.)

But obviously as the secessionists are supported by 'wise, humane' Putin, they can do no wrong, so we will have to construct elaborate, complex conspiracy theories for an alternative explanation. Where's that sodding Ockham when you need him?

In reply to andreas:

Google mh17 rebel tweets

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


he is busy running around and cutting people up as part of a CIA plot.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


I don't think I'm the only person who doesn't go for the Obama/Kiev version of this affair.


Running around trying to find how militias were able to use a sophisticate multi vehicle missile system to shoot down a plane flying fast at high altitude. Or maybe waiting patiently for the yanks to present the "proof" they say they have but haven't been able to render public for weeks.

Normally we wait for proof before punishing someone, even more so when it's a whole country we want to punish, Russia. For Russia the sanctions fly thick and fast with little proof, whereas for Israel, who doesn't even deny the number of hits they've made on Gaza nor the number of casualties they have inflicted they can't even find time to pass a UN motion let alone the slightest sanction.

What does your Ockham have to say about this?

In reply to IainRUK:


I did that, couldn't find them. If you've seen them could you show or tell me where please because I'd like to see them.

In reply to andreas:


Girkin's deleted tweet :- (as retained by the Wayback Machine)
http://web.archive.org/web/20140717152222/http://vk.com/strelkov_info

It's the entry on his VK.com account at 1750 (complete with videos that illustrate it for the sceptics who demanded some eyewitnesses...)

Heres the (google) translation: -

17.07.2014 17:50 (MSK) Posted by militia.

"In the area of ​​Thorez had just shot down a plane An-26, lying somewhere in the mine" Progress. "
Also warned - do not fly in "our sky."
And here is video proof of the next "ptichkopada."
Bird fell for waste heap, the residential sector is not caught. Civilians are not injured.

This is an apparently more accurate translation: -

"In the vicinity of Torez, we just downed a plane, an AN-26. It is lying somewhere in the Progress Mine. We have issued warnings not to fly in our airspace. We have video confirming. The bird fell on a waste heap. Residential areas were not hit. Civilians were not injured."
And yet there is information about the second downed aircraft, like the Su. "

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I think someone is fishing for YouTube hits

youtube.com/watch?v=noWbhLfbRvk&

In reply to off-duty:

Cheers.

In reply to off-duty:


How do you know who posted it?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Well it was an account used by the militia previously. There doesnt appear to have been any attempt to deny the account belongs to them or even that it was hacked.
So given those factors it isnt unreasonable to assume it was the milita who posted it.

In reply to andreas:


Isn't there a contradiction in this if your claim is that America has fabricated the story that gained traction (Rebel/Russian fired SAM)?


Does it, really?


I can think of better ways to inform my opinions than watching the crazy and misguided reinforce and reiterate each other's batty ideas on Youtube.

jk

In reply to jkarran:




How many of them have you watched?

In reply to andreas:


Shouldnt it be quality rather than quantity?

In reply to Redacted:


And all the hallmarks of a f**k-up... Applying Occam's razor?

Let's just wait for the investigation to report before leaping to conclusions.
jk

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


His account, still used by him. It was also amended twice as updates came in regarding the destruction of MH17 before being deleted as realisation dawned.

I take it you have some reason for doubting it? A suggestion by the user that he was hacked? An allegation by RT? Or Putin?

In reply to andreas:


Not many, I'm not into wasting my time watching conspirasy crackpots talk crap. Anyway, the perpetual motion enthusiasts have much better graphics.

Go on then, convince me, recommend me a really really good conspiracy vid, not too long, just something well reasoned with a sound evidence base.

jk

In reply to jkarran:


Well reasoned with sound evidence conspiracy youtube conspiracy vid?
Think that can go into the dictionary next to oxymoron

In reply to jkarran:

youtube.com/watch?v=JnLcUxV1dPo&

In reply to andreas:


Now convince me, recommend me a really really good conspiracy vid, not too long, just something well reasoned with a sound evidence base.

In reply to andreas:


Firstly: Steel

Secondly: You're not making any sense. It's not clear from what you're typing what you believe, what you don't believe and in each case why.

There was as a *lot* of energy released in the collapse of that structure. Anyone claiming additional explosives were required to fling big pieces of debris a long way needs their head examined.

jk

In reply to andreas:


Perhaps it didn't, perhaps they're all entry holes modified by the decompression and slipstream as the aircraft disintegrated. Or perhaps not, perhaps there is a different explanation. Either way I'm sure the investigation will come to conclusions based on better evidence than a few pictures on the internet.

jk

In reply to andreas:


LOL. 14min of chaotic news footage? What am I supposed to be seeing in this that would cause me to doubt the official reports?

I asked for really really good and that's what I get!

jk

In reply to Postmanpat:

youtube.com/watch?v=j4MjsVnasLA&
youtube.com/watch?v=UoAT8Uq8-NM&
youtube.com/watch?v=KoNTcLMjA5M&
youtube.com/watch?v=0ymSI75niPs&
youtube.com/watch?v=hdqWRHe4AKs&
youtube.com/watch?v=ANHLAB-rN2M&

In reply to jkarran:

You're probably meant to "join the dots", or "do some research yourself" and all will be clear.

In reply to andreas:

Some buildings burn and don't collapse. Buildings pancake when are deliberately demolished.

Is that it?

Now convince me, recommend me a really really good conspiracy vid, not too long, just something well reasoned with a sound evidence base.

In reply to Postmanpat:


The only skyscraper that collapsed because of fire damage ever was WTC7.

In reply to andreas:

Not so, there was at least one in Holland but so what? Against that much repeated claim there are piles of evidence and explanations from qualified engineers as to why it can and did happen and the unanswered question of how you plant enough explosives to collapse a building either without anyone noticing or confine the secret to the hundreds of people who must have noticed.

In reply to andreas:


For that to be a relevant fact we would need to know how many had fires of the same magnitude and how many of those had similar construction.
I take it you chose skyscraper carefully to avoid smaller buildings with a similar construction that have either collapsed or partially collapsed after fire?

In reply to andreas:

Can you point to any other multi-storey, whole-floor fires in steel-framed buildings of similar intensity? The one in China in your Youtube link was the facade burning; there was little internal heating. The others were as far as I can see concrete frames. You might want to look at the Windsor tower fire in Madrid, which occurred in a building built of both steel and concrete. There was a partial collapse. Of the steel bit.

In reply to dissonance:



I know you like apples and pears discussions but yes, I guess he wants to compare apples with apples

In reply to woolsack:


I look forward to him providing those cases which had the same construction and intensity of fire but didnt collapse.
Since without that his statement is irrelevant.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Which building?

Against that much repeated claim there are piles of evidence and explanations from qualified engineers as to why it can and did happen and the unanswered question of how you plant enough explosives to collapse a building either without anyone noticing or confine the secret to the hundreds of people who must have noticed.

http://www.ae911truth.org
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth

In reply to Postmanpat:


Which building?

Against that much repeated claim there are piles of evidence and explanations from qualified engineers as to why it can and did happen and the unanswered question of how you plant enough explosives to collapse a building either without anyone noticing or confine the secret to the hundreds of people who must have noticed.

http://www.ae911truth.org
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth

In reply to jkarran:

there were witnesses to multiple explosions in WT7 though eg Barry Jennings
what could that have been?

In reply to malk:

Where, what are we talking about now?... Scratch that, you edited to clarify.

If someone credible and knowledgeable saw what they described as explosions then there's a reasonable chance they were explosions. Not all explosions are caused by explosives and not all loud banging sounds are caused by explosions.

jk

In reply to malk:


That would be the building with multiple generators, a shit load of fuel and a fair few power transformers. Cant think of any possible cause.

Plus if I understand the story right he heard them whilst in the building. Which doesnt really work with a controlled demolition since chances of anyone surviving it would be somewhat slim.

In reply to andreas:


He is probably referring to the architecture building at Delft University.






Bažant, who has been working in mechanics and, particularly relevant here, the effects of fire on concrete for decades and has several hundred refereed papers published has the following to say in your link. Maybe worth thinking about?

"In 2008, Zdeněk P. Bažant, professor of civil engineering and materials science at Northwestern University, published with three coauthors a paper to examine whether allegations of controlled demolition might be scientifically justifiable. They found that the available video records are not consistent with the free fall hypothesis, that the size of the concrete particles is consistent with comminution caused by impact, and that the high velocity of compressed air explains why material from the towers were ejected to a distance of several hundred meters from the tower. The authors conclude that the allegations of controlled demolition do not have any scientific merit

In reply to Postmanpat:


The convincing conspiracy theory video I want to see is the one that explains why, if the USA was responsible for the explosives that demolished the WTC, as a pretext for the invasion of Iraq, they chose to lay the blame on a Saudi-backed terrorist organisation, naming Saudi nationals as pilots of the planes which crashed into the towers, and failed completely to point any fingers of blame in the direction of Saddam Hussein.

In reply to andreas:


Yup, I think it was the Delft building.



Have you checked the numbers and credentials of the AE911 group? Pretty unconvincing stuff.

In reply to tony: Crikey, you're just an amateur at this game aren't you. They did that so that no-one would suspect them! Simple!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

i think it was just a mistake. Must have been a bit embarrassing after carrying of the greatest conspiracy in the history of the world when they suddenly realised "bugger who were we supposed to blame?"

In reply to Postmanpat:



Delft 13-story Faculty of Architecture

After burning for more than seven hours, a section of the building collapsed from the fires. The collapse was localized, leaving most of the main structure standing. The building was constructed very differently from the WTC 7 and there are several videos of this collapse. They show that the collapse of the 13-story section took roughly 10 seconds from start to finish.

WTC 7, a 47-story building, fully collapsed in less than seven seconds.


Where did you read about their credentials?

In reply to tony:


Are you for real? 911 set in motion the Afghanistan war. To eliminate al-Qaeda, who blew up the buildings, who had training camps in Afghanistan.

In 2003 an opinion poll found 70% of Americans believed Sadam Hussain was personally involved in the attacks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3119676.stm

In reply to andreas:

But if the US spent so long setting this up, why not just use Iraqi pilots...

So you are admitting it was al Qaeda?

It's all a bit n =1 science .. We don't have many studies of fuelled jet liners flying into skyscrapers..

In reply to MG:

The One Meridian Plaza Fire

One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss. It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".

The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.


The First Interstate Bank fire

The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:

In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.


The 1 New York Plaza Fire

1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.


Caracas Tower Fire

The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began before midnight on the 34th floor, spread to more than 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.

Lax enforcement of fire codes in Venezuela was blamed for the malfunctioning of water pumps and a lack of fire extinguishers inside of the building. Because the building was empty when the fire broke out, no civilians were killed or injured.


The Hotel Mandarin Oriental blazes

The most recent example of a spectacular skyscraper fire was the burning of the Hotel Mandarin Oriental starting on February 9, 2009. The nearly completed 520-foot-tall skyscraper in Beijing caught fire around 8:00 pm, was engulfed within 20 minutes, and burned for at least 3 hours until midnight. Despite the fact that the fire extended across all of the floors for a period of time and burned out of control for hours, no large portion of the structure collapsed.

It is tempting to draw parallels between this spectacle and the destruction of WTC 7 because of the stark opposites: on 9/11/01, the skyscraper was transformed into piles of rubble the as a consequence of fires - fires spanning small fractions the building; and on 2/09/09, a skyscraper remained intact after burning like a torch for hours. However such parallels may be limited by major structural differences between the buildings in the two cases - one being that the Hotel Mandarin Oriental, designed by the famous Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas, had a full-height interior atrium.

In reply to andreas:




WTC 7 burnt for hours as well. Are you saying the three second difference in collapsing time is key?
It didn't seem to bother you that the buildings you cited were also built differently.


http://lies-of-the-truth-movement.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/richard-gages-stru...

But really it's so obviously bullocks I can't be bothered. Somehow I don't think all my ex colleagues who worked in the building missed the teams of demolition exports rigging explosives.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Jesus. 47 storey building collapses in 7 seconds. Part of a 13 storey building collapses in 10 seconds. 47 floors collapse 3 seconds quicker than 13 floors.



Random debunking site? I expect much better than that from you. Anyway, from their website.

Richard Gage, AIA, is a San Francisco Bay Area architect of 25 years, a member of the American Institute of Architects, and the founder and CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth.org), a 501(c)3 educational charity representing more than 2,000 degreed/licensed architects and engineers who have signed a petition calling for a new, independent investigation, with full subpoena power, into the destruction of the Twin Towers and the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11. The more than 17,000 non-A/E signatories include many scientists, attorneys, and other responsible, educated citizens in the US and abroad. They cite overwhelming evidence for explosive controlled demolition.
Mr. Gage has worked on most types of building construction, including numerous fire-proofed, steel-framed buildings. Most recently, he worked on the construction documents for a $400M mixed-use urban project with 1.2 million square feet of retail, a parking structure, and 320,000 square feet of mid-rise office space—altogether with about 1,200 tons of steel framing.



?

In reply to andreas:

So how much stuff has he blown up?

In reply to andreas:


Doesn't seem especially odd to me. There could be lots of explanations but I'd like a structural engineer's view.


Yes, so do I, but you can't really believe a few mavericks who have been disowned by the professional bodies of which they are members are the last word on the subject.

Why the question mark? It's a pretty obvious gaping hole in the conspiracy theory.

In reply to andreas:

None of this is much to do with the Ukraine so to get back on subjects here's something to read, including some of the links in the text if you have time:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-02-010814.html

The same writer's previous articles provide more information for those willing to accept an alternative view on the world, one from further East.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Others/Escobar.html

In reply to Postmanpat:



educational charity representing more than 2,000 degreed/licensed architects and engineers who have signed a petition calling for a new, independent investigation, with full subpoena power, into the destruction of the Twin Towers and the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11. The more than 17,000 non-A/E signatories include many scientists, attorneys, and other responsible, educated citizens in the US and abroad.


The question mark was because you were replying to me to tell me you didn't want to talk about it. I'm not saying it was brought down with explosives. I don't know why it fell. I'm saying it didn't fall because it was on fire.

In reply to andreas:
17k is sod all out of a country of 350 million plus the hundreds of millions from abroad..

In reply to andreas:

Some of those are in fact steel buildings with severe fires (although others are concrete, or facade fires). The Meridian Plaza is probably the closest to the WTC7 fire in terms of structural type and intensity and there were concerns about the building collapsing during the fire. It was also sufficiently damaged for it to be subsequently demolished. However, there were significant differences in structural from, such as no major transfer floors, as there were in WTC7. Beyond concluding that some buildings will collapse in severe fire where others might be lucky, I don't think we can conclude much.

Your WTC truthers are a bunch of loons with virtually no structural engineers among them, let alone engineers with any experience of the effects of fire on structures.

In reply to MG:

Resorting to blatant lies now. Not much else to say.

In reply to andreas:

Care to be more specific?

In reply to andreas:



Well they were wrong. There never was any evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


That one is a real stream of conciousness.
To take just one of its claims.
Air Algerie AH5017 went down after MH17. The analysis has already been released.
They have only given provisional opinions. In addition the voice black box is unusable. So using it as a comparison isnt overly useful?
Also exactly what information do they think is being planted?

In reply to dissonance:

Why is it taking so long to release the information from these impregnable black boxes? It is these sorts of excessive and unnecessary delays that hint at a cover-up. So far all they seem to have is some rather spurious social media evidence.

FFS! Is that the best they can do?

And still you suck up and hang on to their every word

In reply to andreas:


Errr, yes and? Tony asked if the grand plan was to invade Iraq, why did they "frame" al Qaeda who had nothing to do with Iraq.

In reply to woolsack:


AAIB doesn't tend to do public leaks or drip feed of information, you sometimes get safety bulletins and a preliminary report some months in then the final report significantly later. The 'delays' don't hint at a cover up unless every other accident they investigate also involves a cover up.

jk

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Do you read anything besides Mr Escobar's columns and Global Research Bruce?

In reply to IainRUK:

Seems like a decent number to me. These people have all signed a petition stating the US government are lying. I only mentioned them because PP said listen to the engineers who wrote the NIST report, so I said what about these guys? There's loads more.

http://www.911truth.org
http://911scholars.org
http://stj911.org
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_movement
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories

In reply to andreas:


And in 2012, a quarter of Americans polled believed that the sun revolved around the earth*. People will believe any old guff, provided that the content is edited to appeal to their thinking. Throw in a bit of unverifiable - and thus hard to discredit - debate shrapnel whenever the going gets tough and you've got yourself a position which looks from the outside a considered one, but which is actually spoonfed to you by people with an agenda**.

The actual scandals are there in front of you, you know. Or are they not mysterious enough to hold your attention? If you're obsessing about why a building fell over after an airplane crashed into it, you're missing the greater underlying issues relating to western foreign policy over the last 200 years. Why? Are you, perhaps, being unduly influenced by people telling you what to think? Indoctrination takes many forms.

Martin

*: as opposed to the 1/3 of Europeans who thought the earth was the centre of the solar system - in 2005. Statistical proof that we're about 33% stupider than Americans, although I think some of us skew the stats.

**: generally, just another version of Swearing at the Vicar, so we look cool and people will want to smooch us. Bless.

In reply to TobyA:


Who said their grand plan was to invade Iraq Toby? It certainly wasn't me.

In reply to maisie:
Lol, could say the same thing to you pal.


Edit: sorry missed the lie. The building didn't fall over. If it had we wouldn't be having this conversation. The building collasped into it's own footprint at almost free fall speed. That's why we're having this conversation.

In reply to jkarran:


But as this affair is being used by the USA to push the EU into sanctions against Russia which will have significant economic effects for all of us one would think that at least a preliminary report could be released a tad more quickly, don't you think?

In reply to tony:

Did you read the full article where all the top boys and girls talk about iraq, terrorism and 911 in keynote speeches? Might have had something to do with it.

In reply to MG:
Your WTC truthers are a bunch of loons with virtually no structural engineers among them, let alone engineers with any experience of the effects of fire on structures.

Richard Gage, a San Francisco Bay area architect,[7] founded Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth in 2006.[8] Gage, who is a member of the American Institute of Architects,[2] has worked as an architect for twenty years and was involved in the construction of numerous fireproof steel-frame buildings.[9] He became convinced of the need to create an organization that brings together architects and engineers after listening to an independent radio station interview with theologian David Ray Griffin.

Scott Grainger, a fire protection engineer and member of the group, told the BBC that the evidence he had seen indicated the fires in 7 WTC were scattered about on the floors and would have moved on as they would have found no more combustibles. He thus claims that the fires could not have developed enough heat to cause the collapse of the building. (wiki)

In reply to andreas:


Did you read the first sentence? The one that goes:
"US President George W Bush has explicitly stated for the first time that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks."

In reply to woolsack:


ermm because it will be complicated understanding what happened?


I guess they just dont have the level of expertise you have. Maybe you should give them a ring and offer your services.
To put it into perspective for Air France 447 it took them about a month. So perhaps you need to drop them a note about excessive and unnecessary delays?


You mean the rapid retraction of shouts of victory. Also its a bloody warzone which makes it tricky.


I am sure whatever you do you will invent a conspiracy.


Unlike you who dribbles over any anti UK/US government conspiracy theory. I have to put the qualifier in since you show unthinking support for certain other governments.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I'd hope those in our government involved in imposing sanctions have the most complete and up to date information available to them from various sources (AAIB likely included) when they make their decisions. I don't see why that incomplete information needs to be drip fed to the public with undue haste. I'd prefer they were thorough and dispassionate rather than sacrificing credibility and allowing themselves to be played as a pawn by government.

jk

In reply to andreas:

No it didnt.
Glad we cleared that one up

In reply to andreas:


What do you think the point of it all was then? Genuinely interested.

In reply to tony:

Notice the article was published 6 months after the boots hit the ground?

In reply to TobyA:


Yes, loads but funnily you only notice these two... funny, isn't it?

In reply to TobyA:

To invade Afghanistan.

In reply to andreas:


Just so we're clear, what exactly is it you find strange about this and which building are we discussing? You say it wasn't caused by fire and it wasn't explosive demolition, right or am I misunderstanding something?

What *do* you think happened?

jk

In reply to andreas:


So? That doesn't change the fact that there wasn't ever any evidence that Saddam Hussein wasn't involved in 9/11.

In reply to maisie:


Bless who? I always wonder what people imagine is being conveyed by finishing their posts with "bless"? It doesn't really convey much.

In reply to andreas:


I'm a Chemical Engineer on paper but it doesn't mean I have the slightest knowledge about the chemical processes involved in the 9/11 affair, but that's all old stuff, today we are discussing the Ukraine where already 1500 or more civilians have been killed and more seem likely so could you come back to this subject and stop giving people an excuse to continue pulling the thread off the present day problem?

In reply to andreas:



So not a structural engineer.

has worked as an architect for twenty years and was involved in the construction of numerous fireproof steel-frame buildings.[9]

The idea any building is "fire proof" is nonsense.




So not a structural engineer.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Fair point - I'll stop.

In reply to andreas:

has worked as an architect for twenty years and was involved in the construction of numerous fireproof steel-frame buildings.[9]

Sorry, one more. Reference [9] there is

Janich, Oliver. "Wir glauben euch nicht!". Focus Money (2/2010).

Hardly a great indication of a track record of being involved in "the construction of numerous fireproof steel-frame buildings."

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Sorry Bruce, no I won't. The thread has developed into a general discussion on false flag operations. Everything that needed to be said has been said, all the evidence we can find is up there and people will just call each other stupid from now on. WTC 7 is far more important if you wish to prove our governments lie to us.

In reply to andreas:


Yes, you could. Without me getting all aerated about it. Ponder it if you can.


Your second paragraph is a belter. Just tinfoil-hat brilliant. Make my day complete: in 'lying' to you, am I exposing myself as an agent of the Machine? Am I? What gave me away?

Do you understand the actual science of anything you're posting (including the universal limitations in explaining a single, unique event), or is it enough that you just want it to be true?

Just so you know, we're having this conversation because you're being an entertaining diversion from real things that actually happen. But I'll leave you to it, because whilst you're posting on here, you're not shouting on buses.

Martin

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Bless you for pointing that out, Bruce.

Martin

In reply to maisie:

Surely short for 'God bless you for pointing that out, Bruce'. Which, depending on Bruce's religious views, will either mean nothing or something.

In reply to MG:

Patrick Mathews

http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html

In reply to andreas:


Sorry, I am leaving. But two questions:

Where exactly is 'up there'? I think we ought to be told. What is it you have up there and why are you hiding it from us?

If you actually need a conspiracy theory about the World Trade Centre to 'prove' that governments lie to us, then what's the point? Your government lies to you constantly, overtly or through omission. Open a window, take a deep breath and start looking at the stuff in front of you. It's far more scary - and important - than mangling some differing opinions about a steel beam into a shady government plot. Less exciting, granted, but it's not there to entertain you. Try thinking for yourself.

Martin

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Actually, being patronising, Gordon - for reasons we've talked about previously.

Martin

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

No, I think it is intended to purvey, in one short word, the eminent superiority of the poster and the total childish nullity of the receiver, like an old wise Aunt speaking to a child... It doesn't do this though, although a bit of the old Auntie does come through.

Keeps us off the subject off the neo-fascist slaughter going on in Ukraine though for another few posts.

In reply to andreas:

Well his degree is in a branch of architecture and the licence number he claims to have as an engineer in Nevada doesn't appear of the Nevada state board of professional engineers records, nor does his name.

https://nvboeonline.org/UI/License_Search.aspx

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Yes, you're right with all that. It was obviously said condescendingly. I was referring simply to the original meaning of the phrase 'Bless you'. In Dickens it might even had an apostrophe before the 'bless'.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

>
Or a very well read old aunt who feels the need to let everyone know...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


If they stop accusing me of lying I'll stop posting about it. Never would have even mentioned it if Toby hadn't brought it up.

In reply to andreas:


You don't know what lying means, do you?

Martin

In reply to andreas:


What do you think will happen if you do keep posting about it?

In reply to maisie:


Of course its whats the UK and US governments do whilst conducting false flag operations.

In reply to MG:

Couldn't find anything to say those signatures are false, not even a critiquing article.

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2013/09/11/cbs-philly-giving-uncritical-cover...

In reply to andreas:


I just gave it to you - the guy you picked is making up his professional registration.

In reply to andreas:

Actually to be fair him he is just registerd as a architect, not an engineer, as you claimed.

In reply to woolsack:

What will it show? Absolutely nothing..

In reply to IainRUK:

Why bother taking it to Farnborough then? I'm staggered it takes nearly a month to listen to a tape recording.

In reply to andreas:

Actually, after consideration I think I'll bow out of this one with apologies: this clearly means something to you, so it's not for me to belittle your efforts in researching what you feel to be the truth.

Not, I suspect, that you give a sh1t

Martin

In reply to woolsack:


Because Farnborough is one of the few places equipped to correctly open and review it. I dont think you can just plug it into your household stereo.
You also seem to be missing the fact that there are two black boxes.
For the cockpit voice recorder informed speculation seems to be that it is unlikely to give any real information since chances are the pilots didnt have chance to respond at all.
The data recorder might but isnt a case of just listening to it.

In reply to dissonance:



No I'm not. I picked the voice recorder as that, on the face of it, requires little in the way of analysis.

In reply to woolsack:

They've said quite clearly that they are correlating ALL the evidence before making any statement.

In reply to woolsack:
serious question...

if the plane was shot down, then the CVR is likely to contain some rather mundane chat about normal ops followed by either cutting out (if the recorder line to the cockpit is cut by the incident, or a few seconds of the pilots going "oh fu_k, oh fu_k" again before it cuts out. what exactly do you think the CVR is going to prove?

this is a comercial aeroplane, not top gun the movie, it is not fitted with launch detection or air to air radar. regardless of it being shot down from the ground or the air, unless the missle (or the aircraft / ground launcher that fired it) was visible round the front of the plane the crew will not know what happened, so their conversation will likely prove nothing (other than perhaps exactly when it happened)

also regarding the delay... it'll probably need to be translated too

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Code for kick into the long grass until we can persuade the EU countries to cut all ties and rachet up the sanction level

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Not really funny, but they're almost solely what you link to on UKC.

In reply to woolsack:


Can we wait a bit before being cynical? They have a hell of a complex investigation to make using all the very substandard evidence at their disposal.

In reply to woolsack:

The sanctions are in place, the Finnish media is full of the problems it is causing the Finnish economy. The St Petersburg offices of the biggest Finnish dairy company were raided, oddly, by Russian special forces today according to Russian media reports.

In reply to woolsack:


no code for lets investigate it properly.
If they did turn up results in 5 mins flat you would be whining that they clearly decided what the answer should be and bodged the investigation.
Its a lose-lose for them.

In reply to dissonance:

sorry to bring it back onto those buildings, but you know the list of buildings that have been on fire but didn't collapse!

Were any of those hit by a bloody airliner? Probably makes quite a mess of some key structural components, no?

In reply to Parrys_apprentice:

In fairness WTC7 which is the building they are talking about right now wasnt hit by the planes.

In reply to Parrys_apprentice:

That obviously didn't help matters but both WTC1 and 2 would have most likely collapsed just as the result of the fires. This chap looked at the question quite closely:

https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/1172

In reply to dissonance:




They seemed to arrive at a culprit with no evidence in about 5 minutes flat didn't they?

In reply to woolsack:


No published evidence. Could be merely convenient, could be well justified... Time will hopefully tell.

jk

In reply to woolsack:


I think "they" pointed the finger at the guy who was saying "Hey look what we just did!"

In reply to off-duty:

And ignored the 4 operational Buk launchers moved up next to rebel territory and hastily removed after and ignored the Ukrainian jet fighter.

As you would of course

In reply to woolsack:


There could well be a reason for that.
Incidently I do like how you claim on the one hand it couldnt be a rebel Buk because of the smoke trail but casually claim the Ukranians had them ready to fire.

In reply to woolsack:
I think, perhaps, investigating authorities from Australia, The Netherlands, and Malaysia are attempting to compile as much data / evidence as possible before pursing a course of action against the perpetrator of this atrocity. They could drip feed information for internet loons to pull apart but given the presiding climate of grief in all three countries I think that they're looking to bring some order & respect to a wholly crap situation.

In reply to woolsack:



I don't think even RT claim that the moves were "hasty".

But obviously the Ukrainians had a perfectly valid reason for blowing up a civilian aircraft as a false flag attack to generate international condemnation and try and bring European/US forces into play. Note - they can't even claim it was a "mistake" as the separatist forces that oppose them have no planes.

That is much more plausible than:-

The separatist forces (who don't possess any planes) shot down a civilian aeroplane perhaps mistaking it for a military supply/transport plane for some encircled Ukrainian troops who were trapped on the border with Russia.

Anyone for Occam's?

In reply to off-duty:

Occam's will work against you when you look at the facts. Because the separatists had already shot down at least four aircraft v. recently, and were very proud of it, and because there is a lot of evidence that they had recently acquired the Russian Buk (including footage of it taken on various phones ... no mystery ... locations known), plus lorry driver's story of lorry nicked, plus gloating by separatists after they'd shot it down (thought it was a transport plane) - on various social media, including some of their own websites, including Strelik's himself - which were rapidly taken down after they realised they'd f*cked up, plus various intercepted phone calls of all kinds that again are highly embarrassing for the separatists, plus the very odd fact that the separatists did all they could to prevent western observers from getting to the wreck (that went on for four days IIRC - surely they'be be really keen for the west to get to evidence of the Ukrainian's dirty work?) ... plus NO such evidence from the other side, except vast amounts of Russian propaganda with falsehoods about the route of the aircraft - Occam's razor becomes quite cruel. The Russian version is not at all simple, and has no clear motive (they haven't even suggested one)

But, we must wait and see what the technical experts say.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I don't think the sarcasm came across as I intended it in my post. I agree with you.

In reply to off-duty:

OK, sorry.

In reply to off-duty:

BTW, I meant Strelkov when I said Strelik.

In reply to andreas:


It weren't you it was Daisy.

In reply to dissonance:


The Russians wouldn't even bother with stereo, we'd have the results by now no bother.

In reply to TobyA:


That's your perception but it isn't the truth. In the same way my perception is you only ever link to ONGs financed by the US War Department and BP. Both are probably false.

In fact I probably mostly link to the BBC despite what I say about it.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I would have thought they already know...

In reply to off-duty:

Of course they do, but they're now correlating it with everything else they've got. They've said the full investigation will take months, if not years, but they've given a clear undertaking that they'll publish their initial findings within a month. We really can't ask more than that.

In reply to off-duty:


This Ockham's razor stuff is bollocks, there's absolutely no reason why the simplest solution should always be the truth, especially these days.. What do you think all those people in an enormous building like the Pentagon are up to? Are they paid for nothing? And they are not the only ones.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


I'm clearly not coming across correctly.

In answer to Bruce's assertion that the Russians would have released the results by now I have suggested that "They" - ie the Russians - are likely to already know what happened.

In reply to off-duty:

Oh, sorry x 2 I read that a bit carelessly. Yes, I think both sides probably know the basics by now. The dispute is who shot the missile. The original Russian 'bullets' theory was complete crap/propaganda - because there is very clear evidence on the wreckage of a vast amount of shrapnel of all shapes and sizes. Interesting that Putin kept his mouth shut re. that bullet theory.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


No probs

I think Putin has been rather quiet overall - choosing to blame the fact that there was no peace in that area (and for that he "obviously" blames the Ukraine government) - rather than to actually blame the Ukrainians themselves.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

In many ways, what actually happened is irrelevant and what official bodies say they think happened is irrelevant, because people will believe what they want to believe and there is enough confusion, conspiracy, paranoia, distrust and doubt for that to be possible.

In reply to off-duty:



I think Putin himself has been careful not to align himself with any theories (probably because he knows full well that the investigation is likely to be quite scientific and irrefutable). But I'm sure he's given orders for as many theories re. Ukrainian responsibility as possible to be put out to muddy the waters. If so, he's succeeded very well so far, because the amount of pro-Russian propaganda is absolutely amazing ... and (snag) wildly inconsistent, with three contradictory theories going at once.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I'm not sure how the forensic investigation will establish who fired the missile, if it was from a Buk on the ground.

In reply to Malcolm Tucker's Sweary Aunt:

They may perhaps be able to say roughly where it was fired from, but I agree that it's very unlikely that anything conclusive will be established. Unless people speak up - and the Ukrainian who had his lorry nicked has spoken anonymously and is, apparently, in fear of his life

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Really? in the British and French press it isn't, as is mirrored by the sheep on this thread. If Poutin is saying nothing it's because he's already said that he will wait and see what the scientific studies show. What more is there to say until the results come up?

On the other hand anti Russian propaganda is getting frenetic and the USA and EU have already found the Russians guilty in absence of proof as demonstrated by the new sanctions they've just pushed through. What do we see in the press or on this thead about the 1500 civilians killed by the neo-nazis from Kiev? Nearly as many as in Gaza and hardly a ripple. Could it be because they are only Slavs? Or is it more because they are presented as being pro-Russian, a crime worthy of death apparently.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Just look at #MH17 on Twitter. It's all been there, second by second, minute by minute, hour by hour, day by day since it happened. Everything: Malaysian airways, the relatives, the Dutch, the investigators, Reuters, etc etc, plus all the propaganda on both sides. The Russian propaganda probably accounts for about 60 per cent of it.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Sorry, that was slightly condescending, because of course you would have been following that already.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

PS. You can't compare the civil war in Ukraine with that in Palestine, vis a vis the UK. The latter we have been deeply implicated with for well over a century. Both flashpoints are probably equally serious in terms of world-political danger, however.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


What does that mean?

What does wise old aunt coming through mean? Drop the cryptic bullshit and tell me exactly what you mean.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Your world view is exactly that of a Creationist. In the same way that to believe in creationism you have suspend belief in a whole raft of other phenomena, all of which interlock, when you have a view on someone - e.g. Putin - you obviously have the gift of ignoring anything which your politics lead you to disagree with. You really should read a bit of George Orwell - his Essays as much as 1984. You would have been so much at home in the 1930s' - 'I have seen the future - and it works!'

Now it may be that Putin is a wise, altruistic and compassionate individual committed to the democratic and open development of Russia. But to believe that you have to set aside all the evidence to the contrary: his suppression of the media, his control of the judiciary, his brutal treatment of dissent (everything from Pussy Riot to Letvienko), he, his families and his cronies accumulation of massive fortunes, his cynical and cackhanded manipulation of foreign policy (e.g. the pathetic and unsuccessful intervention over Assad's chemical weapons), and his evasive, cynical and dangerous handling of the Ukraine crisis.

Contrary opinions and doubting received wisdom are, in my book, good and necessary things. But not when they are based on ignorance, and sustained by deliberately ignoring evidence and telling untruths (as you frequently do.) Then they're just pathetic.

In reply to andreas:


Calm yourself, son. Bruce is bringing his estimable intellect to bear on me for having had an ad hominem pop at you - ironically, by using an ad hominem argument. I think I'm supposed to be the Aunt.

Martin

In reply to maisie:



There you go telling lies again... He said wise old aunt.


Anyway I'm not talking to you. I spent the whole damn day crafting a voodoo doll and you went and apologised.

In reply to maisie:

Since your such an expert on 911 can you explain to me why WTC 7 fell at free fall speed please? Or do you only enjoy mocking the ignorant?

In reply to andreas:

It's great, isn't it? No insult ever floors an opponent as well as a properly thrown apology.

In reply to andreas:

Gravity?

In reply to andreas:

Whoa, that was a bit of a freaky coincidence, posting at the same time.

Or was it?

My overriding objection to most conspiracy theories involving governments is that they'd need competence to pull said deeds off. Never. Going. To. Happen.

But as I said, I'm not in this discussion any more. The floor's yours.

Martin

In reply to maisie:

Gravity pulled a building down at near free-fall speed. You don't have the faintest idea what your talking about. You come on here to mock and abuse people who know a million things more than you do about 911. It's an incredibly childish way to behave. Childish unamusing and pathetic. Why don't you grow up.

In reply to andreas:

Yeah, it wasn't me that suggested gravity.

Or was it?

I have no argument with you here - if you want to invest in this, it's your prerogative.

Martin

In reply to andreas:
So why did wt7 have to come down?

Let's play that you are in fact right... The US blew up the towers after they'd flown jets into the planes and it all went we'll... Few smoking guns.. Why blow up a tower that wasn't hit? Using men from a country they didn't want to attack?

To bring down so many huge huge buildings you will expect someone to get drunk and speak about it....

TBh I find this whole subject pretty sick for the families who lost people in these attacks..

If the US are such baffoons how did they get away with the greatest terrorist attack ever?

I'm still all for this giant ray gun idea... That doesn't yet exist... And no one saw.... But that's more credible than two fueled up jet visibly and on video.. Flown into a sky scraper..

Why did they need the towers to collapse anyway, the jet attacks alone would have been enough to provoke the war...

In reply to andreas:


We could see what the experts have to say (in one of the reports that you say vindicated your posititon_ :-

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

(Question 11)

In reply to andreas:

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

40% longer isn't bear free fall..

In reply to andreas:


Why do you think it wouldn't? Once the structure has failed pretty much the only thing slowing the collapse is the air between the floors.

I'm guessing you think buildings are made of 'strong' materials, steel and concrete so they should resist the collapse and slow the descent? The thing is these materials aren't really that strong, they can only bear the weight of a building while carefully aligned in a structured way. Disrupt even a small part of that structure and unbearable off-axis loads are imposed on members elsewhere in that structure, structural members shift, twist, buckle and snap. A lot of mass starts heading south quickly slamming into what remains of the structure instantly overloading and crushing it... Near as damnit freefall.

Think of a fizzy drink can, very strong axially until you put a tiny little dent in it and it crumples like tissue, the strength is in the structure not the material.

jk

In reply to andreas:
Why would you expect a heavy structure to fall at any speed other than freefall?

Cars have crumple zones and climbers have dynamic ropes but I've never heard of an equivalent for buildings. I've never heard of a building having an energy dissapation technology to withstand the hammer blows of a higher floors collapsing on it.

In reply to andreas: Do you think NIST deliberately fudged evidence to come to a different conclusion to you (or your sources).

Here's their report, section 3.6, page 44.

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

In reply to IainRUK:

I'm not into speculating as to how and why. I don't know the answer to those questions. I'm saying it didn't fall because it was on fire. I read things like this

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/872-freefall-and-buil...

and it makes perfect sense to me. I watch videos like this

youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk&

and it makes perfect sense to me. You're a scientist, explain to me why they're untrue.

In reply to andreas:
Im a biologist..


http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

That makes sense to me

I don't think it fell at free fall.. Nor close to free fall.. 40% slower, but structures often catastrophically fail one when part fails..

Re not keeping the steel.. Have you any idea how many tons they'd need to store!?

In reply to IainRUK:

From off-duty's report.

During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below.

NIST clearly state the building fell at free-fall speed.

In reply to andreas:




Yes, for a period of 2.25 seconds (Stage 2), within a longer period of 5.4 seconds in 3 stages. This was was data from a video showing the collapes of a total of 18 stories of the 47 story building.

And waht they found was that : - During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

In reply to andreas:




No they don't..

In reply to andreas:

That's fine, it's stage 1 that is important, this is when the building supports are buckling. Once they are gone, it will free fall. If you are really interested download the report I linked to, it has a nice graph.

In reply to IainRUK:

Negligible - so small or unimportant as to be not worth considering; insignificant.

Imagine dropping a heavy weight onto a piece of glass. Does it carry on as normal or does it's movement change when it encounters the equal and opposite force of the glass. Newton's third law says that when objects interact, they always exert equal and opposite forces on each other. Would this force be so negligible you wouldn't see it?

Now imagine 47 storeys crushing the matter below them, that we've witnessed holding up the building for several seconds until it suddenly collapses with negligible reaction force from the material below it.

In reply to andreas:
I'm lost tbh...

There was solid reasons to demolish the building anyway.. So even if they had they could just say, yeah we did it...

The whole area needed flattening after the two towers went,, you are fixated on something which is immaterial..

In reply to off-duty:

Yet in stage two the building encountered no resisance what so ever from the matter below. For that to happen every failure would have to happen simultaneously and instantly. How is that possible?

In reply to andreas:

It wasn't negligible.. It was 40% slower...

In reply to andreas:




As has already been mentioned before - imagine supporting your weight on a structure like a coke can. Introduce a "buckle" into that structure - equivalent to the failure of the structure caused by the various raging fires - and watch your weight plummet to the earth as the can is crushed flat beneath you.
(I'm not a structural engineer, or demolitions expert - but that seems pretty straightforward to em...?)

Probably also worth bearing in mind that this "free fall" theory represents a fraction of an 18 storey fall of a 47 storey building.

In reply to andreas:


No, as the report I linked to states, the failures occurred during stage one.

In reply to IainRUK:
It's massively important. It's a glaringly obvious hole in the offical version of events and if you want it to go away you need to find a way to explain it. The 911 truth movement gathers more and more supporters every year.

In reply to andreas:


In this example yes, during stage 2 only, the forces resisting the fall of that point on the north face they studied would be negligible. In this example, negligible is best thought of as meaning too small to be measured. Considering the measurement system used here, it is fair enough to consider them as negligible.

In your example you would need a high resolution high speed camera with a scale shown to detect the difference the glass made, which we certainly didn't have here.

In reply to andreas:

As I understand the report the trigger event was a structural failure on floor 13 - that collapsed the floors below to floor 5. This then caused a structural support column to fail which triggered structural failures UPWARDS through a number of floors.

Then ultimately there was the so-called "freefall" collapse.
So in essence there was minimal to no support as the upper stories fall. (Which thinking about it seems kind of obvious - if they WERE supported - why would they fall at all)

I don't see a necessity for anything "simultaneous and instant" , more "progressive and ultimately catastrophic failure".

With the proviso - I'm not a structural engineer or demolition expert.

In reply to andreas:

What hole? So the biggest hole could have been filled by saying
'Yeah we did that'

You admit you have no answer to the why?

In reply to andreas:


Do you understand the simple drinks can example I gave you, how it shows that a very small change in shape can change a very strong structure into a very weak one?

Why would you expect bent and buckled beams to offer any significant resistance?

jk

In reply to off-duty:


But the building supported itself for several seconds before suddenly collapsing and accelerated to free-fall speed.





So your telling me that this

The granite facade panels were manufactured off site and were supported by individual trusses. Each panel had a single vertical/gravity connection and top and bottom lateral/wind connections to transmit these forces back to the base building. Horizontal panel adjustments could be accommodated within the panel itself. The building columns had welded angles and channels that provided horizontal and lateral support. The top of the panel was connected to the angle, and the bottom of the panel was connected to the channel. These steel-panel connections had vertically slotted holes for vertical adjustment.

exerted to resistance force what so ever?

In reply to andreas:

Actually it supported itself for 7 hours on fire before it's collapse.

I'm not sure if you mean "accelerated" to imply anything , but I assume that you don't believe any falling object will START falling at it's maximum velocity.




As I understand it they -
a) Weren't load bearing
b) The individual trusses which supported them would have failed to support them as the individual trusses were connected to the columns which were failed - triggered by the collapse of the "key" column - column 79 according to the report.

So yes - I would suggest that they provided negligible support and thus negligible resistance.

(Edited to add) From the report The interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame.

So I guess they are suggesting that the "strength" of the facade contributed to the appearance of a "sudden" collapse - as the facade panels masked the interior failures until catastrophe.


(Which would suggest that this para is wrong - good job I'm not an engineer! ) ->In fact - and again I'm no expert - I would imagine that the effect of having heavy granite facade panels that were suddenly unsupported due to the failure of the floor trusses quite possible contributed to the speed of the collapse.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


No, I don't know what you are talking about - I'm not a twitterer, like most of the population. On mainline media, papers, tv, radio and internet by far the heaviest propaganda is anti-Russian, Poutin is treated as the devil-incarnate. I'm sure a very high percentage of people in the USA and Europe think he is a communist and Russia is still the red peril.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


I could make a similar diatribe against you, except presenting you as an anti-communist, Arab hating Israeli apologist, it would be easy. Throwing in fibs about your opinions and making up straw-men about my "supporting" Assad and Poutin, it would be simple but totally worthless like this post of yours is. Like all of you're ilk not condemning someone or some country and treating them as pariahs is the same thing as supporting them.

A dinosaur in sheep's clothing.

In reply to off-duty, andreas et al:

Can't you take your 9/11 come building experts thread off this one onto a thread of it's own? Not only is it old hat it's completely clogging up a thread about one of the major international events of the day - the civil war in the Ukraine. Between 1 and 2 thousand civilians massacred deserves better treatment if you are really the caring people I assumed you were.

In reply to andreas:



Do I really have to explain everything?

It means "It wasn't you, it was Maisie"

Don't you read Sussexish?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I won't speak about the US as I don't know, but I've never met any European who thinks Putin is a communist or Russia is "the red peril". I think most Europeans see Russia quite clearly for what it is a virulently if corruptly capitalist system supporting an autocratic kleptocracy. You should join Twitter though, I'm sure you'd have a great time.

In reply to TobyA:


I'm yet to meet an american who thinks Russia is still a communist state..

Sure they exist but the news here is actually pretty good.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


This thread is actually about whether the shooting down of MH17 by SU25 jets is a true account or a conspiracy theory, but in true UKC manner it has wandered.

I'm not clear how even "clogging up a thread" if it was on the topic you describe would be a reflection on whether I am the caring person you think I am - but thanks for the compliment

As an aside - Twitter is worth a look - a lot of crap but if you follow interesting/connected people then you quite often get posted links that provide interesting accounts or perspectives of what is going on elsewhere in the world. It's where the Strelkov deleted postings were first brought to my attention.

In reply to TobyA:


How many people would actually use such language, let alone know what you meant? What world do you live in? I live in one where 84% of US citizens don't even know where the Ukraine is.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


What do you reckon it would be in the UK?

1 in 6 guessing within its borders.. most knew it was eastern europe..

If you asked many Brits to pick out Honduras I bet we'd see guesses all over central america..

In reply to IainRUK:

I'm not saying Britain would be any better, I'm just quoting figures I saw.

As for the state of ignorance most/many people are kept in by our media, in the widest sense, I'd say Palestine is the the greatest example, most still think that it's a "six of one and half a dozen of the other" situation, both sides are in an equivalent situation, "if only they'd sit down and talk instead of fighting", "it's been going on for thousands of years", etc, you hear it every day.

This ignorance goes beyond the level of ignorance concerning Russia. Although few seem to realise even on ukc that Poutin is very popular and an elected leader with a popular mandate far clearer than their own governments, which is pretty mind boggling.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I think that's pretty widely reported Bruce, I take little to no interest in Russia and get my news almost exclusively from the BBC and uk tabloid papers. None of what you say is news to me.

Incidentally, what point are you trying to make with the spelling of Putin?

jk

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

And I wrote specifically that I was writing about Europe. If you read some decent newspapers you'll probably learn some new words.

In reply to jkarran:


None, there are various ways of translating it from Russian, they have a different script over there, Cyrillic.

In reply to TobyA:


And I was talking about the average man in the shopping mall.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

So why not use the same transliteration as practically everyone else?

In reply to MG:

If this forum is anything like the UN, it's no wonder the world is f*cked.

Not aimed specifically at you btw.

In reply to Malcolm Tucker's Sweary Aunt:


I suspect the UN is far worse...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

No I still don't have any idea what you mean. If you can't be bothered to tell me then I can't be bothered to google sussexish. It's cowardly to make cryptic comments then refuse to explain their meaning.

What's with telling everyone to shut up and talk about what you want to talk about? Doesn't do much to endorse your left wing ideologies. You want to argue about whether tweets were faked and I want to prove that WTC 7 didn't fall at free-fall speed, which is very easy to prove if I can just persuade people to absorb the information I'm providing.

These false flag pysops are like falling dominoes, one event triggers the next. You're to naive too understand the implications of WTC 7 and too arrogant to admit you've been wrong. Tell me to shut up until your dying breath if you like, I'll keep saying this until I take mine.

In reply to andreas:

and I want to prove that WTC 7 didn't fall at free-fall speed, which is very easy to prove if I can just persuade people to absorb the information I'm providing.


I thought you maintaining it did fall at free-fall speed? Have you considered jkarrans coke-can example? As another, take a plastic ruler and push on one end while the other is on a table. What happens? It buckles and snaps very suddenly and basically offers no resistance from that point onwards. Columns in building behave the same if overloaded.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Read the OP, it's about conspiracy theories as much as anything else, there's no meaningful discussion of the civil war in Ukraine.


The situation does deserve respect and consideration. Like the Syrian conflict it's complex and deserves more than a snap judgement of who the bad guys and good guys are based on ones world view, followed by sanctimonious diatribe based on this oversimplified view.

Oh, and while were on about 'better treatment if you are really the caring people', if it weren't for the NGOs you despise so much many atrocities would not reach the attention of the wider public.

In reply to TobyA:


Which are the decent ones Toby?

In reply to off-duty:




Yes - this is very obvious, a coke can weighs around 17g. Say the average weight of a man is 70kg. The only force acting on WTC 7 was gravity. Gravity is acting on your coke can yet you propose adding a massive additional force to it. This kind of extra force was never applied to WTC 7. For your coke can analogy to work you'd have to get it to crush itself with no other force acting upon it but gravity.



The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line—involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, and 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.

WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

Free-fall speed means that the hollow shell, the facade (with greater stiffness and strength relative to the interior framing) supported it's own weight for several seconds then suddenly failed. For the building to be at free-fall speed for any period of time this means that the matter below which had just been holding the facade up for several seconds collapsed uniformly and instantly. Each floor to be crushed contained granite and steel trusses and there was no time period at all for the utter destruction of them? No resistant force at all? And they failed uniformly? Quarter of a second for the transfer of energy between floors and that time period is what, around four seconds? Not just over two. Just quarter of a second for each floor to crush itself halves the speed of collapse of stage two.

In reply to MG:


Yes a mixed a sentence up. You know exactly what I was trying to say. I'm trying to fend off loads of replies here, if you want to start with pedantry distortion I'll ignore you.


Gravity was the only force acting on WTC 7. How do you snap it with just gravity?

In reply to andreas:

Surely the weight of the upper floors under gravity exert a force on the lower floors. Once the support was compromised via fire, then gravity was all that was needed, no?

In reply to andreas:


On you specific point here, the columns in WTC7 would have had a minute mass in comparison to the building self-weight and other loads they were supporting, much like the coke can.

The point people are trying to get across to you is that columns (and coke cans) failure abruptly once overloaded and essentially lose the ability to carry any load. You really need to get you head round this because you until you understand it you will carry on making absurd claims about the behaviour of WTC7.

In reply to andreas:


Ok, stand on your coke can and heat the can up 200degrees. The building situation would be qualitatively similar to a man an a coke can, and very large mass (all the building above the supports) on the relatively light supports.

In reply to MG:


Surely the key point is that the columns were weakened by fire damage, hence the load on them (gravity) suddenly became an "overload"?

In reply to andreas:

I'm not being pedantic but it is a bit difficult to follow what you think and doubly so when there are typos. I was just clarifying.


Roughly correct. As steel gets hot, it loses both strength and (importantly for columns) stiffness. Once column 79 had lost sufficient stiffness it buckled and lost the ability to carry load. The load it was previously carrying had to be carried by other columns, however, they were also getting hot and in any case may not have had sufficient excess capacity. Hence, a very rapid collapse occurred. The granite, incidentally, was a facade and would not have been able to resist vertical loads - it didn't need to be "crushed".