Sunday, June 24, 2007

Summary of this blog's arguments

Here's a quick summary of the arguments made at this blog about why there is no real evidence that planes hit the Twin Towers, and why there is strong reason to believe that false images were broadcast on 9/11. I will fill in the arguments with more links as time allows. Many of these ideas are not my original ideas, and I have tried to cite to original 9/11 researchers and be faithful to what they said.

1. Impossible crash physics, well illustrated by the Purdue animation.

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2006/11/911-pound-gorilla-in-catos-room.html

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Purdue_researchers_create_911_computer_simulation_0620.html


http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=218&topic_id=5899&mesg_id=6011


and this recent interview of Joseph Keith, an engineer who worked on airframe testing for Boeing and says the planes would grind against the towers, not meld into them:

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/08/interview-with-aerospace-engineer-on.html

2. Impossible debris location, which physics professor Steven Jones has not been able to explain.

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/little-wheel-that-could.html

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/little-wheel-that-could-not-part-2.html

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=218&topic_id=5899&mesg_id=6000

3. Witnesses who were in a position to see a plane, but did not.

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/06/no-plane-witness.html

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-didnt-these-firefighters-see-or.html

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/06/obviously-wrong-witness.html

and these accounts I just learned of, which are perhaps the most compelling:

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=218&topic_id=5899&mesg_id=6254

Some witnesses that claim to have seen a plane appear to be lying, but others may simply be victims of misinformation effects on memory, as studied by Dr. Elizabeth Loftus:

http://www.911researchers.com/node/912

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/05/post-event-information-influences.html


4. No black boxes for any of the four planes. Pilots for 9/11 Truth has established that the "Flight 77" black box released by NTSB is not real because the data doesn't match impact with the Pentagon.

http://www.denniskucinich.us/article.php?story=20070326140716784

5. No debris found below the crash sites or evident in the videos. Wheels and fuselage pieces found beyond the towers on impossible trajectories don't count. No plausible debris for any of the four planes.

(See evidence in argument 2 above, and picture taken by David Handschuh at the Progressive Independent link in argument 3 above.)

6. NORAD/NEADS and FAA confusion about whether radar blips were real or "inputs," with NEADS personnel watching CNN per Vanity Fair. No reason to accuse these folks of complicity.

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/03/i-think-this-is-damn-input-to-be-honest.html

7. Technological possibility and military doctrine and practice, as discussed in the Washington Post, MIT, and Harvard articles referenced here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/06/lying-with-pixels.html

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/06/dangers-of-disinformation-in-war-on.html

8. Logistical reasons why planes would not be used:

http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=71

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-they-didnt-use-planes-to-hit-wtc.html

9. Instant media framing of what happened ("collapse" due to plane impact and fire, and "bin Laden did it") as shown by BrasscheckTV:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/92.html%22

10. Inconsistent entries in Bureau of Transportation Statistics database:

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/03/flight-11-and-flight-77-now-in-bts.html

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-time-did-flight-175-take-off.html

11. Finally, evidence of faked videos, skillfully compiled in September Clues.

http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/06/these-planes-are-not-real.html

but see

http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/02/correcting-mistakes-in-no-planes.html

http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/04/september-clues-9-blatant-disinfo.html

The videos are only part of the argument. To me, the crash physics and the lack of plausible aircraft debris are the most convincing.

10 comments:

Spooked said...

You might be interested in this:
http://www.total911.info/2007/06/how-to-challenge-broadcast-license-of.html

Ningen said...

Thanks, Spooked. People in New York should get behind such a challenge.

Ningen said...

Which is not to say people in other broadcast areas should not. CNN is nationwide. This is complicated and could be very expensive but it should be seriously considered, preferably with the advice of legal counsel with experience in the broadcast law.

MadgeB said...

I'm another (usually) silent fan of your blog, but just wanted to say that I think this statement of yours in point no 4 is a bit confusing or misleading:

"Pilots for 9/11 Truth has established that the "Flight 77" black box released by NTSB is not real because the data doesn't match impact with the Pentagon."

It's just about the way you phrased it, which I think makes it sound like the black box data itself is not real (and it can't be real because it doesn't fit with the official story).

I think you mean that there's no black box data for any of the four planes, because the data released as Flight 77 is actually (real data) for a fly-by plane.

Dunno if you see what I'm saying.

Ningen said...

Thank you for reading and for the feedback, MadgeB. I'm still trying to figure out what Pilots for 9/11 Truth is saying, but my read is that the black box cannot be real if it did not come from the Pentagon. I guess I'm assuming that black box data could be fabricated, but how do we know that the black box came from a plane that actually flew over the Pentagon at that time? Is the argument that the black box was removed from such a plane and planted in the Pentagon? I could be wrong on this, but I think the most important finding of P911T is simply that the government can't produce a valid black box.

Since the black box came from the government, which has lost all credibility on 9/11, then yet another hangout/distraction/dead end trail can't be ruled out, perhaps to put arguments back in circles around the alleged witnesses.

Greywolf said...

The simplest way to have compiled the realeased blackbox data would be to fly a plane and have the blackbox record it. So we can make a default assumption that the black box data was real data, cut off at a certain point, for a plane that flew close to the Pentagon but did not crash into the building.

So it is real but falsely labelled data.

Why was this black box data officially "recovered" if it wasn't the legitimate black box of the alleged Flight 77?

We can only speculate, but perhaps the perps needed to provide some "evidence" to support the official story and they didn't believe that outsiders would ever have the ingenuity to decode the data.

Remember, these people are only human. They can't foresee and guard against all eventualities. My guess is that they underestimated the subsequent evolution of the blogosphere as a medium of communication, and they didn't anticipate You Tube or an army of truth seekers trawling through the 9/11 live video footage.

What seemed like a good idea at the time—the production of a counterfeit black box—is now coming back to haunt them because it proves the inside job thesis beyond any shadow of a doubt short of mathematical proof.

MadgeB said...

I watched a good presentation by a Brit about the black box data some months ago, and from memory the upshot was: The govt said they had the flight data for the ‘Pentagon plane’, the data they released for this plane did not show it hit the Pentagon, ergo there is no black box evidence for a plane hit at the Pentagon. Since they would have (you’d think) reason to release such data if they had it, in order to quell scepticism, it looks like there was no plane crash at the Pentagon.

However, the person who did this talk (‘Snowygrouch’ from the UK nineeleven forum, who is associated with Pilots for 9/11 Truth), is also a rabid pro-planer as far as the WTC towers are concerned, and tries to put a ‘scientific’ argument that the swallowing up of the planes by the towers is possible in our world.

So I think the overall aim of allowing the release of this data may be to give credibility to planes at the towers, by allowing 'professionals and scientists' to question the plane at the Pentagon. It gives the impression that these impartial and knowledgeable folk would have debunked the Ghostplane also, if there really was anything to debunk there.

In Snowygrouch’s story of how the data was obtained and decoded, a mysterious man-with-a-suitcase plays a role in getting them the result, and I suppose this gives Pilots a get-out clause if the story needed to be changed – they gave their information in good faith but were given a bum steer somewhere along the line.

Anonymous said...

Your whole hypothesis ignores the fact that thousands of people eye-witnessed the planes over Manhattan, including several people I know personally. How do you respond to these eyewitness accounts of 2 planes flying low over Manhattan that day?

Ningen said...

anonymous, you say thousands because you assume it happened. I don't know what the people you say you know saw. Perhaps they would like to comment here and tell me.
Otherwise, I cannot even begin to respond to "these eyewitness accounts."

One possibility is post-event disinformation influencing memory, as studied by Elizabeth Loftus in other contexts.

David Howard said...

The FBI uses polygraphs to eliminate suspects.

google: Quadri-Track ZCT