Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

The 9/11 File

Discussion in 'Break Room' started by Mark Russell, Mar 2, 2016.


  1. Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    Hello All:

    It's been a little quiet on Pod Arena of late, so here's a new topic to kick-start the New Year. This may prove rather emotive and contentious but I would like to come at this as an enquiry of sorts, using the collective knowledge and experience of the objective scientific methodology you all use in your daily practice.

    It's almost fifteen years since the major world event of our generation. On Sept 11th 2001, the USA was subjected to horrific attacks in New York, Washington and Shanksville, PA - what followed is, as it were, history.

    The magnitude and impact of these events were overwhelming. I was working at a hospital unit in St Albans when the first reports came through on the news - and over the course of the next few hours, everything came to a standstill as we watched in disbelief what was unfolding on the television screens.

    So much has happened since - the various wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan - and all the other terror related incidents throughout the world - that it's easy to forget everything that happened at the start. Soon, we'll have podiatry students at our colleges who weren't even born when 9/11 happened - and not that much longer after that, those of use who were around back then, won't be.

    So with Craig's permission, I'd like to open the subject up for critical debate. I don't want to explode the topic to political motive or clandestine groups like a New World Order or the like - just on the events on that day. I have a difficult time understanding some of the evidence, such as:

    1. How is it possible to fly commercial aircraft at the speeds and trajectories claimed in the official reports, when it is structurally impossible to do? (New York and Pentagon)
    2. How did three New York skyscrapers collapse at free fall speed into their own footprint when it is impossible to do so without use of explosives - such as in a controlled demolition?
    3. How can an impact "vaporise" passengers, aircraft fuselage, engines - leaving no trace of evidence for forensic examination? (Pentagon and Shanksville)

    There are hundreds of videos and the like on the Internet and many of them are certainly in the "snake-oil" category. But there are some that are compelling. I recently read the 9/11 Commission Report for the first time and was astonished how little examination there was of the events of the day. Simply reading the front index reveals the scope and terms of reference the commission was working to. There are only nine pages relating to the events on that day - even then it reads simply as a narrative. There is no explanation how an aircraft crash could result in the catastrophic failure of two steel reinforced skyscrapers - only that it did, and many people were killed as a result. In the 9/11 Commission Report, there was no mention of WTC 7.

    The consequences and ramifications of an alternative version to the cause of these events are almost beyond comprehension - and again, I would prefer if we don't dive headlong into anarchy, just yet! This is Gordon Ross who I think worked briefly at Strathclyde University Bioengineering Department in the 1990s. I think he makes a compelling case. It was first uploaded almost nine years ago.



    The defining feature of this website over the last decade or so has been the critical analysis many of you devote to complex and multifaceted foot and ankle problems. Using that expertise and as Syd Kippen might suggest, "What say you?"
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  2. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
  3. Admin2

    Admin2 Administrator Staff Member

    9/11 conspiracy theories

    The nature of the collapse of the two World Trade Center towers and the nearby 7 World Trade Center (in this photo, the brown building to the left of the towers) is a major focus of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

    There are various conspiracy theories that attribute the preparation and execution of the September 11 attacks against the United States to parties other than, or in addition to, al-Qaeda.[1] These include the theory that high-level government officials had advance knowledge of the attacks. Government investigations and independent reviews have rejected these theories.[2][3] Proponents of these theories assert that there are inconsistencies in the commonly accepted version, or that there exists evidence that was ignored, concealed, or overlooked.[4]

    The most prominent conspiracy theory is that the collapse of the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center were the result of controlled demolitions rather than structural failure due to impact and fire.[5][6] Another prominent belief is that the Pentagon was hit by a missile launched by elements from inside the U.S. government,[7][8][9] or that hijacked planes were remotely controlled, or that a commercial airliner was allowed to do so via an effective stand-down of the American military. Possible motives claimed by conspiracy theorists for such actions include justifying the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (even though the U.S. government concluded Iraq was not involved in the attacks)[10] to advance their geostrategic interests, such as plans to construct a natural gas pipeline through Afghanistan.[11] Other conspiracy theories revolve around authorities having advance knowledge of the attacks and deliberately ignoring or assisting the attackers.[4][12][13]

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the technology magazine Popular Mechanics have investigated and rejected the claims made by 9/11 conspiracy theorists.[14][15][16] The 9/11 Commission and most of the civil engineering community accept that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, not controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers,[17][18] but some conspiracy theory groups, including Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, disagree with the arguments made by NIST and Popular Mechanics.[19][20]

    1. ^ Norman, Joshua (September 11, 2011). "9/11 conspiracy theories won't stop". CBS News. Retrieved May 29, 2014.
    2. ^ Cite error: The named reference popularmechanics.com was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Purdue was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    4. ^ a b Sales, Nancy Jo (July 9, 2006). "Click Here For Conspiracy". Vanity Fair. Retrieved May 29, 2014.
    5. ^ Summers, Anthony; Swan, Robbyn (2011). The Eleventh Day: The Full Story of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden. New York: Ballantine. p. 104. ISBN 978-1-4000-6659-9.
    6. ^ "Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report – The World Trade Center". Popular Mechanics. Hearst Communication. February 3, 2005. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.
    7. ^ Summers, Anthony; Swan, Robbyn (2011). The Eleventh Day: The Full Story of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden. New York: Ballantine. p. 109. ISBN 978-1-4000-6659-9.
    8. ^ Cite error: The named reference usgovDidPlaneHitPentagon was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    9. ^ Kemble, Gary (September 9, 2011). "Challenging September 11 conspiracy theories". ABC News.
    10. ^ U.S. Drops Last Link of Iraq to 9/11 New York Times May 2, 2002
    11. ^ Knight, Peter (2008). "Outrageous Conspiracy Theories: Popular and Official Responses to 9/11 in Germany and the United States". New German Critique. 35: 165–93. doi:10.1215/0094033X-2007-024.
    12. ^ Cite error: The named reference The Eleventh Day pp92 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    13. ^ "The evolution of a conspiracy theory". BBC News. July 4, 2008. Retrieved July 27, 2008.
    14. ^ "NIST NCSTAR 1: Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster". NIST. September 2005. p. 146. Archived from the original on May 29, 2009. Retrieved May 29, 2014.
    15. ^ "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7" (PDF). NIST. August 2008. pp. 22–4. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 28, 2008. Retrieved May 29, 2014.
    16. ^ Cite error: The named reference PopMech-ConspiracyIndustry-2006 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    17. ^ Bažant, Z.K.P.; Verdure, M. (2007). "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" (PDF). Journal of Engineering Mechanics. American Society of Civil Engineers. 133 (3): 308–319. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2007)133:3(308). As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows: [continues with a four-part scenario of progressive structural failure].
    18. ^ Bažant, Z.K.P.; Le, J.L.; Greening, F.R.; Benson, D.B. (2008). "What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York?" (PDF). Journal of Engineering Mechanics. American Society of Civil Engineers. 134 (10): 892. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2008)134:10(892). Universally though has the foregoing explanation of collapse been accepted by the communities of structural engineers and structural mechanics researchers, some outside critics have nevertheless exploited various unexplained observations to disseminate allegations of controlled demolition.
    19. ^ Blatchford, Andy (April 30, 2010). "U.S. skeptics to speak of 9–11 cover-up at three Canadian universities". Toronto: Canadian Press. Archived from the original on May 4, 2010. Retrieved May 1, 2010.
    20. ^ "Architects and Engineers Seek 9/11 Truth". KGO Newstalk. June 3, 2009. Archived from the original on August 2, 2009. Retrieved June 3, 2009.
     
  4. I'd love to know who penned that Wiki page! And your argument, Craig, is....?
     
  5. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    I not making any argument as I do not follow it that closely. When I do see a claim made, I also often see it debunked on Metabunk
     
  6. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    A huge number of people would have been involved, See how many pages the Talk: about the page goes to:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories

    There is even talk there of the 'Reptilian aliens' conspiracy of 9/11
     
  7. Duplicate post :wacko:
     
  8. For sure, although it's not that important to me. I's like to concentrate on the physics and mechanics of the building collapse as detailed in the video. Consider this: One of your girls jumps two feet off a garden wall in a pair of trainers and falls over injured. An x-ray and MRI reveal that the tibia and fibula as well as the calcaneus, talus and navicular to be completely shattered into minuscule sequestra. The radiologist's report claims multiple compound fractures due to excessive stress and loading. You going to accept that as gospel?
     
  9. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    Whenever I see 9/11, I think of, what's that term for false misleading claims, the rocket into the pentagon that no right-thinking 9/11 conspiracist would adhere to; put there to muddy the conspiracists claims.
     
  10. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    Is there a site for debunking Metabunk? probably

    and the "the 'Reptilian aliens' conspiracy of 9/11", another of those scarecrow?? stories meant to make the conspiracists look loony
    mind I haven't a clue who was responsible; it's just the US government (Bush should say cheney rumsfield horowitz etc) tried VERY hard to conceal and confuse
     
  11. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

  12. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    I have not studied the subject so I do not know. What I do know is that history has shown that:-

    i) conspiracy theories are always far more fascinating than mere facts

    ii) 99% of the time conspiracy theories are wrong and boring old facts are correct

    However, if 1% of the time conspiracy theories are correct, then it's always entertaining and sometimes rewarding for those investigating them to continue to do so.

    Bill Liggins
     
  13. Can you demonstrate accurately where you obtained the 99% figure for unfounded conspiracy theories and when you talk about history do you mean, a year, a decade, a century or some other period? History also illustrates a number of false-flag operations by countries against their own citizens, but I am not sufficiently expert as to offer up how many This may help...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

    I was hoping that we could set aside the conspiracy theory claims as that is indeed a strawman argument as MJC pointed out. I know these were buildings, not limbs - but the laws of physics are uniform and there is sufficient evidence now available to make some reasoned observations, surely?
     
  14. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    Can't actually source the 99% figure but Wikipedia (which I hate quoting) gives much information including the basis of paranoia and schizoid tendencies giving rise to them.

    Bill Liggins
     
  15. Thanks for that. Always delighted to gain some more titles - protected or otherwise! :drinks
     
  16. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member


    ?

    Bill Liggins
     
  17. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    Goodaye Bill, have to take issue with this one; in 9/11 many of the 'boring old facts' support the 'conspiracists'; the only facts the US govt position have are that there were terrorists with box knives onboard the planes; planes did hit the buildings (one blown apart in the sky) and 3 buildings collapsed.
    Just because the 'terrorists' were aboard doesn't prove they actually flew the planes. To attain accuracy at the speeds they were flying at at contact and just before they could only have been 'piloted' by remote control, which has been available since the 80-90's.
    The rest thus follows ...........
     
  18. Quite incredible pilot skills these guys had - especially the Pentagon aircraft, which managed a 280 degree banked turn at 500' whilst increasing airspeed to 550kts at 10-20' above the ground on approach. Remarkable feat...
     
  19. I can't help feel a great deal of admiration for Tony Rooke. About the same time as I was getting ****** off at a medical regulator and refused to pay my dues, Tony set his sights slightly higher. He refused to pay his BBC TV licence on the grounds that the BBC were complicit in covering up and misrepresenting the facts during and after 9/11. The BBC took him to court - West Sussex Magistrates (ah the familiarity) - but the BBC lost the case. That means if you want to save some ?160 a year or whatever the licence fee is these days, all you need do is cite the Rooke defence. I think I might also use it next time I have my HMRC interview. This is the film of his case and how it was founded. I thoroughly recommend that you watch it in full - many of the younger generation will wonder WTF it is all about. Those of my vintage and beyond really need to examine their conscience.

    The HCPC should be grateful he hasn't a foot fetish.

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  20. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    Good to see they mention Northwoods and the UA/AAL input options, again not evidence of a 9/11 conspiracy, but surely must open some minds to the possibility.
    Didn't know about Yvonne Fletcher's death. Disturbing as was most of the video.
    Could have omitted the many 'opinions' given.

    Craig, of all people, evidence? Metabunk article opens with the 'Popular Mechanics' article, shown to be flawed years ago; if memory serves me well 3 of the 5 points made by PM are 'straw man' arguments, nothing to do with what happened or claimed by the genuine conspiracy theorists; and where does PM rate amongst journals of high repute?, certainly not 'peer-reviewed'.

    Can't remember the articles but this was shown to be a myth; many people taking orders, yes, but apart from those that thought and agreed to the evil act of 9/11; those that placed the explosives and arranged their protected access (if that happened) > apparently less than 10, the remote pilot (if that happened) apparently only one, 1, person was required (the planes crashed at different times). It would require secrecy statements to be signed at the time by those personnel that would conclude from theirs and others actions what happened but these personnel didn't have to know beforehand.

    Sadly, I might be the only forum member that actually watches this video.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2016
  21. Well, it is difficult to see anything when your head resides in the place that normally evacuates any unpleasantness ;)
     
  22. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    Metabunk, run by computer scientist, mick west; a purposeful disinformation troll; government shill
     
  23. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    Hi Mark

    That's why I said that even if only 1% (others may wish to modify this figure) of conspiracy theories are true it may still be rewarding to investigate. Some of the Mitford family for example suggested that there was no conspiracy by Adolf Hitler! However, an open mind does not necessarily indicate a gullible mind.

    Cheers

    Bill
     
  24. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    Bill,
    Sorry, was stuck at point (ii), definitely

    the list is endless, as one man's belief is another man's conspiracy

    That should get you onto the bottom of the page of those little desk calendars

    all the best, and how's the form of the English cricket team for the upcoming season?
     
  25. Or a number of well organised teams. There is a plausible explanation from the testimony of individual workers in both towers of extensive works being carried out in the weeks leading up to the attack. From 1.35 on this video might give food for thought - as should the remainder, which explains how the collapse of both towers could not have occurred without explosives.

    Here we are with a page of replies - and the focus is on "conspiracy theories" as if that is some kind rebuttal to the questions posed. All these brilliant minds that can work out the complexities of force and stress on load bearing structures at the end of our legs - and no opinions on the bizarre explanations offered by the official reports by NIST and the 9/11 Commission for the reasons the buildings collapsed as they did. At free fall speed.

    You know, Mark. Maybe we should do the same as most others and stick our heads where the sun don't shine - as reality does suck, when you consider all things equally. Let's hope the next generation have bigger balls.

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  26. Dup post again...
     
  27. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    If only PA members would just watch from 5' 25" to 6'23" (for 1 minute); and not rely on 3rd grade websites and journals
     
  28. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    Full of information; 1300 engineers believe WTC7 could only have collapsed as it did due to some form of demolition and it physically (as in physics) impossible for it to be due to the reason given by the government investigative body, NIST.
    People that denigrate those that suspect 9/11 'conspiracy theorists' are to me like those people who state, "orthotics don't work", mark
     
  29. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    Hi Mark. Of course, it might be that the NIST investigative team were pretty questionable!

    The England cricket team are pretty questionable also!

    Cheers

    Bill
     
  30. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    Bill, would appear so; they won't release the report or scrutiny; they announced that none of the witnesses reported hearing 'explosions' when there are so many witnesses who did exactly that, if the media can find these witnesses how come NIST couldn't; they didn't accept the media recordings of the 'explosions' as the sound volume level in these recordings didn't reach the lower level the NIST set as a limit. NIST based the limit on measuring the level on an observation of their own where they used the known to be loudest demolition material RDT? and recorded the level at a similar distance to what the media were from the WTC 7 BUT didn't put in any buffering structures between them unlike reality where the charges, if used, would have been within the building, most of them, according to interviewed demolition experts, would be in the basement (underground) and there were buildings in-between.

    That's good news; since Ponting and Clark have departed my interest has re-surfaced.
    All the best, mark
     
  31. This is a long video but it is one of the best scientific presentations on the use of explosives at the WTC 1,2 and 7.

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  32. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    They still don't know if Al-Qaeda (Osama bin Laden) was actually linked to the atrocity .......

    "The attack on Afghanistan was based on the claim that bin Laden was behind the attacks, and the 9/11 Commission?s report was written as if there were no question about this claim. But neither the Bush administration nor the Commission provided any proof for it.

    ""..citing officials from both the CIA and the Department of Justice, the real reason for the reversal was a ?lack of solid information.' "..

    When the FBI?s chief of investigative publicity was asked why not, he replied: ?The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden?s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."
     
  33. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    And they're given 3 billion a year in aid from USA; (5th largest defence force, with the so-called 'most moral army in the world')

    And they've got a significant nuclear arsenal but aren't signatories the Non-Proliferation Treaty

    And they continue to commit atrocities in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories; the last of the colonial settlers

    I hope, mark
     
  34. This was the presentation that made me rethink my views on 9/11. Dr Judy Wood at New Horizons in St Annes - just around the corner from me. Still think airplanes caused three buildings to fall?




    She makes an interesting observation at 1:11 regarding melted boots but no reports of burns to feet. Any NY Pods recall any burn injuries?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  35. Seems it was Iran all the time....

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/juliareinstein/denim-hair#.qfljm8o1l

     
  36. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

  37. Thanks for this, Mark. I'm not sure if the presenter isn't Gordon Ross who features in the first video. It'll be interesting to hear the views of all the budding engineering enthusiasts in the profession once they've watched it... :rolleyes:
     
  38. This thread reminds me of Mizaru, Kikazaru & Iwazaru :bang:

    非禮勿視, 非禮勿聽, 非禮勿言, 非禮勿動
    ("Look not at what is contrary to propriety; listen not to what is contrary to propriety; speak not what is contrary to propriety; make no movement which is contrary to propriety")
     
  39. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    To quote someone I have great respect for,
    "As always, I go where the evidence takes me until convinced otherwise"
     
Loading...

Share This Page