At Peak Stupidity club, YOU! DO! NOT! TALK! ABOUT! 9/11!

Posted On: Saturday - September 11th 2021 3:11PM MST
In Topics: 
  General Stupidity  History  US Feral Government

Actually, that only goes for the bloggers (which is like, just me). I have not deleted any comments other than the large-scale spam of almost 4 years back, along with a couple of unfortunate accidental deletes while that was going on. You all can write about this as much as you like, of course.

Obviously the attack or demolition, depending on your view, of the World Trade Center towers (and don't forget building 7) 20 years ago was a major event in American history. As people who were cognizant during the assassination of President Kennedy recall what they were up to at the time, it is the same for me. (It involved aviation - that morning.) Our title here* was not meant to make light of anything - it's just that this post is an explanation of our policy of not discussing the speculation about the actual happenings. We have a big interest in the Totalitarian response to 9/11, as, for example, in our 16th year anniversary of 9/11 post 16 Years of Spreading Democracy - They still hate us for our freedoms(?) We don't discuss the reason for 9/11 because we are simply not sure enough to do so.

Let me explain: I have ready dozens of web pages and watched dozens of videos that try to show us the real conspiracy of the US Feral Gov't or Deep State in perpetrating the attack. I will state right now that, the more I have learned about the current state of the US Government and the psychopaths who inhabit it, the more I don't put ANYTHING evil past them. However, as I read and watch, I have not yet found the ultimate explanation to convince me of the details.

I have watched a video by Jim Corbett, a video-blogger who I respect and enjoy listening to, and another couple of them that start off with the aviation portion of the story. My problem is that when I get to a subject that I DO know lots about, and I realize the the writer/speaker does NOT know the subject, I don't feel that the rest of his story is something I should just believe. I understand that Jim Corbett (just as an example, mind you) can't be an expert in all the subjects involved in figuring out the true 9/11 story. However, if he has not gotten the right people to explain to him the part that I see flaws in, how do I know he's gotten a good explanation on the other parts, which I cannot myself claim to be an expert in.

Let's start near the beginning. Yes, those Moslem "guests", "students'", whatever, could indeed have learned to at least operate an airliner in a simulator, for their purposes.** I am told that it's not possible they could have operated those aircraft at those speeds and hit those buildings. Let me tell you, it's a lot easier if:

1) you don't care about the aircraft operating limitations. The aircraft can do a lot more outside of its normal envelope. Passenger comfort was obviously not a factor.

2) you don't care about Federal Aviation Regulations.

Here are my main point of contention with the 9/11 skeptics on their aviation related doubts. I have listened to and read from those who maintain that there was no way these planes could have been let to go on these wayward paths for that long, unless it were intentional - or, it was all made up. People didn't, and still don't, understand the airspace system. I had many paragraphs with some nice explanation, but I will try to keep this fairly short and still interesting. (I apologize for not giving more explanation, but I could do that later.)

I have the feeling that most people think that Air Traffic Control is about determining where each airplane will go and when. That is not the point at all. Air Traffic Control at the ground/tower level is about using the runways efficiently and safely for take-offs and landings. However, it's the en-route level where the misunderstandings are the greatest. The purpose of Air Traffic Control, and the 25 ARTCC's (Air Route Traffic Control Centers) is to separate IRF aircraft from each other. The "IFR" means Instrument Flight Rules, as opposed to VFR (Visual Flight Rules).

I would love to digress about the latter even more than I will for a minute. An aircraft flying VFR, if he doesn't fly above 18,000 ft above sea level, and go in certain areas near bigger airports***can go with no radio communication whatsoever, does not need to identify himself in any way, and can even go with no electrical system.**** That still leaves a lot of room to travel in freedom. Please don't tell too many people, as, the way Americans have been brainwashed now, I think that knowledge would cause them to demand "somebody do something!"

Airlines are flying under the IFR system of rules most of the time.***** However, that doesn't mean there are some guys in some big room in Washington, FS deciding "we'll send this one here" and "bring that guy out over here and send him to here". Flight plans are filed and the role of Air Traffic Control is to clear airspace for aircraft to fly on their routes at the altitudes they want to fly at. There are lots of changes and corrections, of course, due to either impending traffic conflicts seen well in advance, weather, and short cuts requested by the pilots.

The tools for traffic separation are 2-way radio communication, the oldest one, radar, and, as of late, the technology called ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast). As with most of the changes in aviation the newer technology has been implemented by rules "written in blood". Regarding that, I could go on with some history of a couple of crashes that led to important changes, but I gotta stop with this and get (closer) to the point.

The reader may be surprised to learn that even airliners aren't under "radar contact" all the time. Of course that's true on the ocean routes, but there are places within the US too. It's a matter of terrain (13,000 over Wyoming by the Wind River range - no radar contact). Modern radar coverage has been based on the aircraft transponders. (I wrote "has been" because ADS-B is different - but it was not around on 9/11/01.) It's not the primary radar return, as in, a reflection off the plane, that the controllers use. Those "Mode C" transponders "squawk" out a 4 digit in base-8****** code that can be used for tracking - VFR aircraft not in radio contact or under ATC can squawk the code 1200 to show they are VFR and to help in collision avoidance. Mode C stands for the transmission of aircraft altitude (msl) to the hundred foot. Yes, the ATC radar can sometimes see those primary returns, but not so easily. It's not at all what they rely on for the system to work - radio position reports may be better than primary radar if the normal radar is down.

On that day in 2001, the story was all in the busy northeast airspace. I gather from the videos that skeptics of the story think it's ludicrous that Air Traffic Control could have let these planes get "out of control" like this. It's not. A lot is happening, and most of it is routine: frequency changes, altitude changes for traffic, vectors for traffic and short-cuts, etc. Plenty of aircraft every day accidentally get off the right frequency for a while. Once those 9/11 airplanes had their transponders turned off - I'm sure one of the first things the hijackers would have done - it's wasn't easy for the controllers to see them. The aircraft aren't being watched as if by hawks, and one can get well off a route before anyone notices.

It's not that the US Air Force was primed for an event like this. The concern has been the external air threats. There was the old DEW line (Distant Early Warning) looking for Soviet nuclear bombers. Even after the Cold War, defense of the country involves searching the airspace off the coasts - well, and the southern border mainly for those tree-top flying drug runners too.

I could easily see 15 minutes and maybe even a half hour go by before anyone was not just miffed by these aircraft but seriously concerned. Then there were the phone calls and the confusion ... I'm not familiar with military flying, so I don't know how long it could take them to really get a mission going to intercept an aircraft and find the thing if the only guidance is possible primary radar returns to begin with, at least.

In an area that I do know about, it's the general gists of the skeptics' concerns that don't sit right with me. Therefore, I have a hard time following them from that part on. Besides that, with too many passengers/families involved, I have a hard time believing any "no airplanes"******* theory. That does not mean I don't think there could not have still been a planned demolition with the airplanes as a cover story, purposefully LET to happen.

However, that comes to areas I DON'T know so much about, which is the combination of the engineering - combustion, impact of a structure half full of liquids, the complicated fluid flow, structures (with a little knowledge of the latter). If it were Osama bin Laden who planned this deal, there's no way HE could have known whether those planes could take down the buildings or not. I've heard all sort of explanations of simple physics showing it to be impossible. I don't feel confident enough to write here whether I agree. I lose confidence in others telling me how sure they are about what really happened when they botch the story about something I do know about.

There are the other avenues of inquiry, circumstantial, personal reports of strange happenings, and political happenings that may well show the motivations of the people who may have perpetrated the attack differently than per the official narrative. I admit I have not spent the time to make myself sure on any of that, and I am in no position to know about the high level politics.

Therefore, because it's such a divisive topic, whether Americans were attacked by foreign or domestic enemies, we will leave the 9/11 speculation alone.

I'll just state here that Peak Stupidity does not have the sure answer on the real 9/11 attack of 20 years ago today. The politics of the response to it, however, are something we will gladly comment on, as we have been doing for the response of the Kung Flu. Both have been taken advantage of to "never let a crisis go to waste", whatever the real cause, and whoever the real perpetrators.

* OK, and yes, it's also to make fun of Fight Club, a movie that we happen to think sucks (opinions may vary). See Movie Review - "Fight Club" still sucks.

** I put the quotes there to point out the stupidity of it - now, 20 years later, American universities and even high schools invite students from all very foreign parts of the world to come and study(?) mostly for the money, but also for the DIE-versity credit.

*** A little more detail: There's an exception from that 10,000 ft. msl for flying over terrain which is itself over 7,500 ft msl, i.e. if one is within 2,500 ft. of the ground. The 37 "Class B" airports are ones in which said non-communication or non-IDing aircraft must stay 30 nautical miles from the center of, and there are a larger number of "Class C" airports in which the distance is lower - not worth a whole explanation here.

**** That last is not very common anymore, but there are a few old-timers and even low-timers with those Cubs, Champs, etc.

***** The exceptions are for coming and going into uncontrolled fields (many towers also close for the night at some point), in good weather. Communication for the IFR clearance may be difficult on the ground and a timely cancellation of a clearance coming in can save another aircraft from being held up.

****** Hence the old term "4096-transponder". BTW, these transponders evolved from the military IFF (Identify Friend or Foe) equipment.

******* At least as far as New York City goes.

The Alarmist
Sunday - September 12th 2021 6:59PM MST

Thanks, Mr. Anon. It’s been nearly five decades since I last mixed rocket fuel, and you are correct about my incorrect terminology. I was probably thinking ammonium perchlorate when I was typing aluminum.

Point being that atomised or even pulverized aluminum in the kerosene-air mix would have certainly burned much hotter than kerosene alone.

Mr. Anon
Sunday - September 12th 2021 6:31PM MST

@The Alarmist

Just one quibble with your post: Aluminum is a fuel, not an oxidizer. Bare aluminum (with the oxide layer stipped off) will burn much like magnesium will, although it has a much higher ignition temperature. Aluminum is one of the components in solid rocket motor propellant.

I don't know that aluminum from the shreded air-frames contributed to the fires, but it is entirely possible. In any event, the fire caused by the kerosene and all the other flammable materials in the building would be enough to significantly weaken the steel structural members, if those fires burned unabated, as they did.

The notion that thermite was used to demolish WTC1 and WTC2 always stuck me as ludicrous. Professionals use explosives to demolish buildings, not thermite. The only steel structure I've ever heard of being demo'ed with thermite was a radio tower, and that only one time. I find it hard to believe that criminal masterminds would embark on planning the greatest act of terrorism in history using a completely untried technique. I've read Jones et. al. paper purporting to find definitive evidence of thermite ash in Manhattan. I was unimpressed. What they found looked like weld-slag to me. I dare say there's a lot of that about in a city that is essentially a forest of sky-scrapers.

What I fail to understand about "truthers" is there insistence on hitting on the physical evidence (or their interperetation of it) which is - obviously - not especially compelling, rather than the people/events/circumstance type evidence, which is far more compelling.
Sunday - September 12th 2021 5:50PM MST
PS: Mr. Moderator:

As you all know, I run a genteel blog

Be careful. 'Genteel' is related to 'Gentile', which, in the Good Book, refers to non-jewish people. Is this some kind of dog-whistle to us racists? Do you really want to say that Jews are not welcome here?


my tendency for bad language

Just remember, 'Work' is the original four-letter word.

Sunday - September 12th 2021 3:56PM MST
PS: I won't chime in any more than I have, on this one, but thank you all for the intelligent comments. As you all know, I run a genteel blog here (not of my doing - just got the right sort of commenters.), with the exception of my tendency for bad language in the posts. That is something I am in the process of tailing off*.

We can all have the more fiery and ruder arguments in the comments section of The Unz Review. Ron Unz is there to moderate the worst of them, of which I guess the sky's the limit, and he's also there to write some of the ruder comments himself!

Good evening to you all.

* Of course, if Rick DeSantis has something to say to Joe Biden, well, that's fit to print!
Sunday - September 12th 2021 3:45PM MST
PS: OK, I'll put my two cents in also. I agree with most of the post and comments here.

Who and Why is more important than How; our reaction is still more important.

And I will add this: The various buildings collapsed because they were not built to the original specifications.
The Alarmist
Sunday - September 12th 2021 3:22PM MST

The missing piece in the thermite formula was the iron oxide, which would have been handily provided by the building’s structual steel. So many details, so little time. Too many secrets.

Time for a PS review of the underrated Redford classic, Sneakers.

The Alarmist
Sunday - September 12th 2021 3:14PM MST

I have gone a few rounds with Truthers who are convinced some things about the official narrative are impossible. I could write volumes on why they are not, but here are a few of my faves:

Kerosene fires can’t burn hot enough to melt steel: Well, they can if the kerosene is vapourized with atomized aluminum mixed in as an oxidizer and the resulting combustion is fanned by high velocity winds coming up inside and around the towers. But even if that was not enough to melt steel, it would, as Mr Anon points out, be hot enough to impair the structural integrity of the steel that was still in place.

Aluminum aircraft can’t punch through steel columns: They can when they hit them at 500 Knots. Have you ever seen pictures of sticks run through concrete block walls after a tornado?

Traces of nanothermite were found in the debris, so it must have been explosive charges: Burn kerosene with aluminum as an oxidizer hot enough, and you will get traces of thermite as a by-product.

The remaining columns would cause the top twenty or so floors to swing like a pendulum, not pancake: The remaining columns were in no way strong enough to overcome the force of gravity on the center of mass, and gravity pulls things straight down in the absence of sufficient force to offset the pull of gravity to some non-trivial degree.

The truth I want is which city in the ME called the shots that day.

Adam Smith
Sunday - September 12th 2021 1:44PM MST
PS: I think flight 93 was shot down.

“I said where is this crash? And they said this is it. And I said no, I see debris but where is it? I thought I’d see a big fuselage, or a piece of a wing and they said no this is it,” - Wally Miller, Somerset County coroner

If a jetliner crashed in Pennsylvania there would be at least some fuselage, pieces of wings and most certainly engines.

I too think it is foolish (or a purposeful bit of disinformation to discredit the so called truthers) to claim that no aircraft hit the towers.

I believe the pentagon was hit with a missile.

Again, no fuselage, no pieces of wings and more importantly, no engines. Where are the engines? Did they vaporize?

Mr. Anon
Sunday - September 12th 2021 12:58PM MST

I'm happy to throw in my two bits on this "we're not going to talk about 9/11" 9/11 thread.

For my part, I agree with everything that our host, Mr. Newman, and commenter Alarmist have said. There really were airplanes full of passengers (may they rest in peace), there really were arab hijackers, and they really flew the planes into buildings. I am not surprised that those planes were not shot out of the sky by US Fighterjets because a.) for the reasons that Mr. Newman elucidated, b.) the spotty nature of internal US air defences, c.) the confusion on that day, and d.) the unprecedented nature of the event. Let's say you're a USAF pilot and you get that American AA jetliner in your sights. Would you really fire a missile at a jet with hundreds of civilians on it? Would you be happy if the USAF was full of guys who wouldn't hesitate to do that?

As for the building collapses, a lot of "truthers" like to say that the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 look like a controlled demolition. Not to me they don't. They practically peeled outwards like a banana. Nobody has ever dropped a building that tall before - how would anyone even know how to do it? Those buildings each had enormous gashes cut into the outward beams(which were load-bearing) by the airplane impacts. And fires (not just from jet fuel, but from the shreded aluminum from the planes themselves) can do enormous damage to steel structures (especially if they've been denuded of their fire-proofing and there is no fire suppression system working. No - the fires wouldn't melt steel - they don't have to - they just have to weaken it which heat will do. I think the airplane impacts caused the buildings to collapse. There's no way the plotters could have known that would happen. But one thing they could be certain of is that such an attack would kill a lot of people and render the buildings a total loss.

As to WTC7 - well, honestly, that does look a lot like a controlled demolition outwardly, although as far as I know there was none of the boom-boom-boom explosions immediately preceding it's collapse like you'd have in a demo. And it had sustained structural damage from debris impact, and fires had raged in it all day.

I think the better approach is the one adopted by Ryan Dawson (and also, largely, by James Corbett) - don't look at the physics of it, look at the people involved and what they did. Look at all the other stuff that happened, much of it reported on too in the immediate aftermath, that officialdom just ignored when it came time to write their official history.
Adam Smith
Sunday - September 12th 2021 11:55AM MST
PS: Happy September Eleventh!

Cui bono?

So, the Larry Silverstein “pull it” video was difficult to find today. Youtube (surprisingly) didn't memoryhole it, but it doesn't show up under a youtube search either. Even if you put the title (9 11 - WTC7 - Larry Silverstein says 'PULL IT') in quotes, youtube search does not find it.

Here's a longer version. This one is a little easier to find. Youtube search will find it if you put it's title in quotes...

Here's another one of my favorite anomalies from the event.
This video is titled “BBC's Jane Standley reports collapse of World Trade Center 7 20 minutes early”...

It's almost like the five dancing Israeli's were not the only people with foreknowledge of the event.

I just can't get over how great the lawn looks...

I agree with Ron Unz, Laurent Guyénot, Alan Sabrosky and many others.
The evidence overwhelmingly points in one direction.

Adam Smith
Sunday - September 12th 2021 11:38AM MST
PS: Happy September Eleventh!

We all know the Amish did it.

Dieter Kief
Sunday - September 12th 2021 2:41AM MST
PS - The Disney colors on the photo above hurt my eyes. Seen from Oscar Wilde's (or Marcel Proust's) perspective of the super-apprehensive any theory questioning the official narrative would have to start here.
Alarmist - your aviation remarks are what good old Marcel in his opium tinted bed in his cork-walled room might have called "shockingly precise", hehe.
The Alarmist
Saturday - September 11th 2021 6:28PM MST

Everyone bogs down on the “How” of 11/9 (yes, I was in Europe the day it happened). The “how” is merely interesting. As a pilot and aerospace engineer by training, I can safely state with authority that a 767 will indeed go that fast at that altitude, and flying it into a WTC Tower is as simple as keeping the Tower on the same point on the windscreen as you approached it. Even a camel jockey or goat herder with a few hours of MS Flight Sim or other simulator could master that skill, particularly with more experienced training from external parties. Most of the disputed technical aspects of the official narrative are reasonably questioned, but in my opinion not definitively debunked. The official narrative of the technical aspects is plausible, but would no doubt have been something modelled on a supercomputer back in those days, and I don’t think there were many of those in Affy in those days.

Which goes to the bigger questions, which are “Who” and “Why?” The pages at UR are chock full of possible answers, most of which are plausible. There is one common thread with several key players from JFK foward, and that would be more plausible than Osama and his boys masterminding it on their own.
WHAT SAY YOU? : (PLEASE NOTE: You must type capital PS as the 1st TWO characters in your comment body - for spam avoidance - or the comment will be lost!)