9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

[Stryder]

Since 9/11 Conspiracist's have been over killing the forum. I think it's fair time for all the threads to be merged into one all mighty tangle of posts disjointed by the fact that people seem to think that they can discuss the topic in different threads (That would be fine but all the conspiracies have the same arguments. They are indeed conspiracies)

[sowhatifit'sdark]

I find the collapse rate issues fairly compelling.

#18 Physicist Challenges Official 9-11 Story
Sources:
Deseret Morning News, November 10, 2005
Title: “Y. Professor Thinks Bombs, Not Planes, Toppled WTC”
Author: Elaine Jarvik

Brigham Young University website, Winter 2005
Title: “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?”
Author: Steven E. Jones

Deseret Morning News, January 26, 2006
Title: “BYU professor's group accuses U.S. officials of lying about 9/11”
Author: Elaine Jarvik

Faculty Evaluator: John Kramer
Student Researchers: David Abbott and Courtney Wilcox

Research into the events of September 11 by Brigham Young University physics professor, Steven E. Jones, concludes that the official explanation for the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings is implausible according to laws of physics. Jones is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation “guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations.”

In debunking the official explanation of the collapse of the three WTC buildings, Jones cites the complete, rapid, and symmetrical collapse of the buildings; the horizontal explosions (squibs) evidenced in films of the collapses; the fact that the antenna dropped first in the North Tower, suggesting the use of explosives in the core columns; and the large pools of molten metal observed in the basement areas of both towers.

Jones also investigated the collapse of WTC 7, a forty-seven-story building that was not hit by planes, yet dropped in its own “footprint,” in the same manner as a controlled demolition. WTC 7 housed the U.S. Secret Service, the Department of Defense, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management, the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council, and the Central Intelligence Agency. Many of the records from the Enron accounting scandal were destroyed when the building came down.

Jones claims that the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST) ignored the physics and chemistry of what happened on September 11 and even manipulated its testing in order to get a computer-generated hypothesis that fit the end result of collapse, and did not even attempt to investigate the possibility of controlled demolition. He also questions the investigations conducted by FEMA and the 9/11 Commission.

Among the report’s other findings:

No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns.
WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. “Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?” Jones asks. “That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors—and intact steel support columns—the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass.
How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?” The paradox, he says, “is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses.” These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST, or the 9/11 Commission.
With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattered concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling. “How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing—and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."
Steel supports were “partly evaporated,” but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel—and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about twenty minutes in any given location.
Molten metal found in the debris of the WTC may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite. Buildings not felled by explosives “have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal,” Jones says.
Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck.
In January 2006 Jones, along with a group calling themselves “Scholars for 9/11 Truth,” called for an international investigation into the attacks and are going so far as to accuse the U.S. government of a massive cover-up.
“We believe that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on September 11,” the group said in a statement. “We believe these events may have been orchestrated by the administration in order to manipulate the American people into supporting policies at home and abroad.”

The group is headed by Jones and Jim Fetzer, University of Minnesota Duluth distinguished McKnight professor of philosophy, and is made up of fifty academicians and experts including Robert M. Bowman, former director of the U.S. “Star Wars” space defense program, and Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist for the Department of Labor in President George W. Bush’s first term.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletely Collapse.pdf

[Fraggle Rocker]

There's no new information here. Virtually all of this data has been available to professional scientists since 2001, and most of it even to laymen. Particularly the basic information about the manner in which the buildings collapsed, which is on video. For a group of scientists to pop out of the woodwork five years later and say, "Hey, we just got around to looking at this stuff and our little group has discovered that absolutely everybody else is wrong," is a little suspicious.

Steven E. Jones is a nuclear physicist who has spent his entire career studying something arcane about muon-based fusion. This subject is not exactly his specialty.

Google reveals a number of sources that raise issues about the expertise, motivation and methods of this group.

Considering the almost treasonous relationship between the Bush family and the House of Saud, plus the fact that the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, plus the fact that Osama is a member by marriage of the House of Saud, plus the fact that Bush made an exception to the no-fly rule on 9/11 and allowed an entire planeload of Saudis to leave the USA, there is no shortage of leads for conspiracy theorists about 9/11. Yet in more than six years none of them has succeeded.

[phlogistician]

I find the collapse rate issues fairly compelling.

The thermite thing got debunked a long time ago.

[decantemix]

Reasonably, though, if you were to attack a building; why would you not coordinate ground forces to topple it, after striking with a plane.

It is an attention getter, as the whole of the world watched.

I find it reasonable to believe it fallacy that someone could not have ensued in the chaos that followed with explosives. As, was the first attempt on the WTC, via truck bomb in 1993.

[kmguru]

Are any of the scientists structural engineers that have designed skyscrapers?

[John99]

There are so many errors in that pdf paste that it is getting kind of embarrassing refuting them.

[Fraggle Rocker]

Reasonably, though, if you were to attack a building; why would you not coordinate ground forces to topple it, after striking with a plane.Why go to all that trouble? They clearly had access to a wealth of information about the buildings and knew exactly where to hit them to make them fall. That was a rather narrow zone, due to the oddity of NYC outlawing asbestos halfway through construction of the buildings so the top half was not built the same way as the bottom half. The planes hit them perfectly. They didn't need extra help. This project was large enough. If they added additional personnel to it, especially operating within the U.S., it would have increased their chance of detection. That would have been unwise.Are any of the scientists structural engineers that have designed skyscrapers?I didn't find anyone with those credentials in my brief review of the organization. If they had a structural engineer it would give them a huge boost in credibility so you'd think his name would be prominently listed. The guy who seems to be in charge is a nuclear physicist!

This sounds like Nobel Prize-winning chemist Linus Pauling pontificating about the merits of Vitamin C back in the 1970s, something far outside his own field of expertise.

[sowhatifit'sdark]

there is no shortage of leads for conspiracy theorists about 9/11. Yet in more than six years none of them has succeeded.

Success means a widespread acceptance. There are many reasons why this might not take place. How many people can really look at counterevidence objectively? The energy behind trying to find fault with anything running counter to the official story would be enormous.

[Fraggle Rocker]

Success means a widespread acceptance. There are many reasons why this might not take place. How many people can really look at counterevidence objectively? The energy behind trying to find fault with anything running counter to the official story would be enormous.Americans love conspiracy theories and are generally skeptical and iconoclastic when it comes to "official stories." Look at the JFK shooting: a number of conspiracy theories are still in wide circulation and have considerable (if minority) respectable support. Absolutely none of the 9/11 conspiracy theories have achieved that level of legitimacy.

Look at the massive evolution denial movement!

If you can't get support for a kooky theory in America, it simply has to be poppycock.

[decantemix]

Ground forces? Did you see ground forces? Did anyone see people wiring the building for detonation? Was thermite poured into the structure? No.



Want to try that sentence again, but this time paying attention to grammar, and semantics?

I don't get wrapped up in correct usage of keys I rap at, if I determine the conveyance of my thoughts are easily ascertained. I'll leave that to a linguist, whom I'm sure does indicate very precisely. I'm not working on a thesis here, just replying to a post.

Anyways, I'll reiterate. If you, yourself, were to attack an enemy. Would you not use various means? I don't see the impossibility of utilizing other means of attack than just the illustrious air planes. No one saw the first bombing attempt either, when the explosives were used. They did so in guise. So as to not be interrupted. And, I'm reasonably certain there was a detonation in 1993. Explosives are readily employed by terrorists when attacking solid structures. Has been for some time, still is.

Yes, I realize the way the 'light' was shown/seen: It was a grand performance. But, I don't realize why I should have "seen" enemy combatants prancing about in obvious fashion for all to gawk at, so that our forces might indicate against them.

You could almost reasonably assume they would have wanted to succeed. And, since most don't like their buildings blown up, they might have wanted to proceed without much scrutiny.

I can't/won't say if this took place. And never did. Just that I find it ridiculous that an enemy wanting to destroy a building would not do so.

[iceaura]

The energy behind trying to find fault with anything running counter to the official story would be enormous. And part of that energy devoted to distracting people from the probable sources and evidence of real conspiracy and complicity, to spectacular but essentially nonsensical (and easily debunked, if they gain any actual traction) hypotheses would be clever, no?

If you want a conspiracy theory there are far better ones ready to hand here.

How many real inquiries into the many disturbing features and coincidences of 9/11 have been deflected by lumping them in with claims that the buildings were demolished by explosives, a missile hit the Pentagon, etc etc etc. ?

Briefly: the buildings did not fall as quickly as claimed by the demolition asserters, nor did they accellerate much in the last half of their collapses (the central problem is identifying the precise moment of initial drop - the first few feet take the most time - then consider that even large differences between free fall accelleration and the actual more constant speed during the final half would be masked by the short total time of that phase and the difficulty of identifying the exact moment of final impact).

The demolition theory is not necessary to explain side explosions, melted steel, etc - the heat and violence of air compression, impacts, and grinding concrete easily account for all that.

The alleged demolitions would have required accurate prediction of the impact point and attitude of the planes, and some kind of rigging that could be counted on to survive the impact and still function precisely and with utter reliability. You can't just set them off all at once, if they are to mimic sequential collapse they have to be started at exactly the right spot and timed to within a hundredth of a second.

And besides - why in hell would anyone bother? Why take such an enormous and unnecessary risk of screwup and discovery, when almost all the gain is assured simply by the plane impacts ? - if what happened to the Pennsylvania plane had happened to one of the Tower planes, all that demolition rigging would have been on the evening news.

Demolition's completely unnecessary and wildly unreasonable. But it has served very well to distract from evidence of complicity and hidden deals, in other aspects of the event.

[phlogistician]

*flame deleted*

Anyways, I'll reiterate. If you, yourself, were to attack an enemy. Would you not use various means?

Not if I were a terrorist, no. I'd keep the plan as simple as possible, with as few people involved as possible so as to avoid detection, and increase the likelyhood of my mission succeeding. If I failed, others could try a different approach, people I have never met, but share the same cause. You should look into the organisation of terror cells, like the triads, you know a guy that knows a guy, but you all don't know each other, that way should one person get captured, the amount they can reveal about the organisation as a whole is limited. This means also that their capacity to act is limited, but also effective if the plan is simple.

[decantemix]

That's sloppy, and thoughtless. If you can't be bothered to put over your thoughts clearly and concisely, and so they are easily understood, you can't think much of your own thoughts. Not all users of SciForums have English as a first language, but they take time to use correct grammar and spelling, and to make yourself understood to them, you should do the same.



Jeesh, flip the ATTACK-MODE off. I've reviewed my original post, and although somewhat terse for the areas it conveyed, it was simple to understand, in my opinion.

I seldom engross the engagement of the act of, when no correction is made. Only negative input...

I'll state this, for the flow of conversation: Spurts of conflict do little to imply someone is either/nor smart. Just creates friction. If you can't take the time to state what is wrong, and why...why waste my time...

[decantemix]

Not if I were a terrorist, no. I'd keep the plan as simple as possible, with as few people involved as possible so as to avoid detection, and increase the likelyhood of my mission succeeding. If I failed, others could try a different approach, people I have never met, but share the same cause. You should look into the organisation of terror cells, like the triads, you know a guy that knows a guy, but you all don't know each other, that way should one person get captured, the amount they can reveal about the organisation as a whole is limited. This means also that their capacity to act is limited, but also effective if the plan is simple.

Most Military Strategist have what some call 'plans of succession'.
It's like bombing a site, and then striking it again with another salvo. To ensure the target's elimination. Often, there are other methods to be employed should the original plan fail.

Many have back up plans when they do something. Anyone attacking something as large as the WTC that wanted to destroy it would be somewhat likely to use explosives. Since, it was very discouraging for the terrorists in 1993 when they failed with the truck bomb, they would probably not want a repeat of the same thing.

[phlogistician]

Since, it was very discouraging for the terrorists in 1993 when they failed with the truck bomb, they would probably not want a repeat of the same thing.

If your 'plan b' claim is true, why didn't the truck bombers finish the job off with some jet airplanes, just to make sure, huh?

Or is it as I said, they tried a simple plan, failed, and then others tried something else?

[nietzschefan]

Look I don't know about WTC 1 and 2, but building 7 was DEMO'd. Anyone with fucking eyeballs that work properly can see that. It casts doubt on the whole official story.

[iceaura]

I agree that it's a little confusing and could have been worded more simply, but there are no grammatical or syntactical errors in it. So he meant to say that the chaos followed with explosives, and in that chaos people ensued ?

Look I don't know about WTC 1 and 2, but building 7 was DEMO'd. Anyone with fucking eyeballs that work properly can see that. It casts doubt on the whole official story. My eyeblls showed me nothing unexpected that required demolition. That there were things in the building rigged to be blown up for some reason is an outside possibility. The hypothesis of planned demolition coordinated with the suicide strike distracts from far more likely problems with the official story, IMHO.

[decantemix]

Most definitions of "terrorism" accentuate the distinction between acts of terrorism and acts of war. Terrorist organizations are characterized by a tenuous chain of command and constrained financing. They cannot be expected to have the resources to mount an attack of true military scope.

I'm aware that they are not a recognized, trained military body. Not by any country. I'm simply pointing to the fact that terrorists have used explosives often, in many acts. Especially against buildings. And, why so many think it implausible is just an act of diminishing a threat. Easier to stomach, I guess.

I'll state I don't know. They probably wouldn't tell you, if they knew. But, since explosives are often used to demolish structures, I see know reason why they couldn't be in this instance. I'm not fond of convenience. This laissez-faire attitude is one, in my opinion, of where someone else will maintain the order, and you may freely go about your business.

[MetaKron]

I could swear that I remember statements on that date that building 7 was deliberately demolished. I cannot see how it is physically possible for that building to have fallen into its own footprint the way that it obviously did without someone having spent a lot of hours installing the explosives the way that they need to be installed. To have three buildings collapse as neatly as they did in one day seems incredibly unlikely. Of course, a lot of the people who talk about it would rather have me believe the physically impossible because of course Bush "would never do that." But he continues close business ties with people who he knows financed it and wastes thousands of American lives attacking a country that he knows very well didn't do it. On what basis do I place hypothetical limits on Bush's behavior?

[MetaKron]

They also want me to believe that demolition experts precisely placed many explosive packages in a building while it was in the process of falling down, in regards to building 7. I'm not even sure that the story that it was badly shaken by the other collapses holds water.

[S.A.M.]

Moderator Note: This is Science and Society, not Linguistics.

One more opportunity to discuss the topic, not the linguistic deficiencies of teh poster

[MetaKron]

Sure, a few of the posters behave badly and it's time to close the thread and the subject to everyone.

[MetaKron]

There are so many errors in that pdf paste that it is getting kind of embarrassing refuting them.

Which means you don't know how to refute even one of them.

[John99]

Oh, is that what that means?

Why dont you tell us how the xplosives to take down two huge buildings could have been planted. We are only talking about two - three of the most secure building in one of the most populated cities in the world. The city that never sleeps no less. Do you know what 24\7 security is?

So tell me how that was accomplished. How long it would take AND how it went unnoticed.

[MetaKron]

How they could have been planted? That at least is physically possible. Did it go unnoticed? People noticed it but there are a lot of spin doctors out there who can explain that they didn't actually.

[John99]

It is not physically possible. Case closed.

Edit:nice try.

[MetaKron]

It is not physically possible. Case closed.

Edit:nice try.


It is not physically possible to plant explosives in a skyscraper?

Right now I'm not even trying to push a case, I'm attacking presumptions. I cannot presume that they were unable to plant explosives and keep it a secret.

[John99]

Not as i outlined in post #24. Youve never been to Manhattan have you? Did tom cruise drop in for the job like in mission impossible?

[MetaKron]

Not as i outlined in post #24. Youve never been to Manhattan have you? Did tom cruise drop in for the job like in mission impossible?

Just use the right contractors to do renovations. Do you even read material before you try to debunk it?

[clusteringflux]

AND how it went unnoticed..

Well, I don't know about the AlexJones hoodoo but many things went "unnoticed".

There are a ton of instances like these:

September 10, 2001 (I): According to CBS News, in the afternoon before the attack, "alarm bells were sounding over unusual trading in the US stock options market." It has been documented that the CIA, the Mossad and many other intelligence agencies monitor stock trading in real time using highly advanced programs such as Promis. Both the FBI and the Justice Department have confirmed the use of such programs for US intelligence gathering through at least this summer. This would confirm that CIA should have had additional advance warning of imminent attacks against American and United Airlines planes. [CBS, 9/19/01] There are even allegations that bin Laden was able to get a copy of Promis. [Fox News, 10/16/01] FTW



September 10, 2001 (Q): Eight hours prior to the attacks, San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown receives a warning from "my security people at the airport" advising him to be cautious in traveling. [San Francisco Chronicle, 9/12/01] Later reports claim that this is because someone saw the State Department warning of September 7, which focused on the threat to military personnel in Asia (see September 7, 2001 (B)). He was scheduled to fly to New York the next morning. [San Francisco Chronicle 9/14/01, San Francisco Chronicle, 9/12/01, US State Department, 9/7/01]

[iceaura]

Well, I don't know about the AlexJones hoodoo but many things went "unnoticed". And one major reason many of these very interesting and provocative coincidences went unnoticed is that they were safely drowned in a swamp of completely unrealistic and easily debunked (should they get any actual backing) Mission Impossible demolition scenarios,

so that anyone attempting to discuss actual complicity (in, say, failure to take obvious precautions given advance notice, or failure to attend to disturbing indications, or even undermining of the possibility of interruption), the spread of the actual conspiracy, the advantage taken of the event by well-prepared people, etc,

gets lumped in with essentially fruitcake speculations about missiles and vanished passengers and coordinated demolitions, and can reach no serious audience.

[MetaKron]

I simply don't believe the phrase "easily debunked" when you use it that way, Iceaura. Debunking is when some fat white guy makes the false claim that he has disproven an idea, anyway.

[wsionynw]

Never mind the twin towers, where the hell is all the video footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon??
Forgive me for asking such an obvious question, us Brits might be kept in the dark about all this.

[iceaura]

I simply don't believe the phrase "easily debunked" when you use it that way, Iceaura. Do you think the claim that the towers "fell at free fall speed", plus puddles of melted steel, plus side explosions during the collapse, prove it was the product of controlled demolition,

and the claim that the size of the hole, plus the missing video, plus a lack of debris, prove the Pentagon was hit by a missile,

and so forth

are not easily debunked ?

All anyone has to do, if those speculations actually grow to threaten anyone in the US administration, is put a stopwatch on the video of the collapse, have a physicist demonstrate on TV the kinds of temperatures generated by such an event, and take sworn testimony from an experienced demolition expert about what would be necessary in rigging the buildings to fall as they did when they did. Or fit a silhouette of the Pentagon plane into the hole and point to the wing scars on either side, while pointing to the photos of plane debris outside the building, and possibly even releasing the good video if they have any.

That's if those speculations do somehow begin to threaten anyone who might be threatened by public explication.

Meanwhile, they have been serving a valuable role for the people dubiously involved in 9/11 - the actual evidence of complicity and odd dealings goes unpublicized, buried in a compost heap of Hollywood inspired drama.

Maybe a good analogy might be the bullfighter's cape - except that would imply deliberate agency, which is possible but not necessary.

[Walter L. Wagner]

Why would terrorists wait for the buildings to be evacuated before setting off demolition charges, reducing the casualties significantly?

[phlogistician]

Moderator Note: This is Science and Society, not Linguistics.

One more opportunity to discuss the topic, not the linguistic deficiencies of teh poster


Well done Sam, now the crappily phrased sentence which means nothing from decantemix goes unchallenged.

Btw, there was no flame from me. You are being hypersensitve. Part of 'Science and Society', at least when I took that module when studying my degree, was about how scientists explain things to the general public. That requires solid linguistic skills.

[decantemix]

Nit-picking aside (lead word for plhogistician: take aim), most assume explosives to be planted would require something like you see in them movies. Bushes on your head, radio traffic galore, commanders screaming: 'This has gotta' get done...'

It's not the case. In the years prior, pipe-bomb guides were common on the I-net. And, were/are a threat. Done inconspicuously, so to be more effective, they can be detrimental.

References were made to "satchel bombs" post 9/11. As, it was alerted to the public, this was a threat. Vigilance required suspicious activities to be noted. On weakening a structure inflicted on by jet planes, say 1 dozen placed explosives would cause significant damage. Easily toted backpack style, by other operatives.

Aside from the fact that most "see" what they want, and "won't" see that which they do not intend; There was an attack. It's official. Most of the world knows. It was recognized as an organized, planned operation. Movie-mode on or off, I guess to quote from some I've dealt with extensively, and is more and more readily applicable: Ignorance is Bliss...

[15ofthe19]

Well done Sam, now the crappily phrased sentence which means nothing from decantemix goes unchallenged.

Btw, there was no flame from me. You are being hypersensitve. Part of 'Science and Society', at least when I took that module when studying my degree, was about how scientists explain things to the general public. That requires solid linguistic skills.

Apparently that rule does not apply to this forum. We've got one moderator who can't seem to speak in complete sentences, but yet, has the ability to edit threads. I guess every town needs a Barney Fife.

[phlogistician]

, say 1 dozen placed explosives would cause significant damage. ...


A dozen satchel bombs, vs a few thousand gallons of aviation fuel is going to make a difference?

Please, get a clue. Sustained fire does just as much structural damage as explosions, and we saw a collapse that was consistent with the gradual weakening of the structure.

[clusteringflux]

Please, get a clue. Sustained fire does just as much structural damage as explosions, and we saw a collapse that was consistent with the gradual weakening of the structure..
l do think the engineers were trying to create a structure that would take multiple hits from aircraft and fuel burning temps were factored in. Also, you can find footage of skyscrapers that burn for weeks without falling down.

The result was a long shot to say the least.

[decantemix]

Yeah, growing tired of the inundating, but it's silly.

Terrorists blow things up. They use IEDs a lot these days. It's what you might say, natural, for them. When they destroy, that is.

Long shot attitude can't/won't/didn't happen, aside. It's impractical to assume that they could not utilize this method. Even your illustrious Dick Cheney said it's just a matter of time before suicide bombers are seen here. Emphasis on explosives.

If you seek comfort, try music/meditation. Lying about, in that something couldn't happen because it's too inflicting, is an implication of remorse, in that you will not ever succumb to misfortune. Because, after all, the tendency has been well indoctrinated: __GOD MODE++ON__

[phlogistician]

l do think the engineers were trying to create a structure that would take multiple hits from aircraft and fuel burning temps were factored in.

Bullshit.


Also, you can find footage of skyscrapers that burn for weeks without falling down.

Skyscrapers doused in five thousand gallons of jet fuel?

The result was a long shot to say the least.

Conspiracies are a long shot.

[Fraggle Rocker]

Why would terrorists wait for the buildings to be evacuated before setting off demolition charges, reducing the casualties significantly?Indeed. That is something that a military force would do if it didn't increase the risk to themselves. Wars are supposed to be fought with honor and military operations are supposed to minimize civilian casualties. Terrorists have no honor, at least not outside their own twisted thinking. In fact they deliberately target civilians as a way of terrorizing them so that they will lobby their government to give in to the demands of the terrorists. As I have posted elsewhere, terrorism is extortion rather than warfare. It is the Mafia "protection" racket writ large. "Give us what we want or we'll kill your children."Apparently that rule does not apply to this forum. We've got one moderator who can't seem to speak in complete sentences, but yet, has the ability to edit threads. I guess every town needs a Barney Fife.If you think a moderator is not doing a good job then please PM any moderator, for example me. Don't just bitch about it to the other members and to all the prospective members who come here to see if they like the place. We can't keep up with each other's boards and know what's being written. But we know we're not perfect and we criticize each other on our private subforum all the time.l do think the engineers were trying to create a structure that would take multiple hits from aircraft and fuel burning temps were factored in. Also, you can find footage of skyscrapers that burn for weeks without falling down. The result was a long shot to say the least.As noted, NYC changed the rules about asbestos when the WTC was half complete. Other fireproofing materials are heavier. The blueprints had to be changed when the bottom half of the structures were already built. There is controversy over just how much of an effect this had on the disaster. Nonetheless the terrorists clearly knew about it. They hit the buildings precisely within the ten-story zone right above the asbestos line that engineers agree was the "soft spot."

[clusteringflux]

One thing is for sure, New Yorkers are pissed off. Why are we still hearing about this 7 years later? Why is it so popular a notion that it was an inside job?

I don't know, but if I were in charge of building those things, the very FIRST thing I would wonder is "what if a plane hit this thing?"

Well, the first thing I would wonder is "who the hell would spend every workday in a skyscaper?" followed by "what if it got hit by a plane?"

[nietzschefan]

Actually the first thing the guy in charge of those buildings did - was collect BILLIONS of USD in Insurance.

[edit] September 11, 2001 attacks

[edit] Dispute with insurers
As a private developer with a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center, Silverstein insured the property. Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, he sought payment for the destruction of the towers as two incidents. The two dozen insurers held that it was one incident. If it were considered to be a single incident, the payout would be $3.55 billion and if it were two incidents, it would be $7.1 billion. Silverstein sued the insurers. In October of 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a jury verdict from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that the attacks must be considered a single occurrence. Yet, the same court also upheld a victory in the second phase of trial which was awarded to Mr. Silverstein in which temporary insurance policies in effect when the buildings were destroyed did require that the attack be treated as two occurrences. Thus, nine insurance companies will pay double the approximately $1 billion in coverage under their policies.[10]

On December 6, 2004, a federal jury ruled in favor of Silverstein giving him an additional $1.1 billion from nine insurers, declaring it to be two "occurrences". [11] However, in a previous trial, a different federal jury delivered a mixed verdict which highly favored insurers on April 29, 2004 [12]

At dispute in the trial were interpretation of standard forms used in the application for property insurance and when particular insurers saw which documents.[13]

In total, Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance money following the destruction of the Twin Towers [14]. He plans to use some or all of the settlement to rebuild. [15] The World Trade Center had a total of 24 insurance policies. In 2007, 6 years after the attacks, Silverstein and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey filed a $1 billion lawsuit ($250 million in unpaid claims and $750 million in damages) against Royal & Sun Alliance Group Plc and its U.S. affiliate.[16]

Silverstein's lease with the Port Authority for the World Trade Center requires him to continue paying $102 million annually in base rent.[17] He is applying insurance payments toward the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site.[18]


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

Kinda odd he got specific insurance in case of TWO seperate attacks.

[Fraggle Rocker]

I don't know, but if I were in charge of building those things, the very FIRST thing I would wonder is "what if a plane hit this thing?"They did. It would be irresponsible not to. The probability is small but the damage is enormous so you have to take it seriously. The problem is that the bureaucrats second-guessed the engineers (as bureaucrats are wont to do) and forced them to jury-rig the upper half of the towers instead of building them the way they were designed. As I said, there's much controversy over how much effect this had. But to me, the fact that the building was designed to withstand the impact of an airliner crash, and DIDN'T, means that we should at least think about blaming the bureaucrats. Leaving the asbestos out of HALF of those two buildings probably saved something like two lives that would have been lost to cancer over 100 years. Instead, by taking the risk and tempting fate, we've lost 3,000 people.

[decantemix]

Large structures being built take into account catastrophic failure attempts.
Has been so since the late 1970's when terrorists first started blowing up planes, and hijacking them. Although, typically it was to raise interest in their party, by flying them to a destination other than the intended one; it was assumed after several planes hit targets in the early 80's this was a scenario.

It's minimal, but it's a concern. However, to 'plane-proof' a building could be swelled up better by the notion of impact survival gear. Personal parachutes, still available on Ebay, for fleeing a hit building. Are, in fact, much more economical, practical, and seem to sooth the mind for this level of thinking. Whereas, you are invulnerable, can do no wrong, and nothing dares stray from your line of thinking.

[iceaura]

Kinda odd he got specific insurance in case of TWO seperate attacks. According to your link, he didn't get insurance that clearly applied to the kind of event that occurred - he had to go to court to get his interpretation of some apparently non-specific language enforced.

One thing is for sure, New Yorkers are pissed off. Why are we still hearing about this 7 years later? Why is it so popular a notion that it was an inside job? There were a lot of odd circumstances involved. People have cause to be suspicious. But wild speculations about Mission Impossible secret demolition rigging is a deflection of those suspicions down easily handled paths.

The suspicion that the contractors cut a few corners during construction, for example, and concealed the evidence of that in the disposal of the steel, gets lost.

The suspicion that a fair number of people had some pretty solid indications, as much as nine months in advance, of the date and the target of some kind of serious attack, gets lost.

The suspicion that certain preventative measures indicated by the disturbing circumstances in accellerating accumulation before the event were negligently - or even deliberately - slacked, gets lost.

The suspicion that the money trail both before and after the event has not been diligently pursued, for incriminating reasons, gets lost.

And so forth.

[decantemix]

No, man...not here, not this one, not this time...

NORAD was at official Defcon stat. 2, then 1. In the midst for about 4 or so hours. Watching, tracking. Especially the final dot. As the terrorists had figured out by monitoring, it wasn't happening.

That's why I don't agree with the accepted demolition of the Pentagon via non-plane method.
Eyes wide open...very Dramatic...

[Archie]

One thing is for sure, New Yorkers are pissed off. Why are we still hearing about this 7 years later? Why is it so popular a notion that it was an inside job?
Because this is the only way the anti-American, President Bush hating, love all the Islamofascists, socialist promoting whack jobs can keep blaming the problem on everyone and everything but where it belongs.

It cannot be the fault of the Muslim extremists who claimed responsibility; the left favors them.

It cannot be the Clinton Administration's neglect of intelligence gathering, military preparedness and general dismissive attitude of national security and defense; the left favors them.

It has to be Republicans. Especially that evil Bush guy. And at the time, his puppet master, that evil Cheney guy.

It's bad enough those loonies really believe this sort of thing. They think you'll believe it too if they repeat it long enough. Remember, to a good Marxist, 'Truth is that which serves the revolution.'

[Fraggle Rocker]

Because this is the only way the anti-American, President Bush hating, love all the Islamofascists, socialist promoting whack jobs can keep blaming the problem on everyone and everything but where it belongs. It cannot be the fault of the Muslim extremists who claimed responsibility; the left favors them. It cannot be the Clinton Administration's neglect of intelligence gathering, military preparedness and general dismissive attitude of national security and defense; the left favors them. It has to be Republicans. Especially that evil Bush guy. And at the time, his puppet master, that evil Cheney guy.As I've noted elsewhere, anti-American sentiment throughout the Middle East was fomented throughout the Cold War, when the Soviets and the CIA used the region as their private chessboard and treated the people who lived there as expendable pawns. Every postwar administration--Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and the Retard, five Democrats and six Republicans--has contributed to their resentment of us (and the Soviets of course but now they're gone).

We supported the creation and armament of Israel. We kept the Shah in power. When he was ousted we supported Saddam in his war against Iran. But then when he attacked Kuwait we sided with Kuwait. When the Russians tried to get a foothold in Afghanistan we gave financial support and training to the backwoods militia that became the Taliban. Throughout all of this we've kept Christian soldiers stationed in Saudi Arabia, uncomfortably close to Medina and Mecca, Islam's most holy sites. After 9/11, which was perpetrated by Saudis, to the bafflement of the entire human race we responded by overthrowing the governments of Afghanistan (which was only tenuously involved) and Iraq (the only secular, pro-Western Muslim nation in the entire region).It's bad enough those loonies really believe this sort of thing. They think you'll believe it too if they repeat it long enough. Remember, to a good Marxist, 'Truth is that which serves the revolution.'These "loonies" have plenty of reason to hate us. The guilt does not rest entirely on the head of The First President With Pre-Senile Dementia, or even on the G.O.P., but there's more than enough to go around and no one in Washington is blameless.

I'm not leftist. I'm a libertarian. I hold both nearly indistinguishable conferences of the Republocrat League in equal contempt. And I hold them both responsible for at least contributory negligence in regards to our current dismal relations with the Middle East. You can't treat people like chessmen for sixty years and expect them to respect you.

[Avatar]

The thermite thing got debunked a long time ago.

Blast! I read it "the termite thing", and thought someone had the theory that 9/11 building collapse was really caused by termites! :D :D

[iceaura]

Leaving the asbestos out of HALF of those two buildings probably saved something like two lives that would have been lost to cancer over 100 years. Instead, by taking the risk and tempting fate, we've lost 3,000 people. ”

I keep saying that the environmentalists don't care who they kill.
I've been wondering if there were anything that switched off the judgment module of the reactionary mind faster than "terrorist" - of course there is: "environmentalist".

The banning of asbestos in building insulation has probably saved more than 3000 people from particularly ugly deaths, the collapse of the towers is not directly tied to any lack of asbestos (the existing insulation, if installed as specified, was equivalent), many hundreds of the 3000 would have died regardless of the collapse - and "environmentalists" were not directly involved anyway.

The asbestos in the lower floors, btw, is a serious concern - the health effects of the tower collapses are still playing out.

[phlogistician]

Blast! I read it "the termite thing", and thought someone had the theory that 9/11 building collapse was really caused by termites! :D :D


Genetically engineered termites from a secret government lab? Horror! You heared it here first folks!

[Archie]

These "loonies" have plenty of reason to hate us.FR, you missed what I was saying. The 'loonies' who hate the U. S. and to whom I referred are those U. S. born 'truthers' who feel their mission in life is to be ashamed of the U. S. At the moment, that means hating President Bush; just as they hated President Johnson in the '60s and then President Nixon for the overwhelming sin of fighting communism. These are the people who simply have to believe the Twin Towers attack was 'an inside job'. If it were not, then they couldn't hate President Bush for it. Not only that, but they would then have to support President Bush in the effort to combat Islamofascist terrorism.

Could you possibly imagine anything worse?

[Fraggle Rocker]

FR, you missed what I was saying. The 'loonies' who hate the U. S. and to whom I referred are those U. S. born 'truthers' who feel their mission in life is to be ashamed of the U. S. At the moment, that means hating President Bush; just as they hated President Johnson in the '60s and then President Nixon for the overwhelming sin of fighting communism. These are the people who simply have to believe the Twin Towers attack was 'an inside job'. If it were not, then they couldn't hate President Bush for it. Not only that, but they would then have to support President Bush in the effort to combat Islamofascist terrorism.I've become increasingly ashamed of the U.S. ever since the Religious Redneck Retard Revival began reversing all the intellectual and social progress we made in the 1960s and early 1970s. I'm especially ashamed of it now because I have no answers for many of the quite reasonable criticisms made, even right here by my friends on SciForums. I've been antagonistic to our government for years, since the checks and balances stopped functioning and it has been consolidating power at a dizzying rate. I haven't liked the presidents in my lifetime very much except Eisenhower and Clinton, but I hold Carter and the two Bushes directly responsible for our problems in the Middle East. When I saw the Twin Towers fall, my first reaction was, "This was bound to happen, we and the Russians used the Middle East as a chessboard for forty years and we still have Christian soldiers stationed near Mecca."

But even I don't think it was an inside job. It doesn't have to be. The event as it actually occurred indicts our postwar political folly just fine. We're all guilty. I voted for LBJ because I thought he would end the war, and for Carter because I didn't think anybody could be more inept than Ford.

[Fraggle Rocker]

Moderator: This thread is getting pretty heavy on the trolling!

[S.A.M.]

Moderator note: Off topic posts deleted

Posts on homicidal environementalists moved to new thread

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=78257

[Walter L. Wagner]

I voted for LBJ because I thought he would end the war, and for Carter because I didn't think anybody could be more inept than Ford.

Fraggle: Nice to see you date yourself. However, I suspect that most of the readership haven't a clue who LBJ was, or which war you're talking about. Same might even be true for Carter for a significant percentage of those who post here.

I believe a lot of people voted as you did for the same reasons. Lyndon B. Johnson inherited Kennedy's war in Vietnam following Kennedy's assasination, and people believed he'd end it when they later voted for him, and not make it a bigger quagmire as he later did after being elected. Later, they voted for Nixon for the same reason, obtaining the same opposite result. When Ford took over after Nixon resigned, Carter promised a breath of fresh air [an outsider from Georgia going into Washington], and was elected on that premise, it would appear.

[MetaKron]

I've become increasingly ashamed of the U.S. ever since the Religious Redneck Retard Revival began reversing all the intellectual and social progress we made in the 1960s and early 1970s. I'm especially ashamed of it now because I have no answers for many of the quite reasonable criticisms made, even right here by my friends on SciForums. I've been antagonistic to our government for years, since the checks and balances stopped functioning and it has been consolidating power at a dizzying rate. I haven't liked the presidents in my lifetime very much except Eisenhower and Clinton, but I hold Carter and the two Bushes directly responsible for our problems in the Middle East. When I saw the Twin Towers fall, my first reaction was, "This was bound to happen, we and the Russians used the Middle East as a chessboard for forty years and we still have Christian soldiers stationed near Mecca."

But even I don't think it was an inside job. It doesn't have to be. The event as it actually occurred indicts our postwar political folly just fine. We're all guilty. I voted for LBJ because I thought he would end the war, and for Carter because I didn't think anybody could be more inept than Ford.

Our religious redneck retard revivalists have used 9/11 as if it were made to order for them. They have used it as an excuse to target political enemies. They have used it as an excuse to compromise human rights.

[John99]

What the hell are you talking about?

[kmguru]

And for those who are conspiracy theorists, here is some food for thought....(not that I subscribe to it)

James Canton, chairman and chief executive officer of the San Francisco-based Institute for Global Futures, estimates that half of the U.S. gross domestic product is driven by “innovative” industries, and about 75 percent of them are being addressing the needs of the military.

“The irony of 9/11 is that we’re going to accelerate many innovations,” Canton said. “In many ways, our economy will be more productive. We’re back on that innovation bandwagon, if you will. And it’s going to be a new game.”

[kmguru]

More on 9/11 WTC

Just got an email with link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8XToX7aSdg

[codanblad]

haven't studied physics, so i'm hoping there's some people that have or do, after hearing claims that they couldn't have been brought down just by the planes. i'm not interested in conspiracy theories, politics etc., just whether two planes could have caused the towers to go down the way they did. cheers.

[James R]

They weren't brought down by the planes crashing into them.

They were brought down by the very hot fire that resulted from the burning jet fuel. This caused some of the support beams of the floors to buckle, as well as the external vertical supports for those beams. As soon as a few floors collapsed onto the ones below, the forces exceeded the load-bearing capacities of the floors below, so the whole tower pancaked.

There's no real doubt about how and why the towers collapsed in the scientific and engineering communities. It's only conspiracy nutters who think the accepted explanation is impossible.

[CptBork]

Well, if you ask the majority of engineers, fire officials, scientists, architects, etc., the answer is yes. The only definitive way to find out for sure is to build a bunch of replica towers like the WTC's, loaded with office supplies and the whole shebang, and then start crashing planes into them.

[spidergoat]

Nope, it was aliens. I think this has been discussed on every internet forum by now, and here more than 3 or 4 times.

[CptBork]

Nope, it was aliens. I think this has been discussed on every internet forum by now, and here more than 3 or 4 times.

Shhhhh, we Bork-kind aren't quite ready to reveal our presence to the world just yet. If you must know, one of our ships over-compensated for relativistic time shift and ended up launching a premature strike. Rest assured, we found the errant pilot and tore his limbs off (all 6 of them!), then left him helpless in the wild to be slowly consumed by Groqtak, the 100 000 pound bone eating slug.

[spidergoat]

Yeah, MattMarr predicted that several years ago, they're in league with the Illuminazis I think.

[spidergoat]

haven't studied physics, so i'm hoping there's some people that have or do, after hearing claims that they couldn't have been brought down just by the planes. i'm not interested in conspiracy theories, politics etc., just whether two planes could have caused the towers to go down the way they did. cheers.

Can an airplane crashing into a building cause structural damage and collapse? Of course that is possible. To just state the obvious, the airplanes did hit the towers and they did collapse. It is reasonable to assume that one caused the other. It's a real life experiment. Buildings aren't as solid as they appear to be, modern buildings aren't castles, they are relatively lightweight structures of steel with glass facings and in this case a concrete core.

[codanblad]

Can an airplane crashing into a building cause structural damage and collapse? Of course that is possible. To just state the obvious, the airplanes did hit the towers and they did collapse. It is reasonable to assume that one caused the other. It's a real life experiment. Buildings aren't as solid as they appear to be, modern buildings aren't castles, they are relatively lightweight structures of steel with glass facings and in this case a concrete core.

first bold section: yeah but whether or not it was the planes in conjunction with explosives, or some other kind of structural sabotage, is why i'm interested. i would think terrorists capable of hijacking four planes could plant some explosives anyway, i'm not proposing anything radical. the logic behind your argument is kinda dumb, if you saw a man kick the building just before it fell, did that cause it?

second bold section: planes gotta be pretty light to fly, would have thought they would tear apart rather than do a lot of damage. fire must have been pretty hot to melt/weaken metal and concrete sufficiently. the building's gotta cope with tremors, wind etc. would think its capable of dealing with some stress.

[Read-Only]

first bold section: yeah but whether or not it was the planes in conjunction with explosives, or some other kind of structural sabotage, is why i'm interested. i would think terrorists capable of hijacking four planes could plant some explosives anyway, i'm not proposing anything radical. the logic behind your argument is kinda dumb, if you saw a man kick the building just before it fell, did that cause it?

second bold section: planes gotta be pretty light to fly, would have thought they would tear apart rather than do a lot of damage. fire must have been pretty hot to melt/weaken metal and concrete sufficiently. the building's gotta cope with tremors, wind etc. would think its capable of dealing with some stress.

Well, you said in your original post that you haven't studied physics - and your statements here make that more than obvious.

They handled the stress just fine, but they weren't designed to handle the tons of burning jet fuel. The planes were fully loaded (had just taken off for cross-country flights) with fuel. And add to that something else that you probably don't know about either - the chimney effect. The flames caused a TREMENDOUS in-draft of air that caused the fire to reach MUCH higher temperatures than normal.

And I'll again emphasize something that was said earlier - the steel did NOT! melt. It was weakened to the point that it cold no longer bear the weight of the structure above it.

[cosmictraveler]

Well, if you ask the majority of engineers, fire officials, scientists, architects, etc., the answer is yes. The only definitive way to find out for sure is to build a bunch of replica towers like the WTC's, loaded with office supplies and the whole shebang, and then start crashing planes into them.

Actually they did just that only with a computer simulation and showed what happened when the planes hit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8

http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collap se_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

[GeoffP]

Computer studies will never beat real-life replication.

Get a-buildin'.

[cosmictraveler]

Computer studies will never beat real-life replication.

Get a-buildin'.

Your first act as President will be to do just that I guess , if that's a priority with your agenda.:shrug:

[DJ Erock]

My question has always been, why would the towers collapse straight down upon themselves. The fire weakened the structure at say, the 60th and 80th floors, but there is still a lot of good structure below that. It seems like for the towers to collapse straight down, they would be taking the path of most resistance. It would make more sense to me if the top parts of the buildings had toppled to one side.

[spidergoat]

As soon as the top part of the building started to collapse, the momentum of all that weight was unstoppable, no building is designed to withstand another building falling from even 1 foot.

Is it also possible that there was a bomb or something? Yes, that is also possible, but there is no evidence for it. Is it necessary to explain the building's collapse? No.

[MetaKron]

They weren't brought down by the planes crashing into them.

They were brought down by the very hot fire that resulted from the burning jet fuel. This caused some of the support beams of the floors to buckle, as well as the external vertical supports for those beams. As soon as a few floors collapsed onto the ones below, the forces exceeded the load-bearing capacities of the floors below, so the whole tower pancaked.

There's no real doubt about how and why the towers collapsed in the scientific and engineering communities. It's only conspiracy nutters who think the accepted explanation is impossible.

And you are one of the geniuses who keeps trying to convince people that a building can fall neatly into its own footprint this way.

[spidergoat]

Gravity pulls things downward, not sideways.

[Human001]

first bold section: yeah but whether or not it was the planes in conjunction with explosives, or some other kind of structural sabotage, is why i'm interested.
What kind of sabotage?

i would think terrorists capable of hijacking four planes could plant some explosives anyway, i'm not proposing anything radical.

I suppose really determined terrorists could, given enough time, money and security bungling, plant explosives in the towers. But then one would want to see evidence of this. Did you see evidence of this?
if you saw a man kick the building just before it fell, did that cause it?

Interesting question. How much energy is in the kick?
planes gotta be pretty light to fly, would have thought they would tear apart rather than do a lot of damage.

If they were travelling at 10mph maybe they would tear apart anddo little damage. But their speed and therefore momentum were much higher in reality. Steel is not indestructible. The vertical steel columns were simply sliced through on impact. This was shown on numerous videos. Are you disputing that jetliners crashed into the buildings?


fire must have been pretty hot to melt/weaken metal and concrete sufficiently. the building's gotta cope with tremors, wind etc. would think its capable of dealing with some stress.

The steel did not need to melt. Only lose enough strength for the beams to be unable to support the weight of the above sections of the towers.

[Human001]

And you are one of the geniuses who keeps trying to convince people that a building can fall neatly into its own footprint this way.

There was nothing neat about the way the towers collapsed. debris was scattered all over Manhatten. WTC7 took a good dealof damage,which contributed to its collapse.
How should the towers have collapsed? Sideways?From what pivot point?

[James R]

My question has always been, why would the towers collapse straight down upon themselves.

Because of the particular construction of the WTC. The floor structure was supported at the inner core and the outer edge of the building. When the outer edge buckled and the floors started to detach, the floors fell straight down onto the floors below. The floors below weren't built to take the load, so they detached from the support structure too. This led to a vertical cascade.

It would make more sense to me if the top parts of the buildings had toppled to one side.

There were no horizontal forces acting that could possibly make the building fall that way. As spidergoat said, gravity pulls down, not sideways.


And you are one of the geniuses who keeps trying to convince people that a building can fall neatly into its own footprint this way.

Yes.

[Prince_James]

You know, I used to thought it was odd the building didn't fall over sideways at that point, either.

THen I actually did a simulation on my computer of what would happen.

Get Pontifex's demo. You can make a nice little steel tower (meant for supporting a bridge). Remove one of the struts and watch how it collapses.

[DJ Erock]

Because of the particular construction of the WTC. The floor structure was supported at the inner core and the outer edge of the building. When the outer edge buckled and the floors started to detach, the floors fell straight down onto the floors below. The floors below weren't built to take the load, so they detached from the support structure too. This led to a vertical cascade.

There were no horizontal forces acting that could possibly make the building fall that way. As spidergoat said, gravity pulls down, not sideways.




That is a good explanation for the vertical collapse, although wouldn't the structural core remain if the floors were detaching themselves from it?

Its obvious that gravity pulls things down, yet its also obvious that things follow the path of least resistance, which in this case is anywhere but straight down.

[iceaura]

Its obvious that gravity pulls things down, yet its also obvious that things follow the path of least resistance, which in this case is anywhere but straight down. The shortest path to the ground - the path of minimum energy - is straight down.

Something would have to give the thing an enormous sideways kick to knock all those tons of stuff sideways through the air.

Take it one floor at a time: the first floor to give drops out from under the entire building above it. This floor falls straight down, pulling its support joints inward, and the entire building above it loses support likewise (if one side drops a split second early, the opposite side is pulled loose and detaches, thereupon joining the straight drop to the next floor. You can see that happen in the videos if you look sharp just at the first little wiggle). Once it's rolling, it's staright down all the way - blowing out chunks of stuff by compression etc, but mostly just piling down through the central hollow.

It didn't all drop neatly into its footprint, btw - huge chunks of stuff hit nearby buildings.

[CptBork]

Some of you folks seem to have this silly idea in your heads that a tower could lean out at say, 20 degrees, and still remain intact. The WTC is not the Leaning Tower of Pisa. As a tower starts to bend over, the columns will start experiencing a tremendous amount of torque, in a sideways direction which they weren't meant to withstand. The columns will then snap and the upper floors will start falling downwards as usual, perhaps slightly skewed to one side but not by much. Any of you who think the WTC could just topple over sideways and smash into buildings hundreds of feet away, go put on your dunce caps and sit in the corner.

[Read-Only]

Some of you folks seem to have this silly idea in your heads that a tower could lean out at say, 20 degrees, and still remain intact. The WTC is not the Leaning Tower of Pisa. As a tower starts to bend over, the columns will start experiencing a tremendous amount of torque, in a sideways direction which they weren't meant to withstand. The columns will then snap and the upper floors will start falling downwards as usual, perhaps slightly skewed to one side but not by much. Any of you who think the WTC could just topple over sideways and smash into buildings hundreds of feet away, go put on your dunce caps and sit in the corner.

Fully agreed.

But you've got your work cut out for you trying to convince some of the dunces here - we've been working on them for years with no sign of success. Personally, I just ignore the old timers (like Metakron) who don't understand basic things and refuse to learn. Instead, I try only to help new people like the one who started this thread.

[James911]

Very simple to explain:

We know that the plane hit the south tower at the 83rd floor.
We were told that the floors above the impact zone caused the undamaged floors below to crash ( or I may say disintegrate ) one after the other.

Lets do some simple calculation:

If every floor that gave way during the vertical collapse took, let say, half a second to break ( I am very generous here ), then if we time 83 by half a second we get 41 seconds.

the whole collapse should have taken a minimum of 41 second.

But we know for a fact that the south tower collapsed in 10 seconds

The only explanation is CONTROL DEMOLITION, planed months before

Conclusion:
The US government has killed 3000 of his own people that he pledged to protect, in cold blood.


Why they did it.....watch the news.

[John99]

Couldnt be J911.

How to plant explosives?

Oh, and they could not just be taped to walls.

[andbna]

Very simple to explain:

We know that the plane hit the south tower at the 83rd floor.
We were told that the floors above the impact zone caused the undamaged floors below to crash ( or I may say disintegrate ) one after the other.

Lets do some simple calculation:

If every floor that gave way during the vertical collapse took, let say, half a second to break ( I am very generous here ), then if we time 83 by half a second we get 41 seconds.

the whole collapse should have taken a minimum of 41 second.

But we know for a fact that the south tower collapsed in 10 seconds

The only explanation is CONTROL DEMOLITION, planed months before

The good news is, your argument is logicaly sound. The bad news is, your premises is fataly flawed, and hence, your conclusion is unsupported.

If every floor that gave way during the vertical collapse took, let say, half a second to break ( I am very generous here ), You're definatly being generous with the bullshit at least.
Got experiments, physical data, and a peer-reviewed journal, with expert opinion that supports your claim? No? That's because it's wrong.

-Andrew

[spidergoat]

The floors didn't take a half second to break, they couldn't support the weight above for any time at all, they were breaking up as soon as the floors above hit them. In other words, they provided no significant resistance, just like a landslide.

[CptBork]

Looks like 9/11 "truthers" are trying to use Zeno's (the real Zeno, from ancient Greece) paradox to prove 9/11 was a US plot. Just like we can never reach any destination, not even the local convenience store, so the exteriors of the twin towers couldn't fall in 13 or whatever seconds. Brilliant! :scratchin:

[James R]

But we know for a fact that the south tower collapsed in 10 seconds

Where did you get that number from?

It can't be correct.

An object free-falling from the top of a 100-floor building would take at least 6 seconds to hit the ground.

[James911]

Where did you get that number from?

It can't be correct.

An object free-falling from the top of a 100-floor building would take at least 6 seconds to hit the ground.

Watch the south tower collapsing again and time it.
Many clips are available on Youtube and Googlle video

The free fall from the top of the south tower takes 9.2 seconds
The formula is : t = sqrt( 2 * Height / g )

height is 415 meters
g is the gravity = 9.8 m/s/s

Hence t = sqrt( 2 * 415 / 9.8 ) = 9.2 seconds

The question now is: Can a steel framed building fall at the same rate as a free falling object?

[James911]

I would really advise everyone to go and learn about the following:

What is free fall speed.
What is the minimum temperature for steel to melt.
Can plane fuel ( Kerosene ) cause steel to melt.
Can fire cause a steel building to collapse and disintegrate to the ground.
Did a steel building ever in history collapsed due to fire. ( Look at Windsor building fire - Spain )
Why Building 7 collapsed to the ground, while it wasn't hit by a plane.
What is control demolition.
How buildings collapse in an uncontrolled fashion.
How buildings collapse in a controlled fashion.
When a plane crash, how much debris ( Engines, landing gears, wheels, seats, luggages, plane parts... ) can be found in the crash site.
Why there was no plane debris at the pentagone.
Why until now the Government doesn't want to show us the plane that hit the pentagone, approaching and crashing into the pentagone.


These are documentaries that can help you - Also available to watch free on Youtube and Google video:

911 Mysteries Part 1: Control Demolition
911 Ripple Effect
Painful Deceptions

I think this should be enough for you to start your own investigation.
Good Luck

[spidergoat]

Watch the south tower collapsing again and time it.
Many clips are available on Youtube and Googlle video

The free fall from the top of the south tower takes 9.2 seconds
The formula is : t = sqrt( 2 * Height / g )

height is 415 meters
g is the gravity = 9.8 m/s/s

Hence t = sqrt( 2 * 415 / 9.8 ) = 9.2 seconds

The question now is: Can a steel framed building fall at the same rate as a free falling object?

Yes of course. What is the resistance required to stop a falling building? It's tremendous. The structure can only support it's weight when it's still or under wind loads.

[James911]

......The structure can only support it's weight when it's still or under wind loads.

That's exactly what the towers did for 30 years.

Every floor did support all of the floors above it for 30 years.
If the top floors collapsed, as it did on 911, they should collapse through the less resistant path which is side ways, not through STEEL and CONCRETE.

Watch the first seconds of the south tower collapsing. The top section was breaking up and leaning away from the center of the tower. The law of physics says...that the top section should have fallen away from the south tower, not through the tower. Also if you watch it again and again, you can see the top section of the south tower disintegrating ( exploding ) in midair before the collapse starts happening.

[spidergoat]

If such a weight falls even 1 foot, the forces become vastly more than if it's still, due to acceleration from gravity.

By analogy, a car's suspension can take the weight of the car for the lifetime of the car, but try jumping it like the Dukes of Hazzard, and you probably won't have shock absorbers anymore.

[James911]

Can you watch the first seconds of the south tower collapsing and tell me if the following is TRUE:

youtube.com/watch?v=qJsq_mu9sus&feature=related
youtube.com/watch?v=atSd7mxgsGY&feature=related

The top section was breaking up and leaning away from the center of the tower. The law of physics says...that the top section should have fallen away from the south tower, not through the tower. Also if you watch it again and again, you can see the top section of the south tower disintegrating ( exploding ) in midair before the collapse starts happening.

[spidergoat]

At first the towers may have provided a little bit of resistance, but as it accelerated, the forces increased, easily surpassing the ability of the building to support it. Which law of physics are you referring to?

[CptBork]

I vote that this thread be moved to the Pseudoscience or Politics/World Events sections. It's no longer about discussing the scientific merits of different theories, but about pushing a specific political opinion based on limited selections of limited evidence. Furthermore, there are too many fallacies in the logic and understanding of basic Newtonian mechanics being displayed by the proponents of a conspiracy for this thread to merit its continued existence here.

[spidergoat]

Agreed, they are as bad as the global warming deniers and the creationists.

[James911]

At first the towers may have provided a little bit of resistance, but as it accelerated, the forces increased, easily surpassing the ability of the building to support it. Which law of physics are you referring to?

Look at the image, try this link: home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/collapse2.jpg

Newton's First Law of Motion says:

Every object in a state of uniform motion
tends to remain in that state of motion
unless an external force is applied to it.

The top section of the south tower was leaning away from the centre of the tower.
It's motion is to fall away from the tower not into the tower, as you can see in the picture.

What external force caused it's path of motion to be changed....You tell me

[spidergoat]

Gravity.

[CptBork]

Like I say, this belongs in the pseudoscience section, there's no longer any merit to discussing this topic as a subject of physics. Furthermore, a lot of photographic and video evidence used in the common conspiracy theorist arguments is based on digitally enhanced footage that's been proven to add things that weren't there in the original footage, so what good is this to a physicist? There's nothing more to discuss here- save it for the election polls or take it to the Supreme Court, this isn't a theory of physics and all the questions asked here about the physics have already been answered.

[James911]

Gravity.

If so, then a DOG ALSO CAN FLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLYYYYYYYYYYY:D

[CptBork]

If so, then a DOG ALSO CAN FLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLYYYYYYYYYYY:D

I don't know about dogs flying, but clearly things with less intelligence can argue for conspiracy theories. You wanted to revive this stupid pseudoscientific thread, well then let's have it. You linked us to the following image:

http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/collapse2.jpg

And then followed it up with the following piece of drivel:


The top section of the south tower was leaning away from the centre of the tower.
It's motion is to fall away from the tower not into the tower, as you can see in the picture.

What external force caused it's path of motion to be changed....You tell me

Tell me Mr. conspiracy nut, how many office towers do you know with curvy windows and floors? If that's an accurate picture, the building ought to collapse on its own just from shoddy design. You give us an image from a blatantly distorted lens, and submit it as physical evidence? How stupid do you think we are?

This topic no longer has any relevance to physics. It needs to be moved now, so this guy will stop trolling around wasting our time with junk science while looking for fellow paranoids to keep him company.

[synthesizer-patel]

While the idea that the 911 attacks were a false flag operation is not beyond the realms of possibility, the idea that flying planes into the building to disguise a controlled demolition is laughable.
Why complicate the conspiracy?
Why involve more people than you absolutely have to and invite greater opportunity for a security breach?
Why not simply detonate the explosives and blame the terrorists for that?
If you want to elevate AQ from what it is in reality to what it is portrayed to be, that would make much more sense.

[James911]

...You give us an image from a blatantly distorted lens, and submit it as physical evidence?

Well, if you discredit this picture then you need a big pair of glasses
The above picture will haunt you again and again.


...How stupid do you think we are?

Well, I wont comment on this


.... so this guy will stop trolling around wasting our time ....

Well, stop wasting your time and stop writing in this thread.


I don't know why some people are trying very very very hard to deny any proof of an inside job? ARE ...THEY AFRAID THEY WILL BE EXPOSED...then wast no time ... the 911 truth movement tide is coming to get you and wash you away to your destiny.

[snake river rufus]

Well, if you discredit this picture then you need a big pair of glasses
The above picture will haunt you again and again.
:bugeye:no, you just need a wee bit of photo or engineering study.


I don't know why some people are trying very very very hard to deny any proof of an inside job? ARE ...THEY AFRAID THEY WILL BE EXPOSED...then wast no time ... the 911 truth movement tide is coming to get you and wash you away to your destiny.

:bugeye:The best evidence of all is that the dunderheads at 9-11 truth are still alive!

[D H]

Tell me Mr. conspiracy nut, how many office towers do you know with curvy windows and floors? If that's an accurate picture, the building ought to collapse on its own just from shoddy design. You give us an image from a blatantly distorted lens, and submit it as physical evidence? How stupid do you think we are?
That doesn't look like an image from a blatantly distorted lens so much as an image blatantly and badly distorted by photoshop. The rubber sheet warping effect even extends to the north tower. Bring evidence such as this to court and you will be facing contempt charges at a minimum. Bring evidence such as this to a scientific forum and you will merely be laughed at. How stupid do you think we are?

[John99]

:bugeye:The best evidence of all is that the dunderheads at 9-11 truth are still alive!

Thats true. How hard can it be to push someone in front of a truck?:shrug:

[GeoffP]

If so, then a DOG ALSO CAN FLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLYYYYYYYYYYY:D

Are you down to invective?

[GeoffP]

the 911 truth movement tide is coming to get you and wash away your destiny.

Fixed. You ran away from one debate. Are you going to run away from this one also?

[James911]

Fixed. You ran away from one debate. Are you going to run away from this one also?

You going somewhere?...So be patient and wait your turn, I am coming back to you on the other thread.

[CptBork]

Well, if you discredit this picture then you need a big pair of glasses
The above picture will haunt you again and again.

The only thing that haunts me is that a photoshopped image gets submitted to a science forum as physical evidence, and that this thread doesn't go to the cesspool where it belongs as a result. Clearly if you don't notice the distortions throughout the entire image, you either need glasses of your own, or you need to get your prescription checked.

Just keep drinking that conspiracy Koolaid, it makes you easier to control.

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

I watched a documentary last night on the saloman brothers building 7 which also collapsed in the vicinity of WTC on 9/11...

You can watch a short version on this,
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7

or this which is only 9secs long,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

I didn't know about this building collapsing as well, the documentary makers showed it to some experts who all said it was a controled demolition and were gobsmacked when told it was 9/11 footage.....
Other points which were brought up.....
The BBC announced 23 minutes before it actualy fell that it had collapsed,
They announced it twice once when they were told it had collapsed and once when it did collapse,
In this footage at the begining they go to a live broadcast from New York where Jane Stanley is reporting about building 7's collapse 'YET' building 7 is quite visible behind her head to the right..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s

This thread should be in 'Architecture and Engineering' not P/Math and certainly not the cess pool.....

Here a skyscraper burns for 15 hours and the building is shown the next day...
building 7 burnt for just 7 hours.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM&feature=related

Never before in the history of Engineering has a steel building collapsed pre-9/11 then it all happens at once....here is some info on steel buildings,and what would/wouldn't make them collapse,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnnjIzamnJo

The truth is painful that people who are supposed to look after you care more about money than human life....there is no warant for the cesspool it's about the possability of the structures collapse due to fire, and the facts state that the building's should not have collapsed from this and the hundreds of people's reports of explosions prior to collapse puts it down to an engineer to anwser...

"Steel will never become hotter than the flame/heat applied to it and melts at 2750 degrees, it would need a blast furmance or a thermite device applied to it for it to melt"
"Airplane/jetplane fuel burns at 1400 degrees" you do the math.........................

[James911]

Yes.....

The BBC last Sunday has aired more than an hour program about WTC7.
A very detailed investigation of all the evidences of WTC7 collapse. Watch it if you can : Link is : ......bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ck4jd

The BBC is finally trying to come clean with it's conscience, and tries to justify why Jane Stanley reported WTC7 collapse 20 minutes before it actually collapsed.

The program showed the following:

Control Demolition
Free fall speed
Themite
Very high temperature at the base of WTC7 event 5 days after 911
And many more...


I would say I was very impressed that a main stream media like the BBC is airing like this type of information to millions of viewers. Now all who watched that program are talking about an inside job.


..."Steel will never become hotter than the flame/heat applied to it and melts at 2750 degrees, it would need a blast furnace or a thermite device applied to it for it to melt"

Thanks you, this phrase is everything...Steel will never become hotter than the flame/heat applied to it..."

Also, Steel will only melt in the following situations:


When a blast furnace is used
When Oxyacetylene gaze mixture is used
When a thermite device is applied to it


This will leave Thermite as the prime suspect...INSIDE JOB

US GOVERNMENT HAS SHOT ITSELF IN THE FOOT...

Case closed

[D H]

Never before in the history of Engineering has a steel building collapsed pre-9/11 then it all happens at once
Never before in the history of engineering have two jetliners loaded with fuel flown into a tall steel building. Then on 9/11 it all happened at once.

Never before in the history of engineering had a loaded fuel tanker truck hit a bridge with the resultant inferno causing the bridge to weaken and collapse. Then on 4/29/07 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/us/29cnd-collapse.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1215601258-J4KML8m44zh63Oi+fnXWfQ) it all happened at once. That bridge collapse should have been the end of the 9/11 conspiracy crowd. It's too bad logic and evidence are a lot less persuasive than obviously doctored photos.

"Steel will never become hotter than the flame/heat applied to it and melts at 2750 degrees, it would need a blast furmance or a thermite device applied to it for it to melt"
You do the math. The only ones who are saying the steel melted are journalists whose science education ended with Physics 001 "Physics for Poets", and nutjobs. That the steel couldn't have melted is a straw man argument. Steel becomes malleable at a temperature far lower than the melting point.

The truth is painful that people who are supposed to look after you care more about money than human life.
This is the essence of why the 911 conspiracy meme has taken hold on so many. If it was just 19 individuals who did this, that makes life in our modern world quite scary and capricious. While the airplane-into-a-building attack has been cut off, there are many other places where our modern world is fragile. Another group of terrorists might be able to something else just as heinous or even worse; what, where, and how they will do it -- nobody knows. It might be that man in the bulky coat walking down the street. We are not safe!

On the other hand, if 9/11 was some conspiracy by people in power, all we have to do is find the culprits and put them in jail. Tada! The world is safe again.

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

Never before in the history of engineering had a loaded fuel tanker truck hit a bridge with the resultant inferno causing the bridge to weaken and collapse. bridge collapse should have been the end of the 9/11 conspiracy crowd. It's too bad logic and evidence are a lot less persuasive than obviously doctored photos.
The link stated that...QUOTE"The tanker exploded, sending flames hundreds of feet into the air, according to witnesses, and quickly buckled a three-lane section of Interstate 580 and caused it to collapse onto Interstate 880 some thirty feet below."
So an explosion destroyed the concerete not flames melting steel.......so not really a good comparison

You do the math. The only ones who are saying the steel melted are journalists whose science education ended with Physics 001 "Physics for Poets", and nutjobs. That the steel couldn't have melted is a straw man argument. Steel becomes malleable at a temperature far lower than the melting point.
LOL....ok lets look at it from from 'malleable steel' as a cause.....:scratchin:
OK the jet fuel burns at 1400 degrees....reinforced steel becomes malleable between 2150-2350 so again it is not possible for the steel to become malleable let alone melt.......so back to the math


On the other hand, if 9/11 was some conspiracy by people in power, all we have to do is find the culprits and put them in jail. Tada! The world is safe again.

I wouldn't say the world would be safe but at least we would understand the difference between a dollar and a human life a bit more..
explain to me the bbc saying no 7 had collapse when the building is right behind the reporter......? phsycic journalism..pff

[BenTheMan]

Like I say, this belongs in the pseudoscience section, there's no longer any merit to discussing this topic as a subject of physics.

You are correct sir. I should have moved this thread long ago.

[GeoffP]

LOL....ok lets look at it from from 'malleable steel' as a cause.....:scratchin:
OK the jet fuel burns at 1400 degrees....reinforced steel becomes malleable between 2150-2350 so again it is not possible for the steel to become malleable let alone melt.......so back to the math

That is patently incorrect. Steel loses 50% of its strength at 500C. Thermal protection was stripped off by the impact.

Now, on the other side of the story, that steel on the bridge was indeed melted. It isn't blown to bits, but melted. So now what?

[shaman_]

explain to me the bbc saying no 7 had collapse when the building is right behind the reporter......? phsycic journalism..pffDue to the damage and the fire burning unchecked for seven hours, WTC7 was expected to fall long before it actually did. This is why the firemen on the scene backed off. While that report is a little odd, it doesn't really point to a conspiracy.

When WTC1 and WTC2 fell, the collapse was not neat like a controlled demolition would be. The debris fell all over the WTC complex. Every building in the WTC complex collapsed or had to be demolished due to the damage it received. Part of a skyscraper fell on WTC7 and it was significantly damaged. The fate of WTC7 is not so strange.

[Ophiolite]

I would say I was very impressed that a main stream media like the BBC is airing like this type of information to millions of viewers. Now all who watched that program are talking about an inside job.
I watched the program. I also understood the program. As a consequence I am not talking about an inside job.
You seem to have a predeliction for making errors when assessing situations. May I advise you get help when crossing the road.

[snake river rufus]

Yes.....

The BBC last Sunday has aired more than an hour program about WTC7.
A very detailed investigation of all the evidences of WTC7 collapse. Watch it if you can : Link is : ......bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ck4jd

The BBC is finally trying to come clean with it's conscience, and tries to justify why Jane Stanley reported WTC7 collapse 20 minutes before it actually collapsed.

The program showed the following:

Control Demolition
Free fall speed
Themite
Very high temperature at the base of WTC7 event 5 days after 911
And many more...


I would say I was very impressed that a main stream media like the BBC is airing like this type of information to millions of viewers. Now all who watched that program are talking about an inside job.



Thanks you, this phrase is everything...Steel will never become hotter than the flame/heat applied to it..."

Also, Steel will only melt in the following situations:


When a blast furnace is used
When Oxyacetylene gaze mixture is used
When a thermite device is applied to it


This will leave Thermite as the prime suspect...INSIDE JOB

US GOVERNMENT HAS SHOT ITSELF IN THE FOOT...

Case closed

Again, no steel melted. You were hoodwinked by these conspiracy whacko. But hey get sending your money to them, no reason for them to be gainfully employed when they can rely on the gulibilty of people like you.

[GeoffP]

Yeah. James, it was aluminum, not steel.

[James911]

I watched the program. I also understood the program. As a consequence I am not talking about an inside job.
You seem to have a predeliction for making errors when assessing situations. May I advise you get help when crossing the road.

Ok, let me hold your hand and make you cross that road:

I want from you a Yes or No answer:


Did the reporter on the BBC program talked about control demolition? Yes or No
Did the reporter on the BBC program talked about Temperature exceeding 1700 dgree C at the base of WTC7? Yes or No
Did the reporter on the BBC program talked about Thermate residue found around WTC7? Yes or No
Did the reporter on the BBC program talked about the impossibility of WTC7 falling symmetrically due to fire? Yes or No
Did the reporter on the BBC program talked about first time in history a control demolition is carried out using thermate, so that no traces are left behind and to avoid explosives that make lots of noise? Yes or No
Did the reporter on the BBC program talked about a man walking on dead bodies inside the WTC7 before it collapsed? Yes or No


The last point is very strange...we are learning more and more things.
Why people were killed inside WTC7.
What were they doing inside WTC7 before they were killed.
Surely no plane has hit WTC7, so why people died in it hours before it was demolished.

Best regards
James

[snake river rufus]

Ok, let me hold your hand and make you cross that road:

I want from you a Yes or No answer:


Did the reporter on the BBC program talked about control demolition? Yes or No
Did the reporter on the BBC program talked about Temperature exceeding 1700 dgree C at the base of WTC7? Yes or No
Did the reporter on the BBC program talked about Thermate residue found around WTC7? Yes or No
Did the reporter on the BBC program talked about the impossibility of WTC7 falling symmetrically due to fire? Yes or No
Did the reporter on the BBC program talked about first time in history a control demolition is carried out using thermate, so that no traces are left behind and to avoid explosives that make lots of noise? Yes or No
Did the reporter on the BBC program talked about a man walking on dead bodies inside the WTC7 before it collapsed? Yes or No


The last point is very strange...we are learning more and more things.
Why people were killed inside WTC7.
What were they doing inside WTC7 before they were killed.
Surely no plane has hit WTC7, so why people died in it hours before it was demolished.

Best regards
James

If the answer to any of those questions is "yes" then the reporter wis uninformed or an idiot.
No airplane hit WTC7, the first factual statement that I've seen you post on this thread.

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

.
Now, on the other side of the story, that steel on the bridge was indeed melted. It isn't blown to bits, but melted. So now what?
Well i've looked at a few more sites on this and it seems the after the explosion the bridge collapsed after a couple of minutes(caused by explosion),the way the road collapsed created a type of oven around the tanker where temps possibly got up to 2000....hence the steel melted but the melted steel was not the cause of the collapse.....
LOL there is conspiracy theories on this too
Due to the damage and the fire burning unchecked for seven hours, WTC7 was expected to fall long before it actually did. This is why the firemen on the scene backed off. While that report is a little odd, it doesn't really point to a conspiracy.
If you look at other videos of buildings collapsing from fire damage and videos proffessionaly demolished there is a big difference and the WTC7 building collapses perfectly.

When WTC1 and WTC2 fell, the collapse was not neat like a controlled demolition would be. The debris fell all over the WTC complex. Every building in the WTC complex collapsed or had to be demolished due to the damage it received. Part of a skyscraper fell on WTC7 and it was significantly damaged. The fate of WTC7 is not so strange.

I doubt you would be able to perform a 'neat' demolition on the WTC 1&2 without significantly damaging the surrounding area, if you look at a safety zone for demolition its quite extensive..

I don't think something's not right because of conspiracy but, because it didn't look right the way all three building's seem to collapse so perfectly and as no other structure's like this have ever collapsed due to fire before comdined with footage of other similar structure's that have had major fires
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjO...eature=related
I'm not convinced its so clean cut,a war started for no legitimate reason,a government that would lie to invade another country and sacrifice it's soldiers for a dollar wouldn't think twice about it's citizen's (but that's only my opinion I can't be bothered going into that)..the main reason is on appearance of the collapses alone.

[James911]

If the answer to any of those questions is "yes" then the reporter wis uninformed or an idiot.
No airplane hit WTC7, the first factual statement that I've seen you post on this thread.

Well Well Well...you have seen or not seen the BBC program?

If your answers are No to my above 6 questions, then either you haven't seen it, which is not true, because you said you have seen it. Or you have seen it, in which case you are trying to lie and hide the truth from the readers. Full stop.


Regards

[GeoffP]

Well i've looked at a few more sites on this and it seems the after the explosion the bridge collapsed after a couple of minutes(caused by explosion),the way the road collapsed created a type of oven around the tanker where temps possibly got up to 2000....hence the steel melted but the melted steel was not the cause of the collapse.....
LOL there is conspiracy theories on this too

So couldn't the melted steel at WTC, if there were any, be the result of the oven effect in the burning debris? This sound like the smoking gun that wasn't. PH, the conspiracy theories are all based on shoddy impressionism. Look at James' flailing around to keep pushing his agenda after being stomped on the other threads. It's a faith-based issue, not an evidence-based issue.

[snake river rufus]

Well Well Well...you have seen or not seen the BBC program?

If your answers are No to my above 6 questions, then either you haven't seen it, which is not true, because you said you have seen it. Or you have seen it, in which case you are trying to lie and hide the truth from the readers. Full stop.


Regards

I have not seen it nor have I ever said that I did. You are the one trying to hide the truth or you just have very little understanding of physics and engineering

[GeoffP]

Well Well Well...you have seen or not seen the BBC program?

Argument from false authority.

[James911]

I have not seen it nor have I ever said that I did. You are the one trying to hide the truth or you just have very little understanding of physics and engineering

So why did you reply to my post. Before you reply go and watch the Documentary.

[shaman_]

If you look at other videos of buildings collapsing from fire damage and videos proffessionaly demolished there is a big difference and the WTC7 building collapses perfectly. The lower floors of WTC7 lost enough structural integrity and collapsed under the weight of the floors above, with the help of gravity. This collapse may be similar to a controlled demolition (well they fall in the same direction) but that doesn’t mean it had to be.

If we want to theorize about building seven you have to ask, how did they get explosives there without anyone seeing them? Why did they wait seven hours before setting them off? Why even blow WTC7 with explosives? What is the point of that? There are going to be planes flying into the building next to it. What if no debris had hit WTC7 at all? Would it then have just dropped for no reason? It really doesn’t make a lot of sense.


I doubt you would be able to perform a 'neat' demolition on the WTC 1&2 without significantly damaging the surrounding area, if you look at a safety zone for demolition its quite extensive.. But you and others refer to WTC1 and WTC2 collapsing “perfectly”. The collapse starts at the floors where the planes hit – unlike a controlled demolition. The buildings fell but did not go straight down. One certainly had a large lean as it collided with WTC7. So what was perfect about the collapse?


I don't think something's not right because of conspiracy but, because it didn't look right the way all three building's seem to collapse so perfectly and as no other structure's like this have ever collapsed due to fire before comdined with footage of other similar structure's that have had major firesBut these building did not collapse simply due to fire.

[shaman_]

Ok, let me hold your hand and make you cross that road:......


...
The last point is very strange...we are learning more and more things.
Why people were killed inside WTC7.
What were they doing inside WTC7 before they were killed.
Surely no plane has hit WTC7, so why people died in it hours before it was demolished.

Best regards
James
There is no point answering these questions because, as snake river rufus pointed out, they are not even based on facts.

There are no deaths attributed to WTC7 so what are you talking about? Answer the question without telling me to watch some documentary.

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

So couldn't the melted steel at WTC, if there were any, be the result of the oven effect in the burning debris? This sound like the smoking gun that wasn't. PH, the conspiracy theories are all based on shoddy impressionism. Look at James' flailing around to keep pushing his agenda after being stomped on the other threads. It's a faith-based issue, not an evidence-based issue.

hmm the evidence to me is the way all 3 towers fell, plus if you nit pick through various theories there is a lot that doesn't make sense,compare it with other buildings on fire and it doesn't seem fitting for them to collapse this way...for me the way WTC 7 fell is a complete controlled demolition....
if part had fallen like normaly when buildings suffer trauma and fire damage then I wouldn't think that..

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

The lower floors of WTC7 lost enough structural integrity and collapsed under the weight of the floors above, with the help of gravity. This collapse may be similar to a controlled demolition (well they fall in the same direction) but that doesn’t mean it had to be.

If we want to theorize about building seven you have to ask, how did they get explosives there without anyone seeing them? Why did they wait seven hours before setting them off? Why even blow WTC7 with explosives? What is the point of that? There are going to be planes flying into the building next to it. What if no debris had hit WTC7 at all? Would it then have just dropped for no reason? It really doesn’t make a lot of sense.
So what caused the fire in WTC 7.........?

But you and others refer to WTC1 and WTC2 collapsing “perfectly”. The collapse starts at the floors where the planes hit – unlike a controlled demolition. The buildings fell but did not go straight down. One certainly had a large lean as it collided with WTC7. So what was perfect about the collapse?
But these building did not collapse simply due to fire.

Well the planes disintegrated on impact and it states here that the 'Empire state building' was hit by a B-52 bomber in 1945 causing fire yet that still stands and did not collapse....!
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/News/News8-0112.html

In 1975 WTC 1 suffered a major fire and did not collapse.....!
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_1975_fire.html

Here is some comparison's to other major fires in similar structures
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm
Also claims that the jet fuel would have burnt itself out after 10 mins....no its still not a clean cut issue

[GeoffP]

hmm the evidence to me is the way all 3 towers fell, plus if you nit pick through various theories there is a lot that doesn't make sense,compare it with other buildings on fire and it doesn't seem fitting for them to collapse this way...for me the way WTC 7 fell is a complete controlled demolition....
if part had fallen like normaly when buildings suffer trauma and fire damage then I wouldn't think that..

Well, which other naturally collapsing buildings have fallen sideways? Does the design of the WTC buildings suggest that their designers might have intended them to fall directly down, or topple over to hit Manhattan like a giant domino? The physical evidence supports a normal collapse, not demolition. Why else do pieces falling off the tower - those breaking away from it at any stage, I might add, as can be seen in the videos - always fall faster than the tower itself? Surely these pieces are in literal free-fall.

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

Well, which other naturally collapsing buildings have fallen sideways? Does the design of the WTC buildings suggest that their designers might have intended them to fall directly down, or topple over to hit Manhattan like a giant domino? The physical evidence supports a normal collapse, not demolition. Why else do pieces falling off the tower - those breaking away from it at any stage, I might add, as can be seen in the videos - always fall faster than the tower itself? Surely these pieces are in literal free-fall.

I would not expect all three to be so perfect (as near to) I would have expected the building to absorb most of the impact as some floors collapsed and end up with this...
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/madrid_skyscraper.jpg
as in madrid. If you put WTC7 in a video of demoliton it would not look out of place...the evidence of pervious similar/type problems...empire state building and the previous fire suggest's that it shouldn't have collapsed....

[Don't quote me on this] I heard ages ago that the WTC building's did not meet criteria for health and safety throughout the buildings and i'm wondering what the cost would have been to take down the WTC and rebuild it opposed to just re-building it........as some financiers would value saving billions of dollars over a few 1,000 lives it can't be ruled out the callousness of some people, And still my eyes do not see what i'm supposed to see I see demolition at work especially WTC 7

[MacGyver1968]

Well the planes disintegrated on impact and it states here that the 'Empire state building' was hit by a B-52 bomber in 1945 causing fire yet that still stands and did not collapse....!
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/News/News8-0112.html



It wasn't a B-52 bomber...it was a B-25 Mitchell...a propeller aircraft, that is much, much smaller than a 767. It was also travelling at a much slower speed and was carrying much less fuel.

Apples and Oranges.

[shaman_]

So what caused the fire in WTC 7.........?I don't know. The building was damaged by the falling debris. There were generators that contained diesel fuel. A gas main could have caught fire, electrical equipment.. There are a few possibilities.


Well the planes disintegrated on impact and it states here that the 'Empire state building' was hit by a B-52 bomber in 1945 causing fire yet that still stands and did not collapse....!
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/News/News8-0112.html
The 767 wieghs ten times more at take off, flies twice the speed and carries ten times the fuel.

The damage caused by the B-52 doesn't compare.
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/empirecrash.jpg


In 1975 WTC 1 suffered a major fire and did not collapse.....!
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_1975_fire.html
Again, not even close to 9/11. From that link -

"Only the 11th floor office area was burned, but extensive water damage occurred on the 9th and 10th floors, and smoke damage extended as far as the 15th floor, the spokesman said.
Although there were no direct casualties, 28 of the 150 firemen called to the scene suffered minor injuries."


Here is some comparison's to other major fires in similar structures
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm
Also claims that the jet fuel would have burnt itself out after 10 mins....no its still not a clean cut issuePlanes didn't fly into any of those buildings, which were all smaller than the WTC.

Lets look at the Madrid Windsor Towers. The results of this fire actually support the official explanation, not the conspiracy. The steel in that building collapsed due to the fire! The building only stayed up because the building was framed with concrete.

10,000 gallons of jet fuel will do some damage even if it did burn out in a matter of minutes.

[snake river rufus]

So why did you reply to my post. Before you reply go and watch the Documentary.

I do not need to watch a documentary or any show that flies in the face of the laws of physics and established facts. It would be a waste of my time.

[snake river rufus]

Well the planes disintegrated on impact and it states here that the 'Empire state building' was hit by a B-52 bomber in 1945 causing fire yet that still stands and did not collapse....!
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/News/News8-0112.html

In 1975 WTC 1 suffered a major fire and did not collapse.....!
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_1975_fire.html


The planes did not disintegrate on impact, you can clearly see the aft section (tail) sticking out of the builbings watching news footage from any of the networks present. The Empire state building was structurally different- so no true comparison. The B-25 is much smaller and lighter than todays jetliners- so again, no true comparison.
The 1975 fire did not include tons of aircraft and aviation fuel, so again- no true comparision.

[snake river rufus]

I would not expect all three to be so perfect (as near to) I would have expected the building to absorb most of the impact as some floors collapsed and end up with this...
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/madrid_skyscraper.jpg
as in madrid. If you put WTC7 in a video of demoliton it would not look out of place...the evidence of pervious similar/type problems...empire state building and the previous fire suggest's that it shouldn't have collapsed....


Your expectations are based on what? Formal traing? Practical training? What experience do you have to make expectations?

[snake river rufus]

[Don't quote me on this] I heard ages ago that the WTC building's did not meet criteria for health and safety throughout the buildings and i'm wondering what the cost would have been to take down the WTC and rebuild it opposed to just re-building it........as some financiers would value saving billions of dollars over a few 1,000 lives it can't be ruled out the callousness of some people, And still my eyes do not see what i'm supposed to see I see demolition at work especially WTC 7

The safety issue was related to asbestos, which was removed years ago. Ironically the thing that was removed from the studs and trusses years ago might have kept those buildings standing.
The rest of your post is idle speculation.

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

Your expectations are based on what? Formal traing? Practical training? What experience do you have to make expectations?

on other buildings in near similar situations that have had worse fires...

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

The safety issue was related to asbestos, which was removed years ago. Ironically the thing that was removed from the studs and trusses years ago might have kept those buildings standing.
Thought there was lack of sprinklers, proper fire escapes ang a whole heap of other things...
The rest of your post is idle speculation.

Entirely

[snake river rufus]

on other buildings in near similar situations that have had worse fires...

Umm, there are no other buildings in similar situations. So again I have to ask "what are you basing your conjecture on?"

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

I don't know. The building was damaged by the falling debris. There were generators that contained diesel fuel. A gas main could have caught fire, electrical equipment.. There are a few possibilities.
But none known..


The 767 wieghs ten times more at take off, flies twice the speed and carries ten times the fuel.
And the building was smaller...
FROM LINK...In response to this question one reader wrote:
"I would submit that none of the other buildings were hit by a heavy aircraft moving at 500 miles per hour, which sheared off many beams, support structures, etc. The shock to the tower must have been tremendous! Isn't this obvious?"
It may be "obvious" that a heavy plane hitting a skyscraper would deliver a "tremendous" shock, but it doesn't follow that the building must therefore collapse. In 1945 the Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 bomber, but it was still standing last time I saw it. "Ah yes, but it was the impact plus the fires!" Well, when the B-25 hit the Empire State Building "its fuel tanks were reported to have exploded, engulfing the 79th floor in flames", as we read at Empire State Building Withstood Airplane Impact.


Lets look at the Madrid Windsor Towers. The results of this fire actually support the official explanation, not the conspiracy. The steel in that building collapsed due to the fire! The building only stayed up because the building was framed with concrete.

10,000 gallons of jet fuel will do some damage even if it did burn out in a matter of minutes.

Yes, but the floors on the madrid towers collapsed and did not cause the collapse of the tower..

[snake river rufus]

Thought there was lack of sprinklers, proper fire escapes ang a whole heap of other things...

No there was not a "Heap of other things". Please get your facts straight.

[GeoffP]

Yes, but the floors on the madrid towers collapsed and did not cause the collapse of the tower..

Smaller tower. And the fire protection wasn't sheared off by a plane hitting it.

[shaman_]

But none known..We don't know for sure no. But there are likely mundane reasons and no evidence for any suspicious ones.


And the building was smaller...8 floors smaller. WTC - 417m, Empire state building - 381m. Not that much of a difference. Not like the difference between the planes in question.


Yes, but the floors on the madrid towers collapsed and did not cause the collapse of the tower..WTC did not have the concrete support that the Madrid towers did, and again no 767 was involved.

[snake river rufus]

While it may not be appearant to some posters that different design and construction of buildings does make a difference. As does the mass added to the near top of a building.
All fires and buildings are not the same.

[James911]

I do not need to watch a documentary or any show that flies in the face of the laws of physics and established facts. It would be a waste of my time.

So How will you build your own judjment if you don't look at the 911 events from different angles? Or maybe you like to live in your cocoland.

[James911]

Yeah. James, it was aluminum, not steel.

You keep talking on and on about aluminum to disproof that steel melted.

Can you explain how this WTC steel beam bent?

http://www.ae911truth.org/images/gallery/bentsteel.jpg

Listen to one of the 911 investigator said about hight temperature that day which reached more than 2000 degree C:
Shourly at 2000 degree C steel will melt.

http://www.historycommons.org//events-images/a838_abolhassan_astaneh_2050081722-21407.jpg

Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl examines steel from the World Trade Center. [Source: University of California, Berkeley]An engineer investigating the remains of the World Trade Center sees melted girders and other evidence that the towers experienced extreme temperatures on 9/11.

He notes that steel has bent at several connection points that had joined the floors of the WTC to the vertical columns. He describes the connections as being smoothly warped, saying, “If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted—it’s kind of like that.” He adds, “That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot—perhaps around 2,000 degrees.” [Chronicle of Higher Education, 12/7/2001]

[John99]

So How will you build your own judjment if you don't look at the 911 events from different angles? Or maybe you like to live in your cocoland.

I remember that aCCENT. your with the nazi's.:eek:

[Stryder]

Can you explain how this WTC steel beam bent?

http://www.ae911truth.org/images/gallery/bentsteel.jpg
Simply yes. It was connect to another beam that collapsed with the force of many other floors on top, which would bend the steel beam back like the hinge on a door.

This is proven if you look very closely at the I-Beam, you'll notice that it's actually Stretched not just bent.



Listen to one of the 911 investigator said about hight temperature that day which reached more than 2000 degree C:
Shourly at 2000 degree C steel will melt. ... etc.

Extreme temperatures are highly likely if the fire is enclosed and fed correctly. One thing that is mentioned by the conspiracy buff's is the use of certain explosives (Thermite) to take the building down, however this is actually completely inaccurate.

The higher floors of the buildings architecture comprised a lot of having aluminium in it's structure. The reason for this was to lessen the overall building weight so it could be built higher. This of course generated a problem when a fire was introduced.

Aluminium doesn't just melt at a low temperature, it's also claimed to be highly combustible. This is also proven since it's actually a component of what makes up Thermite, all it would of required in this particular scenario was a high temperature fire and Steel I-beams that would of flaked off Iron Oxide (rust) and you have an explosive mix. Technically those buildings were a Firetrap/Hazard that should of been closed down along time ago which probably weren't because of their "Monument" status.

Btw Thermite is used in Welding (It's actually the a main material for the makeup of welding rods), I know that steel can easily be cut with a welding Rod if heat is right. So if aluminium melted onto the joints of the I-Beams and then superheated as the beam was brought up to temperature it would explain the collapse and melting of joints.

[snake river rufus]

So How will you build your own judjment if you don't look at the 911 events from different angles? Or maybe you like to live in your cocoland.

I have looked at it from different angles, ruled out the nutty ones pretty quickly. cocoland seems to be your address, unless you can come up with any evidence?

[spidergoat]

Explosives don't melt steel.

[MacGyver1968]

I'm not very good at math..can someone calculate how fast the debris from the top most floors of WTC 1&2 was traveling when it hit the ground? I just want to know how much force might have been exerted on a building a mere 100m or so away.

[GeoffP]

You keep talking on and on about aluminum to disproof that steel melted.

Can you explain how this WTC steel beam bent?

Stryder's response pretty much sums it up. Even if there were melted steel, it wouldn't require any imaginary thermite. The heat in the debris pile was enough.

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

Umm, there are no other buildings in similar situations. So again I have to ask "what are you basing your conjecture on?"
near similar situations and yes a fire that burns for 18 hours I would have thought could do as much damage as one that burns for two
No there was not a "Heap of other things". Please get your facts straight.
sorry I got that mixed up from the report of the fire in 1975..

While it may not be appearant to some posters that different design and construction of buildings does make a difference. As does the mass added to the near top of a building.
All fires and buildings are not the same.

the word I used was near similar or for simpletons sake"as close as I could get to" which is what those fire's are "as close as i could get..can you get closer...?

LOL....governments murder millions on a whim over money,race etc..you think any government in the world would give two ticks about a few thousand people too save billions....I saw demolition there is no argument that is what my eyes saw, if you saw something else, that gives the US the right to carry on invading the ME after the WMD bull thats down to you.I'm not big on conspiracy but know that the US/UK government are 2 of the most dishonest in the world..lol (but entirely my opinion

[snake river rufus]

near similar situations and yes a fire that burns for 18 hours I would have thought could do as much damage as one that burns for two

sorry I got that mixed up from the report of the fire in 1975..



the word I used was near similar or for simpletons sake"as close as I could get to" which is what those fire's are "as close as i could get..can you get closer...?

LOL....governments murder millions on a whim over money,race etc..you think any government in the world would give two ticks about a few thousand people too save billions....I saw demolition there is no argument that is what my eyes saw, if you saw something else, that gives the US the right to carry on invading the ME after the WMD bull thats down to you.I'm not big on conspiracy but know that the US/UK government are 2 of the most dishonest in the world..lol (but entirely my opinion
1 So there is another case of a multi ton jetliner crashing and burning in a tower of this construction? could you name it?
2 Actually you have mixed up a number of things
3 As close as you could get to wasn't too damn close. No I can't get closer, nor can anyone else. Which is what makes your charges so baseless.

You saw expelled dust and debris expelled from the air pressure of collapsing floors, nothing more. I won't argue what your eyes saw, I will argue that you can't correctly interpret what your eyes saw. Everyone with even a modicum of training saw something else. Your opinions have been proven to be so valuable.:rolleyes:

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

1 So there is another case of a multi ton jetliner crashing and burning in a tower of this construction? could you name it?
2 Actually you have mixed up a number of things
3 As close as you could get to wasn't too damn close. No I can't get closer, nor can anyone else. Which is what makes your charges so baseless..
1. No I couldn't find any, so as close as I could get were major fire's
2.As I stated in post 54 "I watched a documetary on it", while I'm interested as to 'why wtc7' fell I couldnt give 2 hoots for conspiracy, Stryder's post pretty well explains the WTC 1&2 fell(as well as the oven effect on the flyover).
3.That makes me the closest:p
You saw expelled dust and debris expelled from the air pressure of collapsing floors, nothing more. I won't argue what your eyes saw, I will argue that you can't correctly interpret what your eyes saw. Everyone with even a modicum of training saw something else. Your opinions have been proven to be so valuable

The closest i've come to looking at the dust etc is newsreports, this thread and the doc' I saw which rose some questions...whether its bullshit or beauty cream you couldn't ask for 3 buildings that size to fall better, I wouldn't put it past any government to be that corrupt,I not American so either or any reason as to the cause:shrug: all are bleak,none comfier than the other lol slow down G.W.

[snake river rufus]

.
1. No I couldn't find any, so as close as I could get were major fire's
2.As I stated in post 54 "I watched a documetary on it", while I'm interested as to 'why wtc7' fell I couldnt give 2 hoots for conspiracy, Stryder's post pretty well explains the WTC 1&2 fell(as well as the oven effect on the flyover).
3.That makes me the closest:p


As close as you can get is not good enough to make a comparison. The closest to being a gullable fool perhaps. Other than the cause there is nothing at all unexplainable to the collapse of the towers.

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

As close as you can get is not good enough to make a comparison. The closest to being a gullable fool perhaps. Other than the cause there is nothing at all unexplainable to the collapse of the towers.
LOL "OTHER THAN THE CAUSE THERE IS NOTHING UNEXPLAINABLE" what a retard statement
So the closest thing is the only thing there is to compare to,tow in your douche like attitude G.W. it will get you nowhere,see how easily stryder explained his reasoning behind it, I was only asking about this documentary I saw or don't you read post's properly,in fact reading yours you have provided no awnsers, no evidence nothing apart from rudeness and nitpicking ,at least there is some intelligent people who can give straight forward explanations, instead of douche replies slow down G.W.,

[mike47]

I found the conspiracy theories concerning 9/11 events more convincing than the government version of events . I can not see how an old sick man with two dialysis machines and with few crazy followers can orchestrate a very complicated operation on the soil of the strongest nation on earth .
When I add all the contradictions and holes from the government side , I just can not believe the government at all .

[tim840]

Gee that's funny I can :D

[Read-Only]

I found the conspiracy theories concerning 9/11 events more convincing than the government version of events . I can not see how an old sick man with two dialysis machines and with few crazy followers can orchestrate a very complicated operation on the soil of the strongest nation on earth .
When I add all the contradictions and holes from the government side , I just can not believe the government at all .

Your problem is exactly the same that others have. You don't know enough about structural design, the chimney effect cause by the updraft of the burning fuel and how the resultant high temperatures affect structural members and a dozen other things I could list.

Plus, many people will simply go out of their way to blame anything they can on the government or similar organizations.

The trouble with the conspiracy theory is not with the evidence, it rests with the incomplete education of those who believe it.

[Michael]

I found the conspiracy theories concerning 9/11 events more convincing than the government version of events . I can not see how an old sick man with two dialysis machines and with few crazy followers can orchestrate a very complicated operation on the soil of the strongest nation on earth .
When I add all the contradictions and holes from the government side , I just can not believe the government at all .Mike,

Firstly, it's probably pretty freaken easy after taking lessons to take a plane this is already flying and turn it in the air and into a building.

OK, well, that's about it.


Michael

As for OB - he had daddies money and that's about it for his role. Unless you think it's hard to spend money? If not then I think you'd agree he didn't need to do all that much else.

[BlueMoose]

Conspiracy is something done in hidden, so example is the nwo and amero&american union
even conspiracy anymore, I mean if they are talking about it in CNN.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9aKpZkj820&feature=user

[GeoffP]

Gee that's funny I can :D

So can I. Especially since there actually aren't any holes or contradictions whatsoever.

[otheadp]

The USA is one big contradiction: it's one of the most religious, yet one of the more scientifically advanced nations. Is one of the most educated, yet completely retarded nations. The reachest nation on earth, yet with the most people incarcerated on earth. One of the more analytical and smart nations with one of the highest rates of access to information in the world, yet it has one of the highest idiot / conspiracy nut ratio in the world.

What a contradiction.

[sly1]

There are some very intelligent and educatied people who dont fully accept the governments version of the story. Yet because of that they are "nuts" or "uneducated". I question it because I am a thoughtfull person and question almost everything I am told.

I find a lot of oddities that make a conspiracy theory understandable.

If there was more an effort to explain "official theory" and answer the "conspiracy theory" questions instead of getting fed up immediately and calling them "nuts" or "uneducated" It's possible the issue might not be so muddled.

I think both sides of the arguments don't really look at the opposing sides evidence closely. Instead they stubbornly walk away fed up and convinced their side is the "right", "True", "Correct" side.

I don't particularly trust this current administration but not because of 9-11 as much as the WMD/Iraq lie that was spun.

They lied to me then they lied about lying. They are also very unapologetic about it which to me shows they really dont give a rats ass what I think.

[otheadp]

There are some very intelligent and educatied people who dont fully accept the governments version of the story. Yet because of that they are "nuts" or "uneducated". I question it because I am a thoughtfull person and question almost everything I am told.

I find a lot of oddities that make a conspiracy theory understandable.

If there was more an effort to explain "official theory" and answer the "conspiracy theory" questions instead of getting fed up immediately and calling them "nuts" or "uneducated" It's possible the issue might not be so muddled.

I think both sides of the arguments don't really look at the opposing sides evidence closely. Instead they stubbornly walk away fed up and convinced their side is the "right", "True", "Correct" side.

I don't particularly trust this current administration but not because of 9-11 as much as the WMD/Iraq lie that was spun.

They lied to me then they lied about lying. They are also very unapologetic about it which to me shows they really dont give a rats ass what I think.

It's merely knee-jerk reflexive reaction to any "official government version of events".

I think it all started with Nixon and Watergate. It spurred so many "conspiracy theory" movies and literature in the pop culture that it was burned into the national consciousness, and so trust in government has been eroded.

If you watch the videos of the planes going into the buildings, and hear the interviews on YouTube of survivors and families of the victims, and you're still not convinced, then I think there is something wrong with you. And I mean that in the most disrespectful way with out resorting to swearing.

[tim840]

The USA is one big contradiction: it's one of the most religious, yet one of the more scientifically advanced nations. Is one of the most educated, yet completely retarded nations. The reachest nation on earth, yet with the most people incarcerated on earth. One of the more analytical and smart nations with one of the highest rates of access to information in the world, yet it has one of the highest idiot / conspiracy nut ratio in the world.

What a contradiction.

I certainly agree that there are many people of extremes in America. But I do not know what "reachest" means... :confused:

[John99]

Conspiracy is something done in hidden, so example is the nwo and amero&american union
even conspiracy anymore, I mean if they are talking about it in CNN.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9aKpZkj820&feature=user


"A New World Oder where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause"

What is the problem with that? We already have a new world order with the internet for information (much of it wrong) and cable\satellite t.v. and people traveling freely. This is not the middle ages and never will be again.

[otheadp]

I certainly agree that there are many people of extremes in America. But I do not know what "reachest" means... :confused:

:)

It's people who reach the farthest :P

... long day...

[sly1]

"A New World Oder where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause"

What is the problem with that? We already have a new world order with the internet for information (much of it wrong) and cable\satellite t.v. and people traveling freely. This is not the middle ages and never will be again.

Because when the system becomes corrupt it will be a world corruption.

Who is going to rule the one world government? I think no man or woman of any race/ethnicity is fit for that job no matter who they are.

[sly1]

It's merely knee-jerk reflexive reaction to any "official government version of events".

I think it all started with Nixon and Watergate. It spurred so many "conspiracy theory" movies and literature in the pop culture that it was burned into the national consciousness, and so trust in government has been eroded.

If you watch the videos of the planes going into the buildings, and hear the interviews on YouTube of survivors and families of the victims, and you're still not convinced, then I think there is something wrong with you. And I mean that in the most disrespectful way with out resorting to swearing.

If your going to be disrespectful why half ass it?

[BlueMoose]

"A New World Oder where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause"

What is the problem with that? We already have a new world order with the internet for information (much of it wrong) and cable\satellite t.v. and people traveling freely. This is not the middle ages and never will be again.

-Have I say there is something wrong about it, I dont even know what the
"New World Order" would be ? Whats the common cause ?
-Your analysis that when connected to information highway where 90% of
information is pointless or disinformation or heavily biased creates "order",
hmmm, sounds like chaos-theory to me ;)
-What about that CNN talk about "american union", just rambling for run ?
When is it that something is conspiracy and when not,
they were talking about formal signings were made. Are they bullshitting ?

[John99]

Because when the system becomes corrupt it will be a world corruption.

Who is going to rule the one world government? I think no man or woman of any race/ethnicity is fit for that job no matter who they are.

Come on...It is the only way. Forget about all the baggage you associate with this planet and picture another planet in space. Now carve that planet up into sections with different people and different interests, langauge, money etc.

Dont you find that strange? It can only get so far...but what do i care:shrug:

[John99]

You know what BlueMoose?

I hate to say this but if i had a child i would just let them go to a few web sites because to let them roam free on the internet is the surest way to creating an imbecile.

[BlueMoose]

You know what BlueMoose?

I hate to say this but if i had a child i would just let them go to a few web sites because to let them roam free on the internet is the surest way to creating an imbecile.

-Interesting, you wanna make your children to be imbeciles. :D
-Have you been roaming little too much yourself ;)

[John99]

-Interesting, you wanna make your children to be imbeciles. :D


How did you decipher my post to mean that?:confused:

[BlueMoose]

You know what BlueMoose?

if i had a child
i would just let them go to a few web sites
because to let them roam free on the internet
is the surest way to creating an imbecile.

-Well, sorry, my bad, the few one missed in translation...
...but those few ones better be good :)

[BlueMoose]

And you are right, net isnt place for kids.

[Simon Anders]

Mike,

Firstly, it's probably pretty freaken easy after taking lessons to take a plane this is already flying and turn it in the air and into a building.

Actually the flight school instructors of the alleged hijacker of the one that went into the Pentagon disagree with you. 1) they thought the manouver was a tough one and 2) they were shocked when they were told that guy did it. They said he was a terrible pilot and would have had trouble doing that with a little Cesna.

[Simon Anders]

It's merely knee-jerk reflexive reaction to any "official government version of events".

I think it all started with Nixon and Watergate. It spurred so many "conspiracy theory" ......

the government version is a conspiracy theory. the question is: is it a good one. There is no version of the events of 9/11 that is not a conspiracy theory.

[Simon Anders]

So can I. Especially since there actually aren't any holes or contradictions whatsoever. Here's a simple one. The alleged hijacker whose passport the FBI said they found in the dust and debris next to the WTC - meaning it survived the crash and fires - is alive. Four others are also alive.
A few others: the Bush ad. claimed that no one had every considered the possibility of flying planes into buildings. Actually MANY people had thought of this and had informed the government of this possibilty. In fact on 9/11 an exercise was run precisely testing responses to such an attack.

No fighter plane was scrambled to meet the planes, even after the first plane hit the WTC. They had plenty of time and good reason and in fact are scrambled when planes goes out of contact DOZENS of times each year. On the day the WTC is hit no plane is in the air in time to follow the next three planes.

Molten metal was found in the subbasements of all three demolished WTC buildings. Jet fuel could not possibly have made fires hot enough to cause that.

The official version is that fires and damage from the WTC hits also damaged WTC 7 enough so it would fall and did fall because of these fires. However the owner of the building said that the Fire Department asked him and he told them to 'pull it'. Demolition slang for demolition. The fall of the building fits destruction by demolition not fire and no engineer or architect can explain how the two small fires in the building could possibly have destroyed it. No other steel frame building has collapses EVEN WHEN COMPLETELY ENGULFED IN FLAMES FOR DAYS. As one steel frame building was in Spain.

There are many many more problem with the official conspiracy theory.

[Buffalo Roam]

Here's a simple one. The alleged hijacker whose passport the FBI said they found in the dust and debris next to the WTC - meaning it survived the crash and fires - is alive. Four others are also alive.
A few others: the Bush ad. claimed that no one had every considered the possibility of flying planes into buildings. Actually MANY people had thought of this and had informed the government of this possibilty. In fact on 9/11 an exercise was run precisely testing responses to such an attack.

No fighter plane was scrambled to meet the planes, even after the first plane hit the WTC. They had plenty of time and good reason and in fact are scrambled when planes goes out of contact DOZENS of times each year. On the day the WTC is hit no plane is in the air in time to follow the next three planes.

Molten metal was found in the subbasements of all three demolished WTC buildings. Jet fuel could not possibly have made fires hot enough to cause that.

The official version is that fires and damage from the WTC hits also damaged WTC 7 enough so it would fall and did fall because of these fires. However the owner of the building said that the Fire Department asked him and he told them to 'pull it'. Demolition slang for demolition. The fall of the building fits destruction by demolition not fire and no engineer or architect can explain how the two small fires in the building could possibly have destroyed it. No other steel frame building has collapses EVEN WHEN COMPLETELY ENGULFED IN FLAMES FOR DAYS. As one steel frame building was in Spain.

There are many many more problem with the official conspiracy theory.


There is a difference between the building in Spain and the WTC, the Building in Spain hadn't received a through and through penetration of it's structure, and the severing of the load bearing structures.

The WTC 1&2 were structurally damaged with massive compromising of load bearing members, severed by the Aircraft slicing through the buildings.

So there is no comparison between the two events.

[GeoffP]

Here's a simple one. The alleged hijacker whose passport the FBI said they found in the dust and debris next to the WTC - meaning it survived the crash and fires - is alive. Four others are also alive.

No. Four people with the same name are alive. Even the host countries have admitted to this.

A few others: the Bush ad. claimed that no one had every considered the possibility of flying planes into buildings. Actually MANY people had thought of this and had informed the government of this possibilty. In fact on 9/11 an exercise was run precisely testing responses to such an attack.

And the possibility was ignored. This is the same government too inept to pay for levees. This would hardly be the first time intelligence was completely ignored.

No fighter plane was scrambled to meet the planes, even after the first plane hit the WTC.

There were literally thousands of blips in the air that day. They didn't have the infrastructure to track them.

They had plenty of time and good reason and in fact are scrambled when planes goes out of contact DOZENS of times each year.

Where? The Northeast? Or the sparsely travelled southwest? Over the coasts? Post 9/11? Consider.

Molten metal was found in the subbasements of all three demolished WTC buildings. Jet fuel could not possibly have made fires hot enough to cause that.

What kind of molten metal? Aluminum or steel? From the building or the plane? Was it mixed with anything? Did the burning wreckage act like a kiln? Does the bridge gasoline truck accident illustrate that unprotected steel can indeed melt?

The official version is that fires and damage from the WTC hits also damaged WTC 7 enough so it would fall and did fall because of these fires. However the owner of the building said that the Fire Department asked him and he told them to 'pull it'. Demolition slang for demolition.

Is he a demolitionist? Has he later clarified his comments (taken out of context, if you watch the entire clip) that he meant pull the firefighters out?

The fall of the building fits destruction by demolition not fire and no engineer or architect can explain how the two small fires in the building could possibly have destroyed it.

Small fires spanning half a dozen floors after an airplane struck each tower, stripping away the fire protection on the steel girders, each with a temperature in excess of 800C, well past the point at which steel loses 50% of its support capacity. By "no engineer or architect", do you mean Jones from Bring Em Young U in Utah? Or the masses and masses of engineers and architects who have explained precisely how such a collapse could occur? If the building is in free fall, why do the pieces of rubble falling off the buildings - which are inarguably in free fall - fall faster than the building itself? Why is this true in both demolitions?

No other steel frame building has collapses EVEN WHEN COMPLETELY ENGULFED IN FLAMES FOR DAYS. As one steel frame building was in Spain.

Was that building struck by an airplane traveling 650 kph? Was it a billion stories high?

Speaking of demolition...your argument, sir.

Geoff

[Simon Anders]

And the possibility was ignored. This is the same government too inept to pay for levees. This would hardly be the first time intelligence was completely ignored. The incompetency theory ends up having to cover a wide range of 'mistakes' made by NORAD, the Bush Administration, customs, the FBI
and yet to date no one has been punished for incompetence.

There were literally thousands of blips in the air that day. They didn't have the infrastructure to track them. that's ridiculous. They were tracking them. There are always thousands of blips.

Where? The Northeast? Or the sparsely travelled southwest? Over the coasts? Post 9/11? Consider. All over the US. Pre- 9/11.

What kind of molten metal? Aluminum or steel? From the building or the plane? Was it mixed with anything? Did the burning wreckage act like a kiln? Does the bridge gasoline truck accident illustrate that unprotected steel can indeed melt? Aluminum would not stay molten for weeks. Nothing should have stayed molten from a carbon based fire. The plane that hit the second building exploded a large % of the fuel in the air because it hit near the corner of the building. It had less time to burn and people were standing in the burn holes when the building went down. Thick black smoke that does not fit with steel melting flames were pouring out of the holes in which humans - who were not melting or burning - were standing. Nothing indicates that a fire was present hot enough to melt steel or why that building went down so fast. In fact it looked like the fires were going out in assessment made by fire personell both inside and outside the building.
Is he a demolitionist? Has he later clarified his comments (taken out of context, if you watch the entire clip) that he meant pull the firefighters out? Of course he had to explain his slip. He clearly says 'pull it'. Also weird to pull the firefighters out when there were just two small fires in the building. Odd that it collapsed inward, first showing a center crack precisely like those in demolished buildings. Odd, further that Guilani said the building was going to come down.

Was that building struck by an airplane traveling 650 kph? Was it a billion stories high? It was burned to a skelaton, for a much longer time then either WTC tower. No one even the masses adn masses of engineers you think have good explanation for the towers falling has made a case that either plane impact had significant effect on building.

Speaking of demolition...your argument, sir.

Geoff Oh, good you can take on a layperson working from memory.
You did not respond to some of my points
and your 'there were thousands of blips' is infantile.

There are problems with many more portions of the official theory nor do I consider your rebutalls having demolished anything.

There are a number of books extremely critical of the official conspiracy theory that are written by rational professionals not known before this incident to ascribe to any other 'conspiracy' theories. I reccomend that people read these books rather than simply going by an interchange between myself and Geoff. They present a better defence of the official version than he does and they show why it does not hold.

The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11

is one example, but there are others.

Judge for yourselves.

[Simon Anders]

There is a difference between the building in Spain and the WTC, the Building in Spain hadn't received a through and through penetration of it's structure, and the severing of the load bearing structures.

The WTC 1&2 were structurally damaged with massive compromising of load bearing members, severed by the Aircraft slicing through the buildings.

So there is no comparison between the two events. The secong plane did not do any such damage. I doubt the first did either but it is much easier to see with the second plane, surprisingly this was the building that came down faster as the fires were going out.

[moementum7]

I found the conspiracy theories concerning 9/11 events more convincing than the government version of events . I can not see how an old sick man with two dialysis machines and with few crazy followers can orchestrate a very complicated operation on the soil of the strongest nation on earth .
When I add all the contradictions and holes from the government side , I just can not believe the government at all .

Your not the only one.

[GeoffP]

The incompetency theory ends up having to cover a wide range of 'mistakes' made by NORAD, the Bush Administration, customs, the FBI
and yet to date no one has been punished for incompetence.

Does anyone ever?

that's ridiculous. They were tracking them. There are always thousands of blips.

Actually, it seems someone was tracking them...because Norad didn't stand down.

Although the military first learned of the hijacking of Flight 11 from Boston Center at 8:40, just 6 minutes before its impact, it was able to scramble two F-15 fighter jets from the 102nd Fighter Wing from Otis Air National Guard Base just 12 minutes later at 8:52, six minutes after Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. However, the 33 minute flight time didn't allow them to reach Manhattan until 9:25, 22 minutes after the crash of Flight 175 into the South Tower.[43] One of the pilots later commented, "As we're climbing out, we go supersonic on the way, which is kind of nonstandard for us. And, and Nasty even called me on the, radio and said, Duff, you're super. I said yeah, I know. You know, don't worry about it. ... I just wanted to get there quickly."[44]

So...not enough coverage. No Combat Air Patrol.

Aluminum would not stay molten for weeks. Nothing should have stayed molten from a carbon based fire.

Proof? Why should anything have stayed molten from any fire? You know, if a large amount of stuff falls on a fire that size, no one should be surprised that

The plane that hit the second building exploded a large % of the fuel in the air because it hit near the corner of the building. It had less time to burn and people were standing in the burn holes when the building went down.

I'll have some proof for that claim, please. And it's relevance. Yes, massive fires were burning. And?

Thick black smoke that does not fit with steel melting flames were pouring out of the holes in which humans - who were not melting or burning - were standing.

And yet, I am not saying that the melting occurred at or shortly after impact. My implication is that it occurred - if it even occurred, for which you provide no proof - after the collapse, in the heap. Moreover, your posit is very, very simplified. The fire was occurring right on the people, who were at the edge of the building, eh? This is my proposition? Yet, the steel columns at in the centre of the building, not the edge. So this clearly is not my proposition. The fire is in the centre. The people - assuming your statement is true - are at the edge.

Just so this is clear: let's assume for a moment that I somehow believe the steel melted in the immediate post-attack; within a few hours of impact. Wouldn't it be more effective to your point if the people were standing and waving at the centre of the building, where all the melting is purportedly going on?

Nothing indicates that a fire was present hot enough to melt steel

Quite likely correct. But at what temperature does steel lose 50% of its supportive strength?

or why that building went down so fast.

Actually, not correct. It fell pretty normally.

In fact it looked like the fires were going out in assessment made by fire personell both inside and outside the building.

Proof?

Of course he had to explain his slip. He clearly says 'pull it'.

Which he explained afterwards. You are trying to imply that I'm saying he didn't say that. He did. Troofers just like to take it out of context.

Also weird to pull the firefighters out when there were just two small fires in the building.

Oh?

After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[29] A massive fire burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[30][31] During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[3] At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[32] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[33] Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[34][32] At 5:20 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center collapsed. There were no casualties associated with the collapse.

"Two small fires", indeed.

Odd that it collapsed inward, first showing a center crack precisely like those in demolished buildings. Odd, further that Guilani said the building was going to come down.

These are entirely new claims. Provide proof, or desist. And: Guiliani is in on the conspiracy then, eh? The Mayor of New York. Who just had 3000 of his citizens killed. Giuliani. Indeed.

It was burned to a skelaton, for a much longer time then either WTC tower.

Was it hit by a plane?

No one even the masses adn masses of engineers you think have good explanation for the towers falling has made a case that either plane impact had significant effect on building.

That is the most absurd, disingenuous bit of tripe I have ever read. There is abundant support for the rationalist version of 9/11 and you know it full well. You should be ashamed, but I will hazard a guess that you aren't.

Oh, good you can take on a layperson working from memory.

Same here. Am I an engineer?

You did not respond to some of my points

Which ones? Illustrate. I got them all.

and your 'there were thousands of blips' is infantile.

Hardly.

There are problems with many more portions of the official theory nor do I consider your rebutalls having demolished anything.

Then you're wrong. I'm sorry, but it's not my fault.

There are a number of books extremely critical of the official conspiracy theory that are written by rational professionals not known before this incident to ascribe to any other 'conspiracy' theories. I reccomend that people read these books rather than simply going by an interchange between myself and Geoff. They present a better defence of the official version than he does and they show why it does not hold.

No - this sort of silly passing the buck to other sources when the Troofer nonsense is comprehensively stopped is unacceptable. If you're tapped into the prophetic reality of 9/11, then scootch over and breathily ask Dylan Avery for the keys to the kingdom. Otherwise, refrain from the propaganda, for there are far more articles and as much commentary from qualified engineers (not disgraced profs from Bring 'Em Young U) and architects. This propagandrist dismissal is absurd.

Geoff

[BlueMoose]

its okeii if your piieces in tha puzzle dosnt seem to fit to each other and missing,
u can just squuuuuuuuuuuuueze them and few missing aint thatt baaaaaad,
wanna reason me why dick was in the charge that day fisrt time in teh hiistory
of aaaaaaaaaaaaaamerica, just one odd piece to adddd.

[BlueMoose]

motha of all conspiracieeeeeees is that there is no conspiracieeeeeeeeeeeeeeees,
george lay it when he stated that let there be no such accusationsssssssssssss,
that one was beaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaty

[GeoffP]

The only pieces in the puzzle that don't fit are the ones holding your mind together, my friend.

Or in other words: you're looking for them not to fit, and that's what you see.

[CptBork]

I found the conspiracy theories concerning 9/11 events more convincing than the government version of events . I can not see how an old sick man with two dialysis machines and with few crazy followers can orchestrate a very complicated operation on the soil of the strongest nation on earth .
When I add all the contradictions and holes from the government side , I just can not believe the government at all .

In other words, you can't accept the idea that big strong America can be hurt by relatively primitive peoples and means. It's not about the evidence and the theories, you just need an excuse to feel that America is stronger than everyone else in every way possible, and is therefore invincible. Sorry, this is real life, individuals can do no shortage of damage when they go totally unchecked, taking advantage of America's generous civil liberties. Your government doesn't have alien technology to protect you, because it hasn't made contact with any aliens.

[BlueMoose]

The only pieces in the puzzle that don't fit are the ones holding your mind together, my friend.

Or in other words: you're looking for them not to fit, and that's what you see.

-uuuh thanks for your psycho-analysis kih hii khii me looking them not to fit kjeh kjeh so you are calling me a delusional ? heh hee heh should i report you
hih hih hii playing on some authority over me kjeh kjeh try harder hih hih

[KennyJC]

9/11 conspiracy theorists are the most sickening bunch of people I have ever had the displeasure of conversing with.

I am all too well aware of the hundreds of repeated myths of that day, and I can verify that all of them are 100% bullshit. They are as bad as the moon hoaxers who think that because an astronaut is in the shade, means that he will be completely invisible... That's equally how stupid 9/11 conspiracy theorists are.

If there is one group of people I could wipe off the face of the Earth, it would be these people.

I hope I made that clear.

Pseudoscience/Cesspool please.

[BlueMoose]

Yes, you are right, there have never been not even one conspiracy in the modern history, it is know fact that if somebody talks about cospiracy of some kind relating anyway to 9/11 they are idiotic as they can come and there are those idiots around plenty.
I mean there wasnt nothing suspicious going on that day, I mean nothing, juts odd coincidences...they just hate freedom and Bush so much that they are willing to
make them selfs ridiculed, those stupid questions they asks, c´mon do I have to
prove the obvious that government and those who in power would never take an advantage for benefiting themselves, even questioning them is beyond my understanding.
Dick&George did already explained everything behind closed doors together so
what more you nutcases would possible want ? You the scum of the earth !
that word conspiracy is so useless, should we ban it altogether.

[GeoffP]

BlueMoose, I have no idea what your earlier post referred to. If you wish to "report" me (sounds postively Rovian) please do. In fact, I insist that you do so. What have little Dicky and Georgie "explained behind closed doors"? Were you behind them, when they explained it?

[moementum7]

9/11 conspiracy theorists are the most sickening bunch of people I have ever had the displeasure of conversing with.

I am all too well aware of the hundreds of repeated myths of that day, and I can verify that all of them are 100% bullshit. They are as bad as the moon hoaxers who think that because an astronaut is in the shade, means that he will be completely invisible... That's equally how stupid 9/11 conspiracy theorists are.

If there is one group of people I could wipe off the face of the Earth, it would be these people.

I hope I made that clear.

Pseudoscience/Cesspool please.

Emotional are we?

[EndLightEnd]

Heres my biggest issues

-Verified reports of secondary explosives going off
-homogeny of the collapse
-they both fell STRAIGHT down
-traces of high explosives were found in the wreckage
"In an article published this week in the journal Environmentalist, chemical engineer Kevin Ryan collects evidence from EPA documents that suggest there was both Thermate and high-explosives in the debris from the WTC collapse. Ryan was formerly employed by Environmental Health Labs, a division of Underwriters Labs, before he was fired for raising these and other questions."
from http://www.infowars.com/?p=3766

[KennyJC]

-Verified reports of secondary explosives going off

I will start by saying fuck you dickhead.

Just about all reports of "explosives" are the collapse of the towers themselves. Any other loud sounds on that day should not be surprising and is NOT evidence of demolition materials.

-homogeny of the collapse
-they both fell STRAIGHT down

Speaking of demolition material, isn't it odd that the buildings fell without any demolition explosives being heard? Watch a video of any regular demolition and from miles away, you will hear the multiple explosions directly before the building falls. What happens to the trade center? It falls FROM THE POINT OF IMPACT SILENTLY. After that all you hear is the rumble from the tons of falling rubble.

And more importantly, the towers themselves were 'bowing' from above the impact zone, where the fire and heat was, lending to the theory of fire damage weakening the structure to the point of global instability. You only need to watch the video to realize that it was indeed fire that initiated the collapse. Did the 'conspirators' just geniously predict where the planes would hit and that there would also be a bowing of the tower, remarkably making it look like a non-controlled demolition? Because lets face it, anybody who knows anything about controlled demolition will tell you that this exhibited NONE of the hallmarks of a controlled demolition. If you can prove to me that a demolition company could choose a point of demolition after all the gear was setup (to coincide with where the plane hit of course), and detonate it SILENTLY, and THEN make the building fall from TOP TO BOTTOM. It has to be all explosives and no building falling under it's own momentum since you clearly think that's impossible.

And why is it so fucking odd that the buildings fell straight down? With the sheer momentum that came from the top half falling down on the bottom half, it was simply the path of least resistance. The top half could not simply slide off if gravity was pulling it straight down, and the structure below could not support the weight on top... hence it went down, although far from in it's own footprints.

-traces of high explosives were found in the wreckage
"In an article published this week in the journal Environmentalist, chemical engineer Kevin Ryan collects evidence from EPA documents that suggest there was both Thermate and high-explosives in the debris from the WTC collapse. Ryan was formerly employed by Environmental Health Labs, a division of Underwriters Labs, before he was fired for raising these and other questions."
from http://www.infowars.com/?p=3766

Just watch this quick and thorough debunking and then hopefully you will realize you are a complete and utter fucking moron:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWpC_1WP8do

Go bleed to death via a rusty blade.

[EndLightEnd]

Just about all reports of "explosives" are the collapse of the towers themselves.

You admit noises were heard...


It falls FROM THE POINT OF IMPACT SILENTLY. After that all you hear is the rumble from the tons of falling rubble.

Contradiction? But your so rational and level headed how did that happen?

You need to cool off man, emotion has no place in logic. Furthermore I didnt even say I believed it was in inside job, I just pointed out my biggest concerns.

And is it really so hard to believe terrorists ALSO placed bombs in the buildings?

This would also explain the high explosives found, so before you flip out again take a second to think.

[EndLightEnd]

I also have a great clip of Bush literally "freezing" and stuttering when questioned whether it was an inside job. All he ended up saying was "well theres a time for politics".

Im at work now but Ill post it later.

And lets not forget Roosevelt who had knowledge of Pearl Harbor but let it happen to spark America into joining the war. See the similarities?

[moementum7]

I also have a great clip of Bush literally "freezing" and stuttering when questioned whether it was an inside job. All he ended up saying was "well theres a time for politics".

Im at work now but Ill post it later.

And lets not forget Roosevelt who had knowledge of Pearl Harbor but let it happen to spark America into joining the war. See the similarities?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLmKzXCveiI

[moementum7]

And why is it so fucking odd that the buildings fell straight down? With the sheer momentum that came from the top half falling down on the bottom half, it was simply the path of least resistance. The top half could not simply slide off if gravity was pulling it straight down, and the structure below could not support the weight on top... hence it went down, although far from in it's own footprints.


I was listening till you pulled out this crap...wow.
Leave the debunking to those who know how dickhead, lol.

[KennyJC]

You admit noises were heard...

Well what the fuck do you expect when a 767 hits a high rise steel building. My point is that at the time people were giving their statements to the press they had no idea what was going on, it turned out that all these statements of "explosions" turned out to be the sound of the tower itself collapsing or the plane hitting. Then you'll have things like debris falling down the elevator shafts and other such sounds you'd expect to hear.

Contradiction? But your so rational and level headed how did that happen?

It's not a fucking contradiction. My statement that there were NO demolition explosives heard stands true. We would probably even hear the sound of demolition explosives over the sound of the rumble of the collapse itself. But crucially, there are NO EXPLOSIVES HEARD AT THE INITIAL MOMENT OF COLLAPSE.

Is that crystal clear?

And is it really so hard to believe terrorists ALSO placed bombs in the buildings?

It's hard to believe anyone placed bombs inside a busy office building. Particularly when there is no evidence of such. Furthermore it is not necessary. The terrorists probably didn't even know the building would fall either. Happy as they were to simply smash a plane in there.

This would also explain the high explosives found, so before you flip out again take a second to think.

Wow, you are REALLY stupid. I have already told you why there were NO HIGH EXPLOSIVES FOUND.

I also have a great clip of Bush literally "freezing" and stuttering when questioned whether it was an inside job. All he ended up saying was "well theres a time for politics".

Congratulations, you have proved Bush is a bumbling fool. I can post 1,000 more clips of of Bush not knowing what to say when asked a question he isn't prepared for.

And lets not forget Roosevelt who had knowledge of Pearl Harbor but let it happen to spark America into joining the war. See the similarities?

Well I don't know much about that so I'm not going to discuss it. But if you can prove Roosevelt knew the exact details of what was going to happen at Pearl Harbor, I will listen.

[KennyJC]

I was listening till you pulled out this crap...wow.
Leave the debunking to those who know how dickhead, lol.

Like NIST? Oh no, wait, they're "in on it".

[GeoffP]

This would also explain the high explosives found, so before you flip out again take a second to think.

First off, the finding was done in concert with Alex Jones from Bring 'Em Young, so it's not very reliable. I don't have the confidence that that man could put on his pants the right way round without help. Second: if you're referring to thermite (and they always do) then could you hazard a guess at how much thermite would be required for the job? Thermite doesn't typically go 'boom' either as I recall. More of a sizzle.

[mike47]

9/11 conspiracy theorists are the most sickening bunch of people I have ever had the displeasure of conversing with.

I am all too well aware of the hundreds of repeated myths of that day, and I can verify that all of them are 100% bullshit. They are as bad as the moon hoaxers who think that because an astronaut is in the shade, means that he will be completely invisible... That's equally how stupid 9/11 conspiracy theorists are.

If there is one group of people I could wipe off the face of the Earth, it would be these people.

I hope I made that clear.

Pseudoscience/Cesspool please.

Well there are so many good books on this subject and you should educate yourself by reading just some of them .
People can always be blinded by an extreme Administration and media propaganda .

[Diode-Man]

I found the conspiracy theories concerning 9/11 events more convincing than the government version of events . I can not see how an old sick man with two dialysis machines and with few crazy followers can orchestrate a very complicated operation on the soil of the strongest nation on earth .
When I add all the contradictions and holes from the government side , I just can not believe the government at all .

OK... let's just say for the sake of arguement that the government official story is true. Some how jet fuel melted solid steel. (even though steel melts at 2777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1517 degrees F)

Colin Powell publicly stated that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction AND WE FOUND NONE. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZTLmOoPzjs) Colin Powell ALSO publicly stated that Iraq had NO weapons of mass destruction. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0wbpKCdkkQ) In truth, Colin Powell has probably never seen Iraq with his own eyes. He is merely telling the people what he was TOLD to. The CIA told Powell what to say and as usual, this massive mess up was an "intelligence failure." Thats a large generalization. Has our own CIA been infiltrated? After all, the C.I.A. put Saddam in Iraq in the first place!! (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html)

Its time for: Operation WTFIGO (Code name: Operation What the Fuck is Going On!?!?)

We're going to be investigating the investigators! We're going to double check the double checkers! We're going to police the police that police the police! If Santa missed a kid on the list, we'll be interogating the jolly elf shortly!

JK that would just waste more resources on corporate warmongers.

[EndLightEnd]

Well I don't know much about that so I'm not going to discuss it. But if you can prove Roosevelt knew the exact details of what was going to happen at Pearl Harbor, I will listen.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm

This is not a new tactic from the government. Its called problem-reaction-solution. Create a problem, envoke a reaction for public outcry(through the heavily controlled media), and offer a solution which benefits themselves.

This is why 5% of the population own 95% of the wealth, and why Cheney and other fools have assets in military stocks.

[BlueMoose]

BlueMoose, I have no idea what your earlier post referred to. If you wish to "report" me (sounds postively Rovian) please do. In fact, I insist that you do so. What have little Dicky and Georgie "explained behind closed doors"? Were you behind them, when they explained it?

-Just keep on insulting my intelligent and see how it unfolds, my friend ;)

[KennyJC]

Well there are so many good books on this subject and you should educate yourself by reading just some of them .
People can always be blinded by an extreme Administration and media propaganda .

Yes there are many good books on the subject, perhaps you should read some of them. Specifically the ones that debunk this baseless fantasy of yours.

And for the record, I am very well versed on most of the myths put forward about 9/11 by morons like you... so don't tell me to read up on it when I already have.

You make anybody who debunks 9/11 myths out to be some kind of Bush fanboy, but the truth is that I hate Bush. He's the worst president there has possibly ever been. The difference between you and me is that I don't let my bias overtake my rationality.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm

Can I get a reputable source? At first glance that looks like typical conspiracy theory crap.

This is not a new tactic from the government. Its called problem-reaction-solution. Create a problem, envoke a reaction for public outcry(through the heavily controlled media), and offer a solution which benefits themselves.

This is why 5% of the population own 95% of the wealth, and why Cheney and other fools have assets in military stocks.

Let's assume for a second that Bush or any other part of the administration had no knowledge of what was coming on 9/11, and that it was all completely and utterly done by terrorists... You have to admit, people like you would still create this great big conspiracy about it. This is why I can't take you people seriously, especially since you scew the evidence to fit some kind of bizarre libertarian agenda. Conspiracy theorists just fill in the jigsaw puzzle by reshaping the pieces rather than going simply by what was there.

[dixonmassey]

Mike,

Firstly, it's probably pretty freaken easy after taking lessons to take a plane this is already flying and turn it in the air and into a building.

OK, well, that's about it.


.

For you to appreciate the simplicity :)

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o36/tym44/index_011-3.jpg

[KennyJC]

For you to appreciate the simplicity :)

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o36/tym44/index_011-3.jpg

Rudimentary knowledge is all that is required when taking over the controls of a plane (in mid-flight) with the intent of steering it towards a building.

[BlueMoose]

There are some very intelligent and educatied people who dont fully accept the governments version of the story.

-Where, dont you know that everyone of those are delusional...


I think it all started with Nixon and Watergate. It spurred so many "conspiracy theory" movies and literature in the pop culture that it was burned into the national consciousness, and so trust in government has been eroded.


-You see, thats the reason, it wasnt so complicated after all...

In other words, you can't accept the idea that big strong America can be hurt by relatively primitive peoples and means. It's not about the evidence and the theories, you just need an excuse to feel that America is stronger than everyone else in every way possible, and is therefore invincible.

-Oh well, how could anyone miss that fact, huh ?
-Thanks to our friends here least we know why all those CTs are spawning,
its all about need to feel...

9/11 conspiracy theorists are the most sickening bunch of people...That's equally how stupid 9/11 conspiracy theorists are...
If there is one group of people I could wipe off the face of the Earth, it would be these people....I will start by saying fuck you dickhead....Because lets face it, anybody who knows anything about controlled demolition will tell you that this exhibited NONE of the hallmarks of a controlled demolition....Just watch this quick and thorough debunking and then hopefully you will realize you are a complete and utter fucking moron:Go bleed to death via a rusty blade....Is that crystal clear?Wow, you are REALLY stupid...And for the record, I am very well versed on most of the myths put forward about 9/11 by morons like you... Can I get a reputable source? At first glance that looks like typical conspiracy theory crap.....You have to admit, people like you would still create this great big conspiracy about it. This is why I can't take you people seriously, especially since you scew the evidence to fit some kind of bizarre libertarian agenda...Conspiracy theorists just fill in the jigsaw puzzle by reshaping the pieces rather than going simply by what was there.

-Bunch of sickening dickhead stupid morons serving bizarre libertarian agenda...

[dixonmassey]

Rudimentary knowledge is all that is required when taking over the controls of a plane (in mid-flight) with the intent of steering it towards a building.

Many professional pilots have somewhat different opinion especially on hitting the Pentagon.


I always wondered why not White House? No image of crumbling WTC could compare with images of destroyed White House in propaganda war. That Al-Qaeda (if any) must be too dumb to realize that. Hitting no name Pentagon wall must have occupied their minds too much.

[EndLightEnd]

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm

This is not a new tactic from the government. Its called problem-reaction-solution. Create a problem, envoke a reaction for public outcry(through the heavily controlled media), and offer a solution which benefits themselves.

This is why 5% of the population own 95% of the wealth, and why Cheney and other fools have assets in military stocks.

Im going to quote myself because I feel this is an important point which was overlooked.

[GeoffP]

Well there are so many good books on this subject and you should educate yourself by reading just some of them .
People can always be blinded by...propaganda .

How true. You should consider this.

OK... let's just say for the sake of arguement that the government official story is true. Some how jet fuel melted solid steel. (even though steel melts at 2777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1517 degrees F)

That isn't the official position anyway.

-Just keep on insulting my intelligent and see how it unfolds, my friend ;)

Yes, I will be careful not to insult your intelligent in future.

Geoff

[BlueMoose]

Yes, I will be careful not to insult your intelligent in future.
Geoff

-Then not very intelligent from you to do it again ;)

[KennyJC]

Many professional pilots have somewhat different opinion especially on hitting the Pentagon.

How many is 'many' pilots? I mean just by looking at the picture of a cockpit, even I pretty much have a good understanding of what the instruments do. And that's just by playing Microsoft Flight Simulator for a while. Even I would feel confident about taking over a plane in mid-flight and steering it towards a building if I was that way inclined.

And it's worth mentioning their difficulties working the radio system and less than elegant manouvers.

I always wondered why not White House? No image of crumbling WTC could compare with images of destroyed White House in propaganda war. That Al-Qaeda (if any) must be too dumb to realize that. Hitting no name Pentagon wall must have occupied their minds too much.

Well where do you think United 93 was going?

[dixonmassey]

How many is 'many' pilots? I mean just by looking at the picture of a cockpit, even I pretty much have a good understanding of what the instruments do.

For starters, I would suggest you to drive a heavy truck on a busy road after spending dozens of hours by playing truck driving simulator. Just try and tell us.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

Well where do you think United 93 was going?


Who knows? Anyway, a sane terrorist would have prioritized targets with White House as # 1 target. Yet, Pentagon wall was too irresistable not to hit.

[mike47]

There are so many books and articles vis a vis this topic in many languages .
People should educate themselves and read about this historic event . The books I read convinced me that the version of the government does not make sense at all .

[Orleander]

For starters, I would suggest you to drive a heavy truck on a busy road after spending dozens of hours by playing truck driving simulator. Just try and tell us......

there is a lot more traffic on a road than there is in the sky. For crying out loud, the planes have auto-pilot and can fly themselves. Can you do that with a truck?

[GeoffP]

The entire Troofer stance amounts to hearsay, wild speculation and paranoia.

There was never a discussion to begin with, only the ill-wishes of the intellectually dishonest and restless.

[KennyJC]

For starters, I would suggest you to drive a heavy truck on a busy road after spending dozens of hours by playing truck driving simulator. Just try and tell us.

I thought we were talking about planes? We are not crediting the terrorists with knowing exactly what each button in the cockpit does since they didn't as evidenced by talking to ATC when they thought they were talking to the passengers. We are not crediting them with taking off, flying the plane perfectly and landing safely as a pilot should. They knew just enough to crudely fly a plane towards a building. It's really not hard. The fact I knew what many of the buttons/controls/dials were for in that picture just shows that it's not that difficult to know enough for what the terrorists wanted to do, especially in light of them having had some basic flying lessons beforehand and not just on some simulator.

We know who was flying the planes, and the phonecalls of passengers corroborates with this. Unless of course you're one of those nuts that says the phonecalls were also faked :rolleyes:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

Not familiar with their claims yet, however I'm guessing it's just as much filled with crap as the A&E website. Does this website have rational evidence that is not scewed in any way? I'm not holding my breath. I'm sure the vast majority of respectable pilots find nothing unusual in that a plane was hijacked and it was deliberately crashed.

Who knows? Anyway, a sane terrorist would have prioritized targets with White House as # 1 target. Yet, Pentagon wall was too irresistable not to hit.

What a load of crap. The terrorists all had their targets planned ahead of time, so if the 1st terrorist on the scene was to hit the Pentagon, then he would have done so assuming the other hijacked plane would arrive soon after to hit the White House.

Does it not still have shock value for hitting the Pentagon? I remember how shocked I was that the Pentagon was hit - the heart of the American military. And if United 93 reached it's destination, you can only guess it would have attempted to hit the White House or Capitol Hill.

There are so many books and articles vis a vis this topic in many languages .
People should educate themselves and read about this historic event . The books I read convinced me that the version of the government does not make sense at all .

It's real easy to convince someone of something they want to believe in. So many people are so intellectually lazy, that they prefer the entertainment value of believing in farfetched conspiracies.

Look how many dumb people were sucked in by Loose Change. That was so ill-thought out and so blatantly false that even I could debunk half of it on my own without the help of experts.

Remember the ABC 'documentary' on the so-called Moon hoax? It just about managed to get everyone who watched it to believe every word. All that is needed however, is a basic knowledge of photography, astronomy and physics to debunk it. I also managed to debunk half of it on my own without the help of experts.

[BlueMoose]

So KennyJC, whats your take on those WTC 7 conspiracy theories ? You are with NIST report on that one ? The building did collapse because of structural failure caused by debris falling from WTC1/2 and fire ?

[KennyJC]

So KennyJC, whats your take on those WTC 7 conspiracy theories ? You are with NIST report on that one ? The building did collapse because of structural failure caused by debris falling from WTC1/2 and fire ?

Of course.

That we can conclude WTC 1 and 2 fell completely due to plane/fire damage and under it's own weight leads us to a similar picture of WTC7.

[GeoffP]

So KennyJC, whats your take on those WTC 7 conspiracy theories ? You are with NIST report on that one ? The building did collapse because of structural failure caused by debris falling from WTC1/2 and fire ?

Naturally. There was a massive fire there spanning several floors. The fuel oil probably went up also.

[KennyJC]

Not to mention the firefighters spotted tell-tale signs that the building was in danger of collapse:

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.


Once again, conspiracy theorists start with a conclusion and try to fit evidence around that conclusion. Very unscientific, very dishonest and disrespectful to the victims.

[mike47]

The Administration version of the 9/11 events is the biggest lie in the history of mankind . when you add all the pieces together nothing makes sense about the official version . Also it was used as an excuse to have two colonies : Iraq and Afghanistan . Add to that : the US and NATO bulling of many nations under the pretext of an old man with a couple of hundreds of followers....hahaha. The propaganda works well and that why the Administration and the media keep it always alive and in good shape .
although many experts believe the old sick man " Ben Laden " is dead , the US insists he is still alive to continue its futile and crazy wars . They wanted him dead or alive.....so how come they did not find him ?. Saddam had more power and security and he was found and hung in a brutal manner in front of the whole world . Yes Israel , the US and NATO benefited from 9/11 tragedy .

[John99]

For starters, I would suggest you to drive a heavy truck on a busy road after spending dozens of hours by playing truck driving simulator. Just try and tell us.



With realistic gear changing and steering on the simulator? No problem at all.:shrug:

As a matter of fact if the controls were in reach then a 12 year old could do it. Long enough to complete an objective anyway.

[GeoffP]

"Mike"47, your paranoia does no one any credit. Desist, and depart.

[KennyJC]

The Administration version of the 9/11 events is the biggest lie in the history of mankind . when you add all the pieces together nothing makes sense about the official version . Also it was used as an excuse to have two colonies : Iraq and Afghanistan . Add to that : the US and NATO bulling of many nations under the pretext of an old man with a couple of hundreds of followers....hahaha. The propaganda works well and that why the Administration and the media keep it always alive and in good shape .
although many experts believe the old sick man " Ben Laden " is dead , the US insists he is still alive to continue its futile and crazy wars . They wanted him dead or alive.....so how come they did not find him ?. Saddam had more power and security and he was found and hung in a brutal manner in front of the whole world . Yes Israel , the US and NATO benefited from 9/11 tragedy .

To say the US benefitted from 9/11 could be seen as being true, even though they would have probably invaded Iraq with or without 9/11.

However, that's completely different than saying they went so far as to orchestrate 9/11. Definetly not worth the risk when they could have invaded Iraq in any case.

It's clear from reading your posts here that you have absolutely nothing to offer. You are a clueless dipshit who is convinced by falsifiable evidence. Falsifiable evidence, by the way, that is preceeded by a conclusion started by paranoid/bored fools who lie to get their kicks.

[Carcano]

For starters, I would suggest you to drive a heavy truck on a busy road after spending dozens of hours by playing truck driving simulator. Just try and tell us.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

Apparently some pilots have tried replicating the impact in a simulator and were unable to do it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaLK6XJyJcQ&feature=related

And this one is about Underwriters Labs testing of the pancake theory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IACdhpfZjk

[GeoffP]

Well, if the pilots weren't able to do it, then there's a problem with the simulator. The terrorists managed all right. There's no doubt a plane hit the towers, as everyone saw it. Frankly, the batshit maneuvers they were performing probably represent a) their panic and stupidity and b) overengineering of the plane's tolerances. So the built-in safety factor fucked us.

[Mike Honcho]

I need two more posts before I can post url's

[Mike Honcho]

Make that one.

[Mike Honcho]

Here you can watch my favorite ranting lunatic on live TV in Austin, Texas predict the 911 attacks before they happened. I watched the original broadcast. I always watched because ranting lunatics are by nature very funny.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/501855/alex_jones_predicts_911/
In this case not so much

[Ganymede]

Your problem is exactly the same that others have. You don't know enough about structural design, the chimney effect cause by the updraft of the burning fuel and how the resultant high temperatures affect structural members and a dozen other things I could list.

Plus, many people will simply go out of their way to blame anything they can on the government or similar organizations.

The trouble with the conspiracy theory is not with the evidence, it rests with the incomplete education of those who believe it.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/th_Madrid66.jpg (http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/Madrid66.jpg)
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/th_Madrid33.jpg (http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/Madrid33.jpg)

[Ganymede]

Here's what I'm requesting from you pro government apologists. A clear video of the Plane hitting the Pentagon. Video footage of the other 17 hijackers boarding any of the planes. Explanation of how Mohammad Atta's passport was found perfectly intact, laying on the street near the WTC. Hot enough to melt steel, but apparently not enough to even singe Atta's passport which was allegedly present on the plane when it blew up in that hot inglorious fireball. Also, please provide any official autopsy report that shows the hijackers were physically present at the scene. I'll help you at little, here's the official autopsy list of flight 77.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html

Umm, there were no Arabs on that plane.

Checkmate

[Ganymede]

Well, if the pilots weren't able to do it, then there's a problem with the simulator.

What evidence do you have to support that?



The terrorists managed all right. There's no doubt a plane hit the towers, as everyone saw it.

But did you see the alleged terrorists? Yes or No?



Frankly, the batshit maneuvers they were performing probably represent a) their panic and stupidity and b) overengineering of the plane's tolerances. So the built-in safety factor fucked us.

What evidence do you have to support that? Conjecture doesn't qualify as evidence.