PDA

View Full Version : debunking 9-11 is killing me :-(



Pages : [1] 2

Hazzard
2005-Nov-11, 11:08 AM
I have a hard time debating this CT without getting frustrated.
Please take a look at this and tell me what you think about these guys arguments.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=53315&st=165


Popular Mechanics examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.
Published in the March, 2005 issue.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

TriangleMan
2005-Nov-11, 05:02 PM
Have you been to Apollohoax (http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi) board? They do a lot of 9/11 debunking there.

mahesh
2005-Nov-11, 05:11 PM
hi guys....i can't open these...aarrrgghh

Sam5
2005-Nov-11, 06:07 PM
I have a hard time debating this CT without getting frustrated.

Debating CTs on the internet is one of the most frustrating things I've ever experienced in my life.

peter eldergill
2005-Nov-11, 06:11 PM
Welcome back, Sam!

Pete

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-11, 06:41 PM
I'll look at the link in a bit.

N C More
2005-Nov-11, 06:59 PM
For some reason the 9/11 CTs are really difficult. They have a complete "get out of rational thinking free" card....what they do is to say that our own government is behind it all for "this" or "that" reason. If one rabidly hates the government then any possible scenario is enough to set them off. There's no way (I know of) to reason with people like this. It's very frustrating to deal with this sort of mind set.

Makes you want to just up and "lose it"! http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/boese/c035.gif

Moon Man
2005-Nov-11, 07:49 PM
I will prove 911 was a hoax when I'm done will the other thread.

Hamlet
2005-Nov-11, 07:57 PM
I will prove 911 was a hoax when I'm done will the other thread.

Well if your reasoning is as abysmal in this thread as in the Apollo thread we don't have much to look forward to.

JayUtah
2005-Nov-11, 07:59 PM
Yes, 9/11 conspiracy theories are the worst. They're made even worse by the proponents of them giving false hope (or perhaps false despair) to the victims and families of victims by implying there's different or additional guilt out there. It's shaping up very much like the JFK theory, in which the false dilemma is stated that you either have to believe every word of the official government studies, or else the conspiracy theories "must" be true.

But the more conspiracy theorists change horses, the more they stay the same. They all rail incessantly against various reports from FEMA, NIST, and other responsible agencies, saying it's all "conjecture" and "guesswork" and completely unworthy of credibility, but they'll immediately subscribe to ad hoc "studies" written by people with absolutely no training or experience in forensic analysis, structural engineering, or any of the other relevant fields.

Of course we'll be studying those buildings' performance for decades, just as we continue to investigate Titanic from nearly 100 years go. But as far as state-of-the-art analysis goes, the most recent NIST offering does a pretty good job. Their finite-element methods are impressive; we've been hardening FEM for 20-30 years, and in the past 10 years or so we've actually seen it being used preferentially over empirical methods. It's that predictive.

Yet the conspiracy theorists lately simply throw that out the window as "guesswork" and instead put complete implicit faith in the "analysis" of a fine-arts graduate who happens to write software. Apparently the best tools of an entire industry are less valuable than some programmer scribbling on his whiteboard.

This pattern is repeated over and over.

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-11, 08:24 PM
I know what you mean, JayUtah. I loved the 'physics911.com' crowd that didn't have a physics or Engineering Associates Degree or more to their name.

911 conspiracists have replaced Moon-Hoaxers as the bottom feeders of conspiracy theorists in my book.

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-11, 08:27 PM
For some reason the 9/11 CTs are really difficult. They have a complete "get out of rational thinking free" card....what they do is to say that our own government is behind it all for "this" or "that" reason. If one rabidly hates the government then any possible scenario is enough to set them off. There's no way (I know of) to reason with people like this. It's very frustrating to deal with this sort of mind set.

The term I like to use is "More Paranoid than thou".

I loved one time where one CT was countered by several rational arguements. His reply? "Do you you pray and talk to god like Shrub does?"

Apparently, not believing in conspiracy theories is an indication of how you vote in elections.

N C More
2005-Nov-11, 08:30 PM
I will prove 911 was a hoax when I'm done will the other thread.

Don't you think you've "bitten off enough"? BTW, have you read Jay's Clavius site yet?

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-11, 08:34 PM
I will prove 911 was a hoax when I'm done will the other thread.

Obviously this is some new use of the word 'prove' that I have not heard of before.

Moon Man
2005-Nov-11, 08:36 PM
Don't you think you've "bitten off enough"? BTW, have you read Jay's Clavius site yet?
I don't recognize the site by the name. Do you have a link and once I see it I can tell you if I've seen it before.

voyager_3
2005-Nov-11, 08:41 PM
I don't recognize the site by the name. Do you have a link and once I see it I can tell you if I've seen it before.

www.clavius.org

N C More
2005-Nov-11, 08:50 PM
I don't recognize the site by the name. Do you have a link and once I see it I can tell you if I've seen it before.

Just look at the very bottom of Jay's last post!

Here it is Moon Base Clavius (http://www.clavius.org/)

Please, do everyone a favor and read it...please!

Moon Man
2005-Nov-11, 08:56 PM
www.clavius.org
Thanks.

I seen this site before but have not read it all as of yet.

jt-3d
2005-Nov-11, 10:50 PM
I will prove 911 was a hoax when I'm done will the other thread.

Somehow I doubt it and this makes me think more so that you are only trying to get a rise out of us. Now I'm off to catch up on that other thread...

PhantomWolf
2005-Nov-12, 03:33 AM
I will prove 911 was a hoax when I'm done will the other thread.
Wow, you mean that they managed to con everyone into believing that the WTC was destroyed and all those people died? How do they manage to hide them from view, or have they dismantled them since? I bet everyone who thinks their loved one died that day will be happy to hear it's all a hoax and never happened. :wall:

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-12, 03:34 AM
Wow, you mean that they managed to con everyone into believing that the WTC was destroyed and all those people died? How do they manage to hide them from view, or have they dismantled them since? I bet everyone who thinks their loved one died that day will be happy to hear it's all a hoax and never happened.

A) Don't feed the troll

B) Do you really think that Moon Man would really offer anything coherent? o.O

WHarris
2005-Nov-12, 04:36 AM
Well if your reasoning is as abysmal in this thread as in the Apollo thread we don't have much to look forward to.

Indeed.

jrkeller
2005-Nov-12, 04:41 AM
Well if your reasoning is as abysmal in this thread as in the Apollo thread we don't have much to look forward to.

Except endless questions

Kemal
2005-Nov-12, 04:47 AM
I'm afraid to click the link at the cost of raising my blood pressure and hurling my monitor across the room. I have debated these type before is it the usual stuff about how the twin towers were blown up by the government?

sarongsong
2005-Nov-12, 05:11 AM
...They all rail incessantly against various reports from FEMA, NIST, and other responsible agencies...So where's the FBI Report?

Kemal
2005-Nov-12, 05:15 AM
They all rail incessantly against various reports from FEMA, NIST

except the parts they take out of context to use in their theories

tofu
2005-Nov-12, 05:28 AM
Debating CTs on the internet is one of the most frustrating things I've ever experienced in my life.

It is frustrating, but I would just remind you that these threads remain basically forever and are forever searchable through google et al. More people will read your words than will reply in the thread. Many people, that you'll never know about, will read what you say. Most people are not insane, they will not believe the conspiracy nuts if they are just shown the simple, logical refutation. The danger comes when the conspiracy nuts are the only voices - that's the only time when they have any effect.

So, whenever you have the time, refute what they say. You'll never know how many people will read the nuts and think, "hey maybe he's got a point" but then read your words and think, "ah, no I guess the woowoo didn't have a point."

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-12, 05:46 AM
...but then read your words and think, "ah, no I guess the woowoo didn't have a point."

Well, maybe substituting some other word for "woo-woo". That seems to mainly be a word confined to this message board :)

Sam5
2005-Nov-12, 05:55 AM
It is frustrating, but I would just remind you that these threads remain basically forever and are forever searchable through google et al. More people will read your words than will reply in the thread. Many people, that you'll never know about, will read what you say. Most people are not insane, they will not believe the conspiracy nuts if they are just shown the simple, logical refutation. The danger comes when the conspiracy nuts are the only voices - that's the only time when they have any effect.

So, whenever you have the time, refute what they say. You'll never know how many people will read the nuts and think, "hey maybe he's got a point" but then read your words and think, "ah, no I guess the woowoo didn't have a point."

That’s a very good analysis of the situation. Thanks.

sfarq1
2005-Nov-12, 05:59 AM
The thread referred to in the original post links to this article.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html

and draft of paper

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

It talks about a Brigham Young University physics professor doubting the official story. Granted he is only a physics professor but what is wrong with his arguments about WTC 7 collapse?

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-12, 06:29 AM
The thread referred to in the original post links to this article.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html

and draft of paper

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

It talks about a Brigham Young University physics professor doubting the official story. Granted he is only a physics professor but what is wrong with his arguments about WTC 7 collapse?

Among many, many other things..depending on rumors and prose to support an arguement:



The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.” (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)
Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002,
‘Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.)
Dr. Allison Geyh was one of a team of public health investigators from Johns Hopkins who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She reported in the Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel.” Further information on the subject is available at http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?p=11663.


These are used as primary accounts that there was molten steel on site. But I have yet to see one piece of physical evidence that there was any molten steel. One person claims to have seen slides, but where are they?
In fact the Penn comment is merely one of writer's prose, the molten steel is assumed to be beneath her feet, but is not actually seen.

The 'molten steel' question was reduced to being laughable on USENET only a couple of years ago. When 991 CT's came in with big long articles about "HUGE POOLS OF MOLTEN STEEL". The primary source for such observations, whcih came from the debris removal contracter, turned out to be second hand. The CT's made the story more laughable by saying the evidence was hauled in steel buckets that were poured into dump trucks.
Take a dump truck to a steel mill and ask them to fill it up with molten slag. See where that gets you.

Now, from a logic standpoint: Why, if you are trying to destroy the towers as part of some sinister guv'ment plot, do you decide that Building 7 has 'gotta go' as well?

Furthermore, planting explosives in a building scheduled for demolition is not an easy task, if you look at any building set up for such demolition a few hours before it is blown, you will see the size of such a task, even for a small office building. All lathe is removed, wires run EVERYWHERE, and the explosives are out in the open and well marked to ensure that everything is set up to work right when they detonate. The idea that this kind of set-up could be put in place, while people are working in the building, is absolutely laughable.

Finally, I will say this: I am not a physics professor, I was merely a physics major. But I can say this much: Physics Profs are not Building Engineers. They really are not qualified to make second guess Building Engineers about what should happen to a building under circumstances X,Y, & Z. Yes, there is overlap between the two positions, obviously. But the building engineer is a specialist who does not also have to concern himself with Physics things like Quarks, Leptons, String Theory and the Theory of Relativity. The Engineer is a Specialist in his field. A physics prof. would be qualified to say when things are obviosuly wrong from a physics standpoint, but not on the level of second-guessing that this Professor does.

I would also point out, (after a Google search reminded) that the good Dr. Jones had his hat well into the Cold Fusion fiasco of a some years ago.

sfarq1
2005-Nov-12, 10:14 AM
Among many, many other things..depending on rumors and prose to support an arguement:



These are used as primary accounts that there was molten steel on site. But I have yet to see one piece of physical evidence that there was any molten steel. One person claims to have seen slides, but where are they?
In fact the Penn comment is merely one of writer's prose, the molten steel is assumed to be beneath her feet, but is not actually seen.


I believe the author of the paper agrees with you because he asks for evidence of this:

" Any reader who knows of chemical analyses or even photographs of this molten metal found below the rubble piles of WTC 1, 2 and 7 is invited to speak out and contact the author. "

I am not agreeing with the author. I just would like to now from a physics standpoint were he is wrong. The paper is reported to be accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year.

nomuse
2005-Nov-12, 09:06 PM
Well...to my eyes the leading edge of 9-11 hoax believers has gotten sharper. Out on the major debates, they've moved beyond the easily-disproved, to technical discussions that require a fair amount of reading, background, and training to argue.

Unfortunately, most of the internet is still crawling the the 9-11 equivalent of the "Where are the stars?" crowd.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-12, 09:15 PM
I gotta love that one 9/11 "Hoax Theory" film that was going around. The one that was quoting all those people in the pentagon that were saying, "It sounded like a missile, not a plane".

Yes, like I'd really want to trust a bunch of ordinary people to tell me what the sonic signature is...

sarongsong
2005-Nov-15, 08:00 AM
I gotta love that one 9/11 "Hoax Theory" film...Speaking of film, why haven't we seen what those clearly visible roof-cameras recorded?

Hazzard
2005-Nov-15, 09:33 AM
So, whenever you have the time, refute what they say. You'll never know how many people will read the nuts and think, "hey maybe he's got a point" but then read your words and think, "ah, no I guess the woowoo didn't have a point."

That is the only reason Im debating this CT with the woo woos.
Its not for my health,I can tell you that much:-)

N C More
2005-Nov-15, 04:24 PM
That is the only reason Im debating this CT with the woo woos.
Its not for my health,I can tell you that much:-)

Nobody can do much to change the minds of the hardcore conspiracy believers, but that shouldn't really be your goal. Your goal should be to point out the flaws and irrational thinking in the CT's arguments...for the benefit of those who might be sitting on the fence, for those who aren't sure if the CT is making sense or not. Let's face nothing will change the mind of a "true believer", it's the minds of others that you can influence!
http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/froehlich/n025.gif

collegeguy
2005-Nov-17, 12:59 AM
These ones are used by some hardcore believers and I need some help to point flaws in them. This one deals with physics

http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2002/10/5053_comment.php

This one says the fuel could not have melted the steel, since it could not reach the temperature:


http://www.rense.com/general28/ioff.htm

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-17, 04:53 AM
These ones are used by some hardcore believers and I need some help to point flaws in them. This one deals with physics

http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2002/10/5053_comment.php


This thread on another board devastates any Flight 77 claims by kooks

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
(warning: LONG)



This one says the fuel could not have melted the steel, since it could not reach the temperature:

http://www.rense.com/general28/ioff.htm

Did not need to melt steel. There was no melted steel. Steel will weaken at temps way lower than half its melting point. That can be reached easily. Also, there are many ways that a fire can burn hotter than the textbook burn temperature.

collegeguy
2005-Nov-17, 05:41 AM
This thread on another board devastates any Flight 77 claims by kooks

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
(warning: LONG)



Did not need to melt steel. There was no melted steel. Steel will weaken at temps way lower than half its melting point. That can be reached easily. Also, there are many ways that a fire can burn hotter than the textbook burn temperature.

Thanks so much for the info, buddy.

Tolls
2005-Nov-17, 10:10 AM
This thread on another board devastates any Flight 77 claims by kooks

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
(warning: LONG)



Did not need to melt steel. There was no melted steel. Steel will weaken at temps way lower than half its melting point. That can be reached easily. Also, there are many ways that a fire can burn hotter than the textbook burn temperature.

As I said in the other thread about all this, the temperature generally quoted as important with regard to weakening the steel is about 1000F, which is well within the temperatures that the fire is thought to have reached.

Eoanthropus Dawsoni
2005-Nov-17, 03:17 PM
Did not need to melt steel. There was no melted steel. Steel will weaken at temps way lower than half its melting point. That can be reached easily. Also, there are many ways that a fire can burn hotter than the textbook burn temperature.
A few years ago my barn burned. The only fuel for that fire was the old pine construction, and a couple of tons of hay. All of the steel tools inside were ruined, most bent very far out of shape. Even a steel plow was warped. I was very disappointed by the loss of the barn, I been trying to build a Foucault pendulum in there.

G O R T
2005-Nov-18, 03:48 AM
I have a hard time debating this CT without getting frustrated.
Please take a look at this and tell me what you think about these guys arguments.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=53315&st=165


I do not see the problem here.

The NIST report states clearly that they had only been able to document approximately 3 percent of all perimeter columns and 1 percent of all core columns intersecting floors with pre-collapse fires.

The perimeter columns can basically be disregarded as they were not designed to support the weight of the building. This leaves only 4 sections of the core support that were scruitinized and one of these was exposed to temperatures of 250c albeit locally. This leaves some 400 odd peices of the central support structure from the impacted floors untested.

Furthermore, implications that weakened steel was the sole cause of collapse are a serious deferment from reality. Direct damage to the core structure played a significant part, as would expansion and warpage of structural elements due to localized heating. Let us say for example that the plane impact reduced the general overload capacity locally from 500% to 300%. Over the next hour heat causes structural warpage that either causes direct localized failures in support elements and/or shifting of stress to other members that pushes them past their limit. Each structual member that fails shifts the stress to another one and brings the overall overload capacity down till total failure occurs. You can actually see when the core fails and stress is transfered to the outer columns. They of course buckle since they are not designed to handle the weight. As the damaged floor collapses, the inertia of the weight above accelerates for some ten feet. The moment of the above weight easily exceedes the overload capacity of the undamaged floors below so the collapse became unstoppable.



A factor that I see missing from all of these discussions is the electrical supply to the building. Each Trade Tower had several hundred megawatts supplied to it in addition to generators to supply peak load. Damage to an electrical supply of this magnitude will vaporize concrete and steel. There were in fact reports of extensive damage in some basement levels immediately after the plane impact that could be attributed to electrical overload depending on the location of the service equipment. I have not as yet seen plans of the electrical distribution in the Towers though. Electrical distribution within the buildings and the supply to the buildings has been repeatedly upgraded through the years which always IMHO leads to sup-par ratings and control.

Just a thought.

Graham2001
2005-Nov-18, 03:45 PM
The term I like to use is "More Paranoid than thou".

I loved one time where one CT was countered by several rational arguements. His reply? "Do you you pray and talk to god like Shrub does?"

Ah, the classic, all purpose CT answer. :rolleyes:

I've often wondered if the people pushing this actually believe what they are saying or just make it up as they go along.

For example on this site (http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/homerun.html) a man named Joe Viallis is identified as a "...British aeronautical engineer..." however when I first encountered his work (Peddling claims that 'Jackboot Johnnie' had ordered the Port Arthur massacre at the behest of the UN Secretary General.) he claimed to be involved in the oil industry. Indeed his own website (http://www.vialls.net) makes no claims to aviation experience and to my knowledge he is (or was) an Australian.

ktesibios
2005-Nov-18, 09:41 PM
Ah, the classic, all purpose CT answer. :rolleyes:

I've often wondered if the people pushing this actually believe what they are saying or just make it up as they go along.

For example on this site (http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/homerun.html) a man named Joe Viallis is identified as a "...British aeronautical engineer..." however when I first encountered his work (Peddling claims that 'Jackboot Johnnie' had ordered the Port Arthur massacre at the behest of the UN Secretary General.) he claimed to be involved in the oil industry. Indeed his own website (http://www.vialls.net) makes no claims to aviation experience and to my knowledge he is (or was) an Australian.

Well, if you read his article on his Web site, it says "The author is a former member of the Society of Licenced Aeronautical Engineers & Technologist, London".

However, a Google on "Society of Licenced Aeronautical Engineers & Technologist" or simply "Licenced Aeronautical Engineers" turns up nothing but references to Vialls' article.

It seems odd for a professional or trade society to hide its light under a bushel on the Web. By way of contrast, if you Google "Audio Engineering Society" or "motion picture and television engineers" you will get over a hundred thousand hits for each. This obviously doesn't prove that there isn't any such society, but the sheer lack of any reference to it that isn't taken directly from Vialls sure does make me suspicious.

There's also a question of usage. Outside the US, the use of the term "engineer" to mean what we would call "equipment operator" or "technician" seems to be rather common. If I held my present job in a studio in London, I would be called a "maintenance engineer" instead of "the tech guy". If the "Society of Licenced etc." really does exist, it's just as likely to be a society of people who maintain and repair airplanes as of people who design them.

There's nothing like a little title inflation to make claims seem more plausible to people who can't or won't do any checking.

Vialls is also the guy who made this claim:


Initial military activity will consist of approximately 250,000 Mistaravim-trained Yisraelim terrorists entering the Americas by land, sea and air, thereafter splitting into cells of between four and six men, every one of them coordinated internally by various designated lodges of the B'nai B'rith Masonic order. At the same time, a further smaller block of 10,000 Yisraelim terrorists will enter Australia in order to capture and hold strategic mineral reserves, though this is an entirely separate operation that will not impact directly on the Americas.

source:http://www.joevialls.co.uk/myahudi/fortress2.html

It takes only a minute with the CIA World Factbook and a calculator to work out that 260,000 people is more than 10% of the number of people aged 17-49, male and female, listed as "fit for military service" in all of Israel. Apparently "vaguely plausible numbers" wasn't a consideration in cooking up Vialls' fantasy.

If you're curious and have a strong stomach, reading the entire "Fortress America" page I've cited ought to provide an object lesson in how paranoid conspiracy claims routinely trace back to simple hatefreakery.

jimbro
2005-Nov-20, 11:50 AM
I have a hard time understanding how the towers could collapse straight downward without leaving the central core steel. I would think that the building would get stronger as more and more of the buildng starts to fall. how can so many connections fail at the same time on every floor? what about the path of least resistance, buildngs topple unless taken down precisely
are there good explainations for this?

why hasnt this type of collapse ever happened before. Also, buildig 7 was steel frame, very different from the towers. So why the same collapse if the pancake theroy cant happen.

will anyone argue that explosives couldnt have taken the buildings down in the same way?



.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-20, 04:55 PM
will anyone argue that explosives couldnt have taken the buildings down in the same way?

I'm not an expert, so I can't say for sure; however, this is my main problem with the Conspiracy Theory.

Terrorists did hijack the planes. The planes did head to the WTC towers. The planes did crach into the towers. Destruction was had.

Why do you really need to interject a governmental body as being "behind the conspiracy"? It seems like the CTs are just tacking onto a horrible tragedy, an "anti-government!" hypothesis for no other reason than, "because something tragic happened, and we hate/don't trust the government". Do you really need to throw in explosives?

I mean, seriously, this situation seems to be about as logical as that Pearl Harbor Conspiracy Theory -- you know, the one where we bribed Japan to attack Pearl Harbor so we could have an excuse to go to war? It didn't make sense because we would've crippled our major navy fleets as an excuse to go to war!

A similar thing with the WTC -- after those towers fell, the economy of the US plummeted for a little while. It's like trying to get someone to fight you hand to hand after cutting off your own leg; it's illogical.

genebujold
2005-Nov-20, 09:29 PM
I will prove 911 was a hoax when I'm done will the other thread.

And I will debunk all religious, non-religious, and political thought when I'm done drinking my coffee.

Thanks, PM, for taking the time to debunk the 9/11 CTs so we didn't have to. I read the article - very outstanding.

It'd be nice if they could take a similar crack at the Lunar Landing CTs.

Gillianren
2005-Nov-20, 11:39 PM
I have a hard time understanding how the towers could collapse straight downward without leaving the central core steel. I would think that the building would get stronger as more and more of the buildng starts to fall. how can so many connections fail at the same time on every floor? what about the path of least resistance, buildngs topple unless taken down precisely
are there good explainations for this?

I'm not an expert, either, but I'd like you to think about this: where is each floor falling? Onto the one below it, that's where. Therefore, it suddenly gets quite a lot of weight dumped on it very suddenly--as you go lower and lower into the building, the amount dumped on it gets heavier and heavier. (More floors above, you see?) They didn't necessarily fall all at the same time, but it was fast enough to make no difference. What's more, in this case the path of least resistance would have been almost straight down, as there was no outside force causing it to topple.


why hasnt this type of collapse ever happened before. Also, buildig 7 was steel frame, very different from the towers. So why the same collapse if the pancake theroy cant happen.

Name for me, please, another skyscraper that had a fully-fueled 747 crash into it at very high speed, then compare and contrast that building's collapse with that of the WTC 1 and 2. Oh, wait--you can't, because such a situation only happened twice, both on the same day. As to WTC 7, quite a lot of buildings around the world have pancaked that were not demolished. See, for example, San Francisco after the Loma Prieta earthquake or Mexico City after the 1985 earthquake--or any city you like after any major earthquake you like. Different circumstances, to be sure, but again, how many other buildings have experienced the same situation as WTC 7?


will anyone argue that explosives couldnt have taken the buildings down in the same way?

As Lonewulf so kindly points out, that's not the point at all. The point is, we have all this lovely evidence showing that certain aspects definitely happened. Many, many, many people saw that second plane. Quite a few even saw the first one. There's no doubt that planes hit the buildings. There's no doubt that explosives are very complicated for use in demolishing such a large building. There's no evidence at all that they were used, and there definitely would be. Why would there be explosives? Isn't it overkill to use both?

jimbro
2005-Nov-21, 12:36 AM
Did you debunkers know that both towers were specifically designed to withstand impacts by the largest airliners. They Literally were designed to withstand such impact, and, they did a great job. They hardly budged when hit, the fires only burned a relatively few floors. The Firemen were about to put it out with only a couple of lines.

-Then the explosions happen-
and the buildings fall down in what can only be described as a controlled demolition. straight down in its footprint.

can I get one of the smart debunkers to hit these points please
-explosives can produce the same collapse
-The towers were designed to withstand the largest airliner impact(s!)
-The pancake theroy has never happened anywhere before or after
-Where did the center steel core go
-Why does building seven collapse perfectly and why did the owner say it was pulled?
-On its surface which is more likely. An exotic and unproven pancake theroy that is highly contested by experts at every level, Or a controlled demolition?

Based on my last responces I think I can guess that debunkers will say what amounts to "hey, terorists baby. they can do anything. case closed"

I'd like to see a whole thread on "panckes vs. explosives" I think that would be an interesting debate.

Musashi
2005-Nov-21, 12:40 AM
-The towers were designed to withstand the largest airliner impact(s!)

At the time they were built, the largest airliner impacts were:

a) substantially smaller
b) assumed to be accidental and therefore at lower speeds and with less fuel.

On another note, it is good to see you expose your real colors so early Jim.

jimbro
2005-Nov-21, 12:50 AM
you are correct my friend. You didnt hit any of the points however. In fact what you did is a common rhetorical tecnique. You avoided the main points completely and chose a minor point and made what seems to be a disqualifying remark about it.
My responce to your points
yes a 747 is somewhat smaller than a 757 but not 1/2 or 1/3 as small which is important because the towers were designed capable of withstanding SEVERAL 747's
Speed is an issue, and we saw that even at the speed the planes were going the buildings showed relatively minimal damage.Until the explosions happen and then the building

jimbro
2005-Nov-21, 12:54 AM
Please explain WHY you believe the pancake theroy. Show me a pancake. I see explosions that we can debate about but where did the pancakes go after they all stacked up or whatever it is you believe about them.
I am vey willing to be persuaded so please breakit down for me.

Musashi
2005-Nov-21, 12:59 AM
you are correct my friend. You didnt hit any of the points however. In fact what you did is a common rhetorical tecnique. You avoided the main points completely and chose a minor point and made what seems to be a disqualifying remark about it.
My responce to your points
yes a 747 is somewhat smaller than a 757 but not 1/2 or 1/3 as small which is important because the towers were designed capable of withstanding SEVERAL 747's
Speed is an issue, and we saw that even at the speed the planes were going the buildings showed relatively minimal damage.Until the explosions happen and then the building

If it was a minor point, you shouldn't have included it in your list.

jimbro
2005-Nov-21, 01:15 AM
aaaaaand again, You do use that tecique well. Twice in a row in fact. But I'll hand it to you, you diminish my points sucessfully without even adresssing them +10 rhetoric points to Musashi

But heres another chance for you and others to address or avoid real issues about the wtc 911
-explosives can produce the same collapse
-The pancake theroy has never happened anywhere before or after
-Where did the center steel core go
-where did the "pancakes" go
-Why does building seven collapse perfectly and why did the owner say it was pulled?
-On its surface which is more likely. An exotic and unproven pancake theroy that is highly contested by experts at every level, Or a controlled demolition?

twinstead
2005-Nov-21, 01:39 AM
Highly contested by experts at every level?


Is it physically possible to exaggerate any more?

Graham2001
2005-Nov-21, 03:42 AM
... highly contested by experts at every level...

It is not simply enough for you to say that 'experts' contest the theory you should say who they are and what qualifications they have to speak on this issue.

This is critical because anyone can claim to be an expert on the internet, without having any more qualifications than those needed to set up a website (see my link to the 'Joe Vialls' website above).

sfarq1
2005-Nov-21, 03:59 AM
you are correct my friend. You didnt hit any of the points however. In fact what you did is a common rhetorical tecnique. You avoided the main points completely and chose a minor point and made what seems to be a disqualifying remark about it.
My responce to your points
yes a 747 is somewhat smaller than a 757 but not 1/2 or 1/3 as small which is important because the towers were designed capable of withstanding SEVERAL 747's
Speed is an issue, and we saw that even at the speed the planes were going the buildings showed relatively minimal damage.Until the explosions happen and then the building


It was a 707 and 767.

“ The above graphic from FEMA's report shows the sizes of a 707 and a 767 relative to the footprint of a WTC tower. 2 Although a 767 has a slightly wider body than a 707, its overall size, weight, and fuel capacity are very similar to a 767-200 -- the type of jet that Flight 11 and Flight 175 were.”

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

SynKronoS
2005-Nov-21, 05:25 AM
I'm not an expert, so I can't say for sure; however, this is my main problem with the Conspiracy Theory.

Terrorists did hijack the planes. The planes did head to the WTC towers. The planes did crach into the towers. Destruction was had.

Why do you really need to interject a governmental body as being "behind the conspiracy"? It seems like the CTs are just tacking onto a horrible tragedy, an "anti-government!" hypothesis for no other reason than, "because something tragic happened, and we hate/don't trust the government". Do you really need to throw in explosives?

wheres your proof? -- all you can say is "because the govt told me so"-- the fact that it was an inside job is irrefutable-- bin laden was cia codenamed tim osmand-- the fact that extreme terrorism was not the intention is obvious from the fact that the first plane flew "directly" over indian point nuclear facility-- the second could have targeted it just the same but the fact that it was not targeted shows an ulterior motive-- norad stood down that day and no afghani could accomplish that-- the pentagon was struck 38 minutes "AFTER" the "second" plane struck the towers eliminating all doubts of whether we were under attack or not which should not of happened with an airforce base only 14 minute away by car-- the fact that jets were airborne cannot be denied either-- as far as fire melting steel goes its ridiculous to attibute office furniture as the cause-- the jet fuel was burned up minutes after the impact and the pools of molten steel which did not cool for up to five weeks after the collapses CANNOT be rationalized through hydrocarbon based fires--bldg7 did not even have a commercial aircraft strike it yet we are told fire brought it down? how naive can you be? bush communicated his complicity in the attacks through symbolism that very day--the secret service has a job to do and that is protect the presidents life at all costs-- that morning bush was in an elementary class reading a book about goats when andy card walked up and whispered into his ear "we are under attack" after the second plane hit tis target-- to think that the secret service would do nothing in this situation is ludicrous-- the event was announced in the local papers days in advance and by not acting they would have been endangering the lives of the children as well as the presidents-- that incident had a purpose and it was to communicate to anyone with wisdom that bush "knew" they were in no danger-- again BYU physics professor dr steven e jones "knows" his theory CANNOT be disproven and issued the challenge as a way of getting intellects to pay attention to the facts-- that just like Karl Schwartz(former rep maj leader responsible for the rep take-over of congress during the clinton adm) and morgan reynolds(bush's own former chief of economics in the labor dept) have come forward proclaiming that indeed it was an inside job and explosives were used to bring down wtc1,2 and 7

SynKronoS
2005-Nov-21, 05:37 AM
It is not simply enough for you to say that 'experts' contest the theory you should say who they are and what qualifications they have to speak on this issue.

This is critical because anyone can claim to be an expert on the internet, without having any more qualifications than those needed to set up a website (see my link to the 'Joe Vialls' website above).
steve jones physics prof from BYU has outlined his theory as to "how" a building could collapse NEAR the rate of freefall,which is 6 seconds in relation tot he height of bldg 7,at just 6.6 seconds--basically his synopsis is that the "only" explanation is that explosives were used to induce the collapse--multiple load supporting beams were comprimised all at the same time and the only explanation is explosives.

Besides describing details of why he believes the collapses were by controlled demolition, he also mentions a seminar presentation he conducted at BYU on Sept. 22, 2005 to about 60 people...

"In attendance were faculty from Physics, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Psychology, Geology, and Mathematics....After presenting the material summarized here, including actually looking at and discussing the collapses of WTC 7 and the Towers, all except one attendee agreed (by hand-vote) that further investigation of the WTC collapses was called for. The next day, the dissenting professor said he had further thought about it and now agreed that more investigation was needed."
His paper on the WTC controlled demolition is here
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

bldg 7 did not have an airplane crash into it--it exhibited evidence of explosives in the form of high velocity jets of dust and a classic "crimp" in the center at the moment of collapse--the collapse occured in 6.6 seconds --there are at least four angles of video --.6 seconds longer than an object dropped from the known height of the building--defying the theoretical physical law of "conservation of momentum" in which objects encountering resistance would be impeded and subject to a delay in momentum

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-21, 05:48 AM
wheres your proof? -- all you can say is "because the govt told me so"--

Try "Structural and Civil Engineers in multiple countries have said this is what happened.



the fact that it was an inside job is irrefutable-- bin laden was cia codenamed tim osmand-- the fact that extreme terrorism was not the intention is obvious from the fact that the first plane flew "directly" over indian point nuclear facility-- the second could have targeted it just the same but the fact that it was not targeted shows an ulterior motive-


Or maybe its a lot easier to spread terror by hitting notable targets. Hitting a Nuclear Power Plant is not going to be an instant nuclear explosion. Remeber those engineers? They do work to make certain that those facilities don't blow up easily.



- norad stood down that day and no afghani could accomplish that--


You are simply wrong.



the pentagon was struck 38 minutes "AFTER" the "second" plane struck the towers eliminating all doubts of whether we were under attack or not which should not of happened with an airforce base only 14 minute away by car--


Ah, so in your world, warplanes are armed and ready to go in 15 minutes?



the fact that jets were airborne cannot be denied either--


Given that level of proof it can be denied very easily.



as far as fire melting steel goes its ridiculous to attibute office furniture as the cause--


The steel did not melt. It did not need to for failure.



the jet fuel was burned up minutes after the impact and the pools of molten steel which did not cool for up to five weeks after the collapses CANNOT be rationalized through hydrocarbon based fires--


Little problem: There was no molten steel.

For that matter, I'd like to know just what explosive or incendiary can keep steel molten for five weeks.



bldg7 did not even have a commercial aircraft strike it yet we are told fire brought it down?


If you ingore the large chunks of WTC falling on top of it, you too can make a fine strawman.



how naive can you be?


I could ask you the same question.



bush communicated his complicity in the attacks through symbolism that very day--the secret service has a job to do and that is protect the presidents life at all costs-- that morning bush was in an elementary class reading a book about goats when andy card walked up and whispered into his ear "we are under attack" after the second plane hit tis target-- to think that the secret service would do nothing in this situation is ludicrous-- the event was announced in the local papers days in advance and by not acting they would have been endangering the lives of the children as well as the presidents-- that incident had a purpose and it was to communicate to anyone with wisdom that bush "knew" they were in no danger--


Bush's actions are not relevant.



again BYU physics professor dr steven e jones "knows" his theory CANNOT be disproven and issued the challenge as a way of getting intellects to pay attention to the facts--


Dr. Jones has proven nothing except that he can take rumor, innuendo, misquotations and misunderstanding and make as many mistakes as a person without a PHD in physics.



that just like Karl Schwartz(former rep maj leader responsible for the rep take-over of congress during the clinton adm) and morgan reynolds(bush's own former chief of economics in the labor dept) have come forward proclaiming that indeed it was an inside job and explosives were used to bring down wtc1,2 and 7

And their proof is? It had better be better than what you've presented here.

Peter B
2005-Nov-21, 06:03 AM
Eh. Kookbreaker said it better than I could.

Graham2001
2005-Nov-21, 06:36 AM
I'd like to second that and add that neither SynKronoS or Jimbro have actually stated which 'experts', other than Stephen Jones support the contention that explosives were used in the way they claim.

I'd also like to add from some very superficial research that it appears that setting up 'implosions' is a fairly involved task.

A few years back there was a major scandal in Australia when a 'controlled implosion' was turned into a virtual picnic. As it turned out the people setting up the blast got their calculations wrong and someone was killed by flying debris. (Click on this link (http://tinyurl.com/dnx9o) for more information and on this link (http://tinyurl.com/c5kr5) for a summary of the coroners report.)

If nothing else the above will demonstrate the difficulty of setting up demolition charges.

Graham2001
2005-Nov-21, 06:40 AM
bldg 7 did not have an airplane crash into it--it exhibited evidence of explosives in the form of high velocity jets of dust and a classic "crimp" in the center at the moment of collapse--the collapse occured in 6.6 seconds --there are at least four angles of video --.6 seconds longer than an object dropped from the known height of the building--defying the theoretical physical law of "conservation of momentum" in which objects encountering resistance would be impeded and subject to a delay in momentum

While I doubt this will sway anyone, the author of the 911 Myths site (http://www.911myths.com/index.html) has done some looking into this particular claim (http://www.911myths.com/html/silverstein___wtc7.html).

To cut to the chase what he found was something very familiar to people dealing with the 'Face on Mars' and 'Moon Hoax' claims. Picture 'enhancement' through the use of Photoshop and related image editing packages.

This is not to say that deliberate manipulation occurred simply that the person preparing the image saw in the imaging artifacts produced by the 'sharpen image' and 'enlarge' functions what they wanted to see.

SynKronoS
2005-Nov-21, 07:10 AM
Try "Structural and Civil Engineers in multiple countries have said this is what happened.


well you have the name of a respected physics prof from BYU from my side your the one who has failed to reference a source


Or maybe its a lot easier to spread terror by hitting notable targets. Hitting a Nuclear Power Plant is not going to be an instant nuclear explosion. Remeber those engineers? They do work to make certain that those facilities don't blow up easily.

thats NOT terrorism--thats politics



You are simply wrong.

ill elaborate--they were admitted "wargames" taking place on the morning of sept.11,01 dealing with hi-jacked commercial aircraft targeting the wtc yet we were told by rice and bush that we had never thought of "that" before?!?--google "tripod II" or "vigilant gaurdian" armed jets were airborne that morning--


Ah, so in your world, warplanes are armed and ready to go in 15 minutes?

sooner;see "elaboration" above


Given that level of proof it can be denied very easily.

what would it take? the mathamatics of physics involved with the videos of bldg 7 is ALL that is needed


The steel did not melt. It did not need to for failure.

it would HAVE to in order to collapse in the manner that we witnessed on 9/11 it failed on every load bearing beam on multiple floors at the same time


Little problem: There was no molten steel.

For that matter, I'd like to know just what explosive or incendiary can keep steel molten for five weeks.

its in the nist report--Mark Loizeaux comments on the presence of the pools in wtc1,2 and 7--the core beams in the towers were solid steel and the severing of these supports with thermite is the only explanation for them which smoldered for weeks under the debri


If you ingore the large chunks of WTC falling on top of it, you too can make a fine strawman.

again the burdon of proof is on you as there are "many" angles of bldg 7 collapsing yet none show any damage and only moderate fires by any firefighting textbook standards


I could ask you the same question.



Bush's actions are not relevant.


his actions were very relavent-- the action or should i say "inaction" of his security personel speaks volumes to those who know standard security operating procedures during acts of terrorism--


Dr. Jones has proven nothing except that he can take rumor, innuendo, misquotations and misunderstanding and make as many mistakes as a person without a PHD in physics.

oh excellent! then i suppose a physics doctorate you know will answer his challenge of refuting his math concerning the physics of the collapses


And their proof is? It had better be better than what you've presented here.

One-Time GOP Insider Claims He Has Sept. 11 ‘Smoking Gun’

A former Republican Party insider turned Bush basher thinks he has stumbled across what may be the “smoking gun,” proving the U.S. government’s official story about the WTC attacks is an “unequivocal lie.”

Karl Schwarzof Little Rock, Ark., who several years ago began exposing corruption amongst the neo-conservative movement in a book entitled A One-Way Ticket to Crawford, Texas, now has set his sights on proving government complicity in 9-11.

For years, the successful business entrepreneur and conservative Republican, once asked by the RNC to run against Bill Clinton for Arkansas governor, has been using his inside political and business clout to expose corruption among the neo-cons in the Bush administration.

He strayed away from the Bush agenda two years after being one of the lead orchestrators in the Republican Party takeover of Congress during the Clinton administration.
In his book and his ongoing seven-part series of articles entitled “Pop Goes the Bush Mythology Bubble,” he provides inside information about countless financial scams, essentially revealing that the Bush motive behind the Middle East invasion was more about oil profits than the war on terrorism.

Saying the neo-cons within the government are destroying America for their own corporate-global benefits, Schwarz doesn’t mince words and is calling for the impeachment of Bush, as well as removal of any member of Congress who aids and abets the corrupt powers.

Now, moving away from financial corruption, he has turned his attention to the 9-11 truth movement, saying he has found a piece of obscure video footage that shows that the government lied about what type of plane struck the south tower of the WTC.

Schwarz admits he had a “whole lot” of luck when running across the video footage in a French foreign film entitled The Barbarian Invasion.

Contained in the film unrelated to 9-11, is a 1 minute, 52 second, video segment, shot by an unknown amateur photographer at the WTC, which Schwartz says clearly shows a Boeing 737 airliner striking the south tower.

“We tracked down the filmmaker and he acquired the original WTC segment from the Canadian News Service,” said Schwarz, adding that he has had the tape analyzed by experts proving it’s not a fake. “We are tracking down the original photographer and want to get to him before the government does in order to prove its authenticity.

“This segment, however, conclusively shows a 737 hit the south tower, not a 767 as previously reported. This in itself should be the smoking gun, which proves the whole story given to us by the government about 9-11 is untrue.”
Originally, the government claimed the second jetliner en route to Los Angeles was a Boeing 767. However, Schwarz said the video will not only show the airline dimensions to be those of a 737, but that he also has evidence that the engine recovered in the WTC wreckage was a model type CFM56, which propels a 737, not a 767.

“Not even two CFM56’s could get a 767 off the ground,” added Schwartz.

Besides 9-11, Schwartz said three major areas that need to be thoroughly investigated regarding the Bush administration’s present policies include:

• Administration ties with Afghanistan, the Taliban and the Bridas Corp. Schwarz claims a high-ranking Bridas executive is one of his main sources, implicating the Bush administration with corruption involving the Taliban and the Afghan invasion.

• Information implicating 9-11 commission members with direct and indirect financial benefits due to the Bush policies in the Middle East.

“Whistleblowers Sibel Edmonds, Karen Kwiatkowski and others whom I cannot disclose without jeopardizing their safety, including many members of the armed services, have acted as my main sources,” said Schwarz.

[Moderator note: the above is not copyrighted, however the source mandates that the following be included for redistribution: American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003]
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3043


Highly recognized former chief economist in Labor Department now doubts official 9/11 story, claiming suspicious facts and evidence cover-up indicate government foul play and possible criminal implications.

A former chief economist in the Labor Department during President Bush's first term now believes the official story about the collapse of the WTC is 'bogus,' saying it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.

http://www.globalnewsmatrix.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1350

[Moderator note: trimmed copyrighted material and corrected URL.]

when your own team is exposing you in this manner dont you think its time to pay attention to the details?

Gillianren
2005-Nov-21, 07:11 AM
Okay, I got the size of the plane wrong, but my other perfectly valid points got ignored. Ergo, I'm quoting myself. (Unfortunately, the stupid quote function doesn't do quote-in-quote anymore, and I'm too lazy to go back and edit in the quotes. Still, I think it's pretty easy to remember what was said, don't you?)


I'm not an expert, either, but I'd like you to think about this: where is each floor falling? Onto the one below it, that's where. Therefore, it suddenly gets quite a lot of weight dumped on it very suddenly--as you go lower and lower into the building, the amount dumped on it gets heavier and heavier. (More floors above, you see?) They didn't necessarily fall all at the same time, but it was fast enough to make no difference. What's more, in this case the path of least resistance would have been almost straight down, as there was no outside force causing it to topple.



Name for me, please, another skyscraper that had a fully-fueled 747 crash into it at very high speed, then compare and contrast that building's collapse with that of the WTC 1 and 2. Oh, wait--you can't, because such a situation only happened twice, both on the same day. As to WTC 7, quite a lot of buildings around the world have pancaked that were not demolished. See, for example, San Francisco after the Loma Prieta earthquake or Mexico City after the 1985 earthquake--or any city you like after any major earthquake you like. Different circumstances, to be sure, but again, how many other buildings have experienced the same situation as WTC 7?



As Lonewulf so kindly points out, that's not the point at all. The point is, we have all this lovely evidence showing that certain aspects definitely happened. Many, many, many people saw that second plane. Quite a few even saw the first one. There's no doubt that planes hit the buildings. There's no doubt that explosives are very complicated for use in demolishing such a large building. There's no evidence at all that they were used, and there definitely would be. Why would there be explosives? Isn't it overkill to use both?

Dark Helmet
2005-Nov-21, 07:45 AM
Wasn't there a pre-fab apartment building where a gas explosion caused a corner of apartments to all progressively collapse onto each other?

Was that collapse caused by the same mechanism as the WTC?

jt-3d
2005-Nov-21, 08:01 AM
“This segment, however, conclusively shows a 737 hit the south tower, not a 767 as previously reported. This in itself should be the smoking gun, which proves the whole story given to us by the government about 9-11 is untrue.”
Originally, the government claimed the second jetliner en route to Los Angeles was a Boeing 767. However, Schwarz said the video will not only show the airline dimensions to be those of a 737, but that he also has evidence that the engine recovered in the WTC wreckage was a model type CFM56, which propels a 737, not a 767.

“Not even two CFM56’s could get a 767 off the ground,” added Schwartz.

I was going to attempt to address more or your verbosity but I neither the time nor the temperment right now. I will however say that it was most definately a 767 which hit both towers. While you may not be able to tell the difference I, as a A&P mechanic with over 20 years experience, most definately can. If the rest of your 'evidence' can be as easily dismissed by knowlegeble people in other fields you will not have much left.

I will add that if you actually took the blinders off for a bit and watch, you can see that bottom parts of the towers were perfectlty stable until the entire top floors fell on them in one big extremely heavy chunk. Watch the videos and quit being such a parrot.

goodastronomy
2005-Nov-21, 08:02 AM
It's been my experience that it's best to not debate 100% true believers. Typically the 9-11 Conspirators will deny everything you say. Because their scape goat is; "Thats what the government wants you to believe" - as though saying that makes their claim true.

They love to suggest that if a coverup makes sense, therefore it must be true. I had my debate with one 9-11 conspiratore and I won't bother. Because they will only see you as part of it. :silenced:

cjl
2005-Nov-21, 08:05 AM
"the severing of these supports with thermite is the only explanation for them which smoldered for weeks under the debris"
I cannot IMAGINE how much thermite it would take to make that much molten steel. First, it would take more than an amount that you could just hide - you would need to have massive quantities throughout the floors, and second, the steel would cool off in substantially less than "weeks". Steel does not stay molten for weeks under a pile of debris, it would have to be so hot and in such vast quantities that there really would be nothing left other than molten steel.

SynKronoS
2005-Nov-21, 08:05 AM
Okay, I got the size of the plane wrong, but my other perfectly valid points got ignored. Ergo, I'm quoting myself. (Unfortunately, the stupid quote function doesn't do quote-in-quote anymore, and I'm too lazy to go back and edit in the quotes. Still, I think it's pretty easy to remember what was said, don't you?)
Originally Posted by Gillianren---
I'm not an expert, either, but I'd like you to think about this: where is each floor falling? Onto the one below it, that's where. Therefore, it suddenly gets quite a lot of weight dumped on it very suddenly--as you go lower and lower into the building, the amount dumped on it gets heavier and heavier. (More floors above, you see?) They didn't necessarily fall all at the same time, but it was fast enough to make no difference. What's more, in this case the path of least resistance would have been almost straight down, as there was no outside force causing it to topple.



Name for me, please, another skyscraper that had a fully-fueled 747 crash into it at very high speed, then compare and contrast that building's collapse with that of the WTC 1 and 2. Oh, wait--you can't, because such a situation only happened twice, both on the same day. As to WTC 7, quite a lot of buildings around the world have pancaked that were not demolished. See, for example, San Francisco after the Loma Prieta earthquake or Mexico City after the 1985 earthquake--or any city you like after any major earthquake you like. Different circumstances, to be sure, but again, how many other buildings have experienced the same situation as WTC 7?



As Lonewulf so kindly points out, that's not the point at all. The point is, we have all this lovely evidence showing that certain aspects definitely happened. Many, many, many people saw that second plane. Quite a few even saw the first one. There's no doubt that planes hit the buildings. There's no doubt that explosives are very complicated for use in demolishing such a large building. There's no evidence at all that they were used, and there definitely would be. Why would there be explosives? Isn't it overkill to use both?

BLDG 7
******
bldg 7 was not struck by an airplane and the progressive collapse theory has been shot down long ago! --
http://www.reopen911.org/images/windsorfirecombo.gif
************************************************** *****************
“Amazing, incredible pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”

CBS News anchor Dan Rather commenting on the collapse of Building 7 - September 11, 2001 at approx 5:30pm EST.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc-7_cbs_demolition.mpg http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc7_cbs2.jpg
************************************************** *****************
Progressive collapses dont mimick demolitions!!!--the reason for these is to demonstrate the absolute foolishness in the official story
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/buildfall2.jpg
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/buildfall5.jpg
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/buildfall6.jpg
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/buildfall7.jpg
TOPPLED BUILDINGS

The photos below are of buildings which collapsed during an earthquake. They show the typical result that occurs when a single load bearing member fails, resulting in the remains of the building tipping over(progressive collapse) and down onto the initiating point.
************************************************** *****************
Take a close look at the manner in which WTC 7 collapses straight down. For the building to collapse in this fashion, all of the load bearing supports would have had to fail at exactly the same time.

The claim that the collapse was the result of a fire requires the fire be equally distributed throughout the entire floor of the building, providing equal heat for an equal amount of time, so that all the load bearings members would fail at the exact same moment.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif

Do you find this plausible?

SynKronoS
2005-Nov-21, 08:13 AM
While you may not be able to tell the difference I, as a A&P mechanic with over 20 years experience, most definately can.
explain the "MURRAY STREET ENGINE" that was documented on 9/11 in many ways--it did not shred to confetti and it did not vaporize and several clear images were taken of the engine in question--but one stands out as the definitve image as a clever investigator had placed a carpenters square on the engine for reference and it is this image that tells the truth about the official version and that truth is that it is a big stinking lie---remember the rotor fan on a 767 is 9 ft in diameter--there is no way that the component pictured came from a 767!!!! the serial numbers from the many time change parts on this engine could end the debate for sure but the where abouts of this engine or the results of its investigation are unknown
************************************************** ******************
Somebody has placed a carpenter's square in the opening so the size is that of a CFM56. This is the definitive photo of the street engine.
http://www.rense.com/1.imagesG/streetengine1cut.jpg
In the Rense article, Is Popular Mechanics Hiding 911 NYC Engine In Street Photo?,
the street engine was identified as a CFM56, the sole powerplant of the Boeing 737 after the 737-200 series. HOWEVER, UA175 that was alleged to have crashed into the South Tower was a Boeing 767-200.
http://www.rense.com/1.imagesG/streetengine2cutC.jpg
In this screen capture from the CNN video of the South Tower crash the engine (circled) is seen as it heads for the intersection of Church and Murray. A flame can be seen following the descending engine.
http://www.rense.com/1.imagesG/Flaming_engineC.jpg
Another engine part lying in the NYC street from the Naudet documentary:
http://www.rense.com/1.imagesG/911-14.jpg

jt-3d
2005-Nov-21, 09:02 AM
Yeah, except for the fact that all the fanblades are missing. The majority of the apparant size of an aircraft engine is the bypass duct and the accessory areas. You don't normally see the actual engine, just the cowling. The engine core is much smaller e.g. that picture you have right there. Actually that doesn't look like the whole core anyway. And you can't tell what part of the plane that is sailing through the air. It does resemble a 737-200 nacelle but from that range it could also be a player piano.

edit #63: OMGLOL You have got to be kidding me (http://www.rense.com/general65/911h.htm). Ya'll are going by that? Tragically I came accross that while looking for a shot of a 737 from a similar angle but having seen this (http://www.rense.com/general65/ST_boeing_737cut.jpg) and it's associated verbage as well as the CNN transcript that was used in support of the claim, this is just too rediculous to follow up on. HAHAHA enjoy the fantasy.

Is it HAHA against the rules HAHA to just laugh HAHA in sombody's face HAHAHHA? I will add this one teeny tiny word, one little clue - "banking". Oh I've got some other words to add, boy do I ever.

Graham2001
2005-Nov-21, 11:28 AM
Wasn't there a pre-fab apartment building where a gas explosion caused a corner of apartments to all progressively collapse onto each other?

Was that collapse caused by the same mechanism as the WTC?

That was the Ronan Point collapse in 1968 (see:here (http://tinyurl.com/cybpk)), the progressive collapse was triggered by the explosion of a 'dodgy' gas fitting which resulted in part of the side of the building being blown out robbing the floors above of support.

Graham2001
2005-Nov-21, 11:53 AM
It's been my experience that it's best to not debate 100% true believers. Typically the 9-11 Conspirators will deny everything you say. Because their scape goat is; "Thats what the government wants you to believe" - as though saying that makes their claim true.

They love to suggest that if a coverup makes sense, therefore it must be true. I had my debate with one 9-11 conspiratore and I won't bother. Because they will only see you as part of it. :silenced:

Indeed, it is one of the most infuriating things that we have to deal with people who think that if the US Govt says something it is automatically a lie but that if someone Anti-US says something it is automatically the truth.

Thankfully not everyone is that way, this article (http://tinyurl.com/47zvg) is on what I consider to be a pro-conspiracy website, but I'd rate it a very good piece of investigative work on the order of R. Hoagland & Cº's work on the 'C' Rock (http://www.lunaranomalies.com/c-rock.htm).

jimbro
2005-Nov-21, 12:12 PM
It was a 707 and 767.

“ The above graphic from FEMA's report shows the sizes of a 707 and a 767 relative to the footprint of a WTC tower. 2 Although a 767 has a slightly wider body than a 707, its overall size, weight, and fuel capacity are very similar to a 767-200 -- the type of jet that Flight 11 and Flight 175 were.”

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html


Thanks for this link! VERY RLEVANT MATEIAL. This really goes a long way to show what I (we) are talking about. THE BUILDINGS WERE DESIGNED FOR AIRLINE IMPACTS BABY!!!

Tolls
2005-Nov-21, 12:13 PM
BLDG 7
TOPPLED BUILDINGS

The photos below are of buildings which collapsed during an earthquake. They show the typical result that occurs when a single load bearing member fails, resulting in the remains of the building tipping over(progressive collapse) and down onto the initiating point.


Take a look at photos of the collapsed department store in Seoul sometime...straight down and it wasn't a demolition job.

Ronan Point is another example of pancaking...the tower block didn't collapse, but an entire corner collapsed one floor onto the next.

It would also have helped a lot if you and jimbro had actually read the thread since a lot of your points were answered there...the heat generated and how it softened the steel, not melted it...the fact that the impact requirements were for a 707, but they ignored the fuel load and it wasn't going flat out...

jimbro
2005-Nov-21, 12:19 PM
That was the Ronan Point collapse in 1968 (see:here (http://tinyurl.com/cybpk)), the progressive collapse was triggered by the explosion of a 'dodgy' gas fitting which resulted in part of the side of the building being blown out robbing the floors above of support.


I dont know if you had a point about that but i have two
1) That collapse was also caused By AN Explosion!
2) The entire building didnt fall, let alone self destuct into its own footprint

I think its a good example of what a real pancake effect might look like

Tolls
2005-Nov-21, 01:04 PM
I dont know if you had a point about that but i have two
1) That collapse was also caused By AN Explosion!
2) The entire building didnt fall, let alone self destuct into its own footprint

I think its a good example of what a real pancake effect might look like

And the collapse of the WTCs was caused by an impact...so?

The important thing about Ronan Point is that the explosion occurred near the top of the building (18th floor of the 23 floor block), so the collapse of 5 floors was sufficient to take the whole corner out.

Now...why do you find it hard to believe that the same thing could not have happened with the WTC towers?

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-21, 01:14 PM
well you have the name of a respected physics prof from BYU from my side your the one who has failed to reference a source


Your "side" has a physics professor whose speciality is electroplating, and was heavily invovled in the Cold Fusion nonsense of years ago. by comparisoin, structural engineers and failure analysists have produced the model for the collapse of the building.



thats NOT terrorism--thats politics


You failed to address the point. You also failt o realise that Power plants are much more isolated and harder to locate by amatuer pilots. Plus, any suicide pilot is going strike the tower of the plant, which would shut down the plant and make an ugly mess, but no meltdown.



ill elaborate--they were admitted "wargames" taking place on the morning of sept.11,01 dealing with hi-jacked commercial aircraft targeting the wtc yet we were told by rice and bush that we had never thought of "that" before?!?--google "tripod II" or "vigilant gaurdian" armed jets were airborne that morning--


Seems that you are perpetuating some myths here:

http://www.911myths.com/html/war_games.html



sooner;see "elaboration" above


Wrong.



what would it take? the mathamatics of physics involved with the videos of bldg 7 is ALL that is needed

it would HAVE to in order to collapse in the manner that we witnessed on 9/11 it failed on every load bearing beam on multiple floors at the same time


And of course, you are a structural engineer and understand load concpets and their limits. You've also seen dozens of large buildings under these conditions do something different, right?



its in the nist report--Mark Loizeaux comments on the presence of the pools in wtc1,2 and 7--the core beams in the towers were solid steel and the severing of these supports with thermite is the only explanation for them which smoldered for weeks under the debri


Loizeaux never saw the molten steel himself: Read his reply to someone who emailed him from USENET.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.alien.visitors/msg/dfef90067070254e?dmode=source

So the primary source is already second hand. No videos or pics of this molten steel have been produced. Furhtermore, Loizeaux's description of excavators 'dipping' molten steel is absolutely laughable.



again the burdon of proof is on you as there are "many" angles of bldg 7 collapsing yet none show any damage and only moderate fires by any firefighting textbook standards


And there is no evidence of any demolition either. Alleged squib pic are after the begining of the collapse and are also the product of photo manipulation or compression artifacts. Not convincing. The burden is still on you.



his actions were very relavent-- the action or should i say "inaction" of his security personel speaks volumes to those who know standard security operating procedures during acts of terrorism--


Again, supposition without evidence.



oh excellent! then i suppose a physics doctorate you know will answer his challenge of refuting his math concerning the physics of the collapses


There are far too many factors in this collapse to try and attribute a simple gravity formula to it. Especially given the amount of material above the failure point.

More telling however, is the absolute lack of evidence for explosives. One does not wire up a building for demoltion without some of the tens of thousands of people working there noticing. And where was the person who detonated these alleged explosives? Where was he? Don't tell me it was done via radio, I'll laugh so hard I'll chap my lips.



when your own team is exposing you in this manner dont you think its time to pay attention to the details?

Your expert whistleblowers are an economist and and entrepeneur with axes to grind. I am not impressed with cranks making claims, no matter what their position is. There comments are also purely speculative and in some cases ludicrous.

Again, where are the structural engineers, failure analysts, civil engineers, who say the reports of the failure are bogus? A physics professor won't cut it my book: I'm a physics major and while there is overlap our field merely touches on structure, load and other stuff. We tend to be more interested in what makes gravity work than why buildings fall down.

Wolverine
2005-Nov-21, 01:36 PM
SynKronoS, please study and abide by the forum rules (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=564845#post564845). I edited your posts above where noted due to the following:

4. Copyright

Do not post copyrighted material here. This is very serious. It is within the law to post small, relevant quotes, but not whole passages from newspapers, magazines, books, etc. If you do, the post will be deleted, and you will be warned. Do it twice and you will be banned. If you want to reference material somewhere else on the web, give a brief summary and link to the rest. People can go take a look at what you're talking about and then return to discuss it further.

8. Hotlinking

Try to avoid putting in links to images directly from someone else's website. This can add a lot to their bandwidth, and then the host has to pay for it. In other words, if you see an image you like on an astronomy site, put in a link to that site, but don't use the [IMG] tags so the image loads into your post from their site directly. If you really want an image in your post, put it in a public site someplace and link to it from there. One exception would be from sites like NASA or universities, where bandwidth is not such an issue. If you own the image, then you can upload it to the board yourself.

R.A.F.
2005-Nov-21, 01:37 PM
...where are the structural engineers, failure analysts, civil engineers, who say the reports of the failure are bogus?

I can only think of 2 explanations...

The engineers are not smart enough to see the "obvious", or the engineers are part of the "conspiracy".

...I see absolutely no evidence for either of those explanations...

gwiz
2005-Nov-21, 02:01 PM
Thanks for this link! VERY RLEVANT MATEIAL. This really goes a long way to show what I (we) are talking about. THE BUILDINGS WERE DESIGNED FOR AIRLINE IMPACTS BABY!!!
This one's been done to death, but here goes again:

The design case was an airliner trying to land, off course for some reason such as lost in fog, 707 size at typical approach speed. The attack aircraft were going at full speed. Kinetic energy goes as speed squared, so the attack aircraft hit the buildings with nearly ten times the energy considered for the design case.

Graham2001
2005-Nov-21, 02:19 PM
I can only think of 2 explanations...

The engineers are not smart enough to see the "obvious", or the engineers are part of the "conspiracy".

...I see absolutely no evidence for either of those explanations...

Which according to the logic of 911 CT Believers makes you & me part of the "conspiracy".

Now all I need to do is find the local C.I.A office and collect my paycheck;)

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-21, 02:49 PM
I can only think of 2 explanations...

The engineers are not smart enough to see the "obvious", or the engineers are part of the "conspiracy".


Including engineers in other countries not entirely sypathetic to the United States.

G O R T
2005-Nov-21, 03:02 PM
Did you debunkers know that both towers were specifically designed to withstand impacts by the largest airliners. They Literally were designed to withstand such impact, and, they did a great job. They hardly budged when hit, the fires only burned a relatively few floors. The Firemen were about to put it out with only a couple of lines.
The buildings were designed by Minoru Yamasaki and Emery Roth. It was project engineer Leslie Robertson who made a statement about withstanding a 707 srtike. Exactly how Leslie Robertson came to his conclusion is not known and certainly does not make him correct. Firemen only saw small fires on the last floor they could reach, do you really think they made it to the main damage?





-Then the explosions happen-
and the buildings fall down in what can only be described as a controlled demolition. straight down in its footprint.
Loud sounds happened-source unknown, and then the building collapsed at the damaged floors. When demolishing a tall building the bottom is blown out so that the weight of the building and gravity will do the rest. Only on short buildings does the structure have to be weakened higher up to guaranty success.




-explosives can produce the same collapse

A demolition team would have taken out the bottom, not the top.



-The towers were designed to withstand the largest airliner impact(s!)

Windows XP was designed to br secure!



-The pancake theroy has never happened anywhere before or after

And that proves what? Do you want the Sears Tower fall for proof?



-Where did the center steel core go

It broke mainly into sections where they were joined.



-Why does building seven collapse perfectly and why did the owner say it was pulled?

Building 7 appears to have fallen because of severe damage to lower floors sustained when the tower next to it fell, and the fire from a large fuel tank within. I am not responsible for the owners comments nor the context with which you interpret them.



-On its surface which is more likely. An exotic and unproven pancake theroy that is highly contested by experts at every level, Or a controlled demolition?

A controlled demolition does not fit with the collapse of the two towers. A case "could" be made for the appearance of the building 7 collapse.



I'd like to see a whole thread on "panckes vs. explosives" I think that would be an interesting debate.
There is nothing to debate. Once the damaged floors collapsed, the building had to "pancake" as you say. There was no other option. Even minimal calculations show stresses well in excess of ten times what intact floors below were designed to handle. You can hold say fifty pounds, right? What happens if I drop fifty pounds to you from 10-12 feet? What happens if I drop it from said height onto a small table that would normally hold up your weight plus the fifty pounds?

SynKronoS
2005-Nov-21, 07:08 PM
Ya'll are going by that? Tragically I came accross that while looking for a shot of a 737 from a similar angle
these engines have what is called "time change" parts-- serial numbers identifying the part as well a the parts manf source--why cant these numbers be presented? there is no doubt as to whether they were intact yet the official scenario is that the parts were beyond recognition-- "real" experts in aviation have visually identified these components as originating from a cfm56 all the govt has to do is produce the engine pictured and demonstrate its time change part numbers-- the indirect evidence is what "nails" this case down-- marvin bush sitting on the board of directors for securcom(the company responsible for wtc security as well as dulles airpoirt) is proof of the availability of access--silverstein "buying" and "re-insuring" the towers just weeks before 9/11 with special terrorist clauses should clue you in-- especially when the towers were considered white elephants as they had "never" even achieved 3/4 occupancy and had previous damage from when the "fbi" was caught bombing it in 93'-it is undisputable!! the asbestos,previous damage and occupancy troubles make his decision suspect not to mention the fact that his insurance claim istantly propelled him to the top of the worlds richest men list(motive enough no?)with a 7 billion dollar payout-- the fact that the taliban had disapproved of the natural gas pipeline worth an est 7 "T"rillion dollars passing through the middle of their country as well as sadams intent to start using euros in the trade of his oil were both threats that the oil cartels "had" to deal with-- the patriot act is another sign of deceit-- here is a brief outline of the principals the elite use to govern--
************************************************** ****
THE HEGELIAN PRINCIPLE

This is the "basic con" the power seekers use and is the basis for every other con. The "con" exposed herein that allows the power seekers to gain ever more power over us is very simple, and easy to understand after it is explained to you; From that time on, you are able to "read between the lines" in everything they do, and start being "an obstacle" to their plans instead of agreeing to your own enslavement. -Ray Thomas.........
* Step one: CREATE A "PROBLEM":.....

* Step Two: PUBLICIZE THE "PROBLEM":.....

* Step Three: OFFER A "SOLUTION":......

CREATE CRIMINALS: Philosopher Ayn Rand said: "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one "makes" them.

[Moderator note: trimmed copyrighted content.]

http://www.geocities.com/thomasreport/hegelian.html

Wolverine
2005-Nov-21, 07:23 PM
Copyright 2000 By Ray Thomas

http://www.bautforum.com/images/icons/icon4.gif SynKronoS, you cannot post lengthy bits of copyrighted material here. Please just link to the original source(s) instead. You've been warned about this once already, and will need to comply if you wish to continue posting on this forum. Please don't do it again or you will be banned.

SynKronoS
2005-Nov-21, 07:38 PM
It broke mainly into sections where they were joined.


Building 7 appears to have fallen because of severe damage to lower floors sustained when the tower next to it fell, and the fire from a large fuel tank within. I am not responsible for the owners comments nor the context with which you interpret them.


A controlled demolition does not fit with the collapse of the two towers. A case "could" be made for the appearance of the building 7 collapse.


There is nothing to debate.

your response is lacking in logic,reason and common sense -- there were "many" EYE WITNESSES that ALL claim to have seen,heard or felt secondary explosions,pops,booms and saw flashes,balls of fire and other evidence of demolition-- please dont edit this- it is crucial to this investigation- covering up the murder of 3000 americans comes in many forms and the alledged concern over "someone elses" bandwidth is just one--these quotes need to stay connected to their images as they are more relavent than any nist cover-up document or computer generated hypothetical and inuendos as "bill manning" of firefighting engineers magazine has stated--
************************************************** ***
************************************************** *********************
EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY
9/11 NBC News broadcast
LISTEN (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/SecondaryDevices.mp3)
"Shortly after 9 o'clock ... [Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place, and then an hour after the first hit - the first crash that took place - he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_third_explosion_cnn.jpg
One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device - he thinks, he speculates - was probably planted in the building. ... But the bottom line is that he, Albert Turi, said that he probably lost a great many men in those secondary explosions, and he said that there were literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people in those towers when the explosions took place."
************************************************** ******************
Watch two firemen talk about the explosions. link (http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg)
************************************************** ******************
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/heavy.duty.explosion.wmv
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_fdny2.jpg
"As we were getting our gear on and making our way to the stairway, there was a heavy duty explosion."
************************************************** ******************
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/FDNY-explosions.mov
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_fdny1.jpg
"We were trying to get some of the people out, but then there was secondary explosions and then subsequent collapses."
************************************************** ******************
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.witness.2.wmv
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_witness2.jpg
"...and then all of a sudden it started like... it sounded like gunfire... you know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang and then all of a sudden three big explosions."
************************************************** ******************
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.witness.1.wmv
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_witness1.jpg
"I was about five blocks away when I heard explosions... three thuds and turned around to see the building that we just got out of... tip over and fall in on itself."
************************************************** ******************
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.msnbc.2.wmv
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_msnbc3.jpg
"At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as I got outside I heard a second explosion ... And then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last."
************************************************** ******************
"Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure."Fire Engineering Magazine (http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSe%20ction=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225)

Gillianren
2005-Nov-21, 07:41 PM
First off, the word is spelled "theory." I realize this is not your mistake, but I would like to interject that.


bldg 7 was not struck by an airplane and the progressive collapse theory has been shot down long ago!

No, WTC 7 wasn't struck by an airplane. It was, however, struck by debris from WTC 1 and 2. It was also on fire, and that fire left to burn unchecked while rescue efforts were attempted for the already collapsed buildings. After all, WTC 7 had been completely evacuated. (A much easier task, given its far smaller size!)


“Amazing, incredible pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”

Perhaps English is not your native language, and you do not understand that "reminiscent of" does not mean "the same thing as." Further, I'm unclear why you think Dan Rather knows anything about structural engineering.


Progressive collapses dont mimick demolitions!!!--the reason for these is to demonstrate the absolute foolishness in the official story

How many progressive collapses have you seen? Really. None of you lot will ever answer this question--what buildings have you seen collapse that you know what will happen when an airplane hits a skyscraper at speed?


The photos below are of buildings which collapsed during an earthquake. They show the typical result that occurs when a single load bearing member fails, resulting in the remains of the building tipping over(progressive collapse) and down onto the initiating point.

Actually, what causes slanting in buildings collapsed by earthquake (and they don't all slant; see the collapse of that stretch of freeway in Oakland, CA) is the force of the earthquake. You may note that all the buildings tend to slant in the same direction; this is generally the direction that the earthquake waves are travelling. (Ignoring such details as liquefaction, which do also play a prominent role.)


Take a close look at the manner in which WTC 7 collapses straight down. For the building to collapse in this fashion, all of the load bearing supports would have had to fail at exactly the same time.

No, it really doesn't. I'm not a structural engineer, gods know, but those I've heard talk on the subject agree that what happened was perfectly rational. However, say you're right. (Which I don't think you are at all.) Where's the evidence? There would be a lot of it, you know--not "molten steel," which has been nicely disproven and wouldn't help your cause anyway--because demolition takes a lot of time, preparation, and obvious evidence before the fact.


The claim that the collapse was the result of a fire requires the fire be equally distributed throughout the entire floor of the building, providing equal heat for an equal amount of time, so that all the load bearings members would fail at the exact same moment.

See above. Better yet, tell me the qualifications of the person whose site you're citing. Tell me why they know more than every structural engineer who's so much as seen the footage, all of whom agree that what we're seeing is perfectly reasonable given the unique circumstances of that day. (And if there are any who've come forward, why haven't we here heard about it? That would be front-page news, you know. Evidence for these claims generally would be.)


Do you find this plausible?

What, the official story? Absolutely. You see, millions of people around the world, many in non-friendly countries, watched all this happen. Millions of people saw the second plane fly into the building. Millions of people watched the collapses. Millions of people watched the recovery efforts all that day, and into the days after. Gods know I did. Now. Of those millions of people, quite a lot of them were in positions of knowledge about one or more aspects of architecture, building failure, or even demolition. If it were all as implausible as you seem to believe, hundreds of thousands of people--at a bare minimum--would be saying so, and they'd be making a lot of noise. After all, a lot of 'em don't live in the US, so the US government (or whoever) couldn't possibly silence all of them. And just as the Internet allows proliferation of every crackpot conspiracy theory to come down the pike, of which this is very high on the list, it allows all these people who would know and live outside the US a method of getting that information out. And they don't.

You see, this is where woo-woo theories always seem to fall down. They assume that science, in this case engineering, is in the hands of a few elite that can be controlled by The Government (as if there were only one!). However, science is a thing that transcends borders, and the knowledge would spread. Think about it--if some guy who got all caught up in cold fusion a few years back knew this was bogus, wouldn't every structural engineer in the world?

Wolverine
2005-Nov-21, 07:46 PM
please dont edit this- it is crucial to this investigation

You can post whatever you like in accordance with the forum rules (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=564845#post564845). I'm only obligated to edit your posts when they're in violation of those rules.

You've now hotlinked several images again despite being instructed not to do so. This forces me to suspend your account for 72 hours. After that time you may return and post in accordance with the rules, and if not you will be permanently banned.

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-21, 08:31 PM
your response is lacking in logic,reason and common sense -- there were "many" EYE WITNESSES that ALL claim to have seen,heard or felt secondary explosions,pops,booms and saw flashes,balls of fire and other evidence of demolition--

You have a lot of people encountering things that you would expect in a fire: Fireballs, pops, booms, and (secondary) explosions. This is not proof of demolitions use in any way.

Redneck
2005-Nov-21, 09:19 PM
Oh hello, synkronos, a.k.a. sunofone over on the Unexplained Mysteries web site. I see your tactics haven't changed. However, your trademark cut-and-paste blitzkrieg is not going to impress these guys.

I was going to write a lengthy response, but you have had these issues addressed again and again and again and all you do is ignore them. It's pointless. If a multi-million dollar investigation and every engineering journal in the world can't convince you that you're wrong, then I'm not going to accomplish anything with what I write in my spare time.

By the way, at least one member of UM, Larryoldtimer, is a professional civil engineer in California. If you are actually interested in the truth then why don't you ask him what his opinion is. I already have.

twinstead
2005-Nov-21, 09:33 PM
Ah, sonofone from UM.

That explains a LOT

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-21, 09:36 PM
There's too many messageboards.

Just sayin'.

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-21, 09:40 PM
There's too many messageboards.

Just sayin'.

Dear Mr. President,

There are too many message boards.

Please remove three.

PS. I am not a crank.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-21, 10:37 PM
For every message board deleted, an angel gets its wings. Or a DJ gets his radio show. Or a scientist gets his PHD. Insert your own thingy here.

ktesibios
2005-Nov-21, 11:42 PM
About the claims that the engine came from a 737:

I've read the rense.com pages cited by Synkronos, and I can't find any indication that their "identification" was done by anyone having any professional familiarity with these engines, e.g. anyone certified to maintain and repair them, anyone involved in building them or anyone involved in designing them.

That's relevant. Let me give an example of how.

A few weeks ago I arrived at work to find that the day tech had been sorting out a load of old spare parts that had come out of our storage locker. He had put a bunch of them into a box labeled "Studer parts". I glanced into the box, plucked out a printed circuit board, and said "this isn't Studer. It's Ampex. It's not from an ATR-100 or AG-440, but definitely Ampex. Looks like a master bias oscillator- maybe it's from an MM1100 or MM1200."

How'd I know?

"This isn't Studer. It's Ampex."

The part number silkscreened on the board was Ampex's format- 7 digits, a dash and then two digits, not Studer's, which is x.xxx.xxx.xx. The "house numbers" on several transistors were consistent with Ampex's house number format. The blue phenolic PC board material with 1 oz. tinplated copper foil is what Ampex used in products going back to the days of vacuum tubes, and nothing like what Studer used in their products, which was usually epoxy paper with a green solder mask.

"It's not from an ATR-100 or AG-440"
Pull a PC board at random from either of those two machines, show it to me and I'll tell you what it is, what it does and what machine it came out of. I can do that because I've done many component-level repairs on every PCB in those two machines.

"It looks like a master bias oscillator"
Based on a little in-my-head circuit tracing and knowledge of what the functional blocks which are found in professional analog tape machines are and do. 20 years of working in the field tend to leave stuff like that firmly stuck in one's head.

When a claim about the identity of this engine comes from someone whose knowledge and experience of the innards of jet engines is equal to my knowledge of the innards of pro audio gear, then I'll sit up and listen. When the claim is from someone of no known qualifications looking at pictures on Web pages, and the opinion of someone who is knowledgable, like jt-3d, is something like "who you jiving with that cosmic debris", then I'll find a better use for my computer's share of the electric bill.

jt-3d
2005-Nov-22, 02:26 AM
explain the "MURRAY STREET ENGINE" that was documented on 9/11 in many ways--it did not shred to confetti and it did not vaporize and several clear images were taken of the engine in question--but one stands out as the definitve image as a clever investigator had placed a carpenters square on the engine for reference and it is this image that tells the truth about the official version and that truth is that it is a big stinking lie---remember the rotor fan on a 767 is 9 ft in diameter--there is no way that the component pictured came from a 767!!!! the serial numbers from the many time change parts on this engine could end the debate for sure but the where abouts of this engine or the results of its investigation are unknown
************************************************** ******************
Somebody has placed a carpenter's square in the opening so the size is that of a CFM56. This is the definitive photo of the street engine.
http://www.rense.com/1.imagesG/streetengine1cut.jpg
In the Rense article, Is Popular Mechanics Hiding 911 NYC Engine In Street Photo?,
the street engine was identified as a CFM56, the sole powerplant of the Boeing 737 after the 737-200 series. HOWEVER, UA175 that was alleged to have crashed into the South Tower was a Boeing 767-200.
http://www.rense.com/1.imagesG/streetengine2cutC.jpg
In this screen capture from the CNN video of the South Tower crash the engine (circled) is seen as it heads for the intersection of Church and Murray. A flame can be seen following the descending engine.
http://www.rense.com/1.imagesG/Flaming_engineC.jpg
Another engine part lying in the NYC street from the Naudet documentary:
http://www.rense.com/1.imagesG/911-14.jpg

As you can see (http://www.geae.com/engines/commercial/cf6/index.html) the nine feet diameter is only the fan section. The core is a lot smaller. BTW that's a CF6 not a CFM-56 (http://www.geae.com/engines/commercial/cfm56/index.html). And where could one find a CF6? On a 767 for one.

sfarq1
2005-Nov-22, 02:46 AM
As you can see (http://www.geae.com/engines/commercial/cf6/index.html) the nine feet diameter is only the fan section. The core is a lot smaller. BTW that's a CF6 not a CFM-56 (http://www.geae.com/engines/commercial/cfm56/index.html). And where could one find a CF6? On a 767 for one.
You lost me on this one, is the core the object in the back because otherwise the core diameter looks as large as the fan diameter.

jt-3d
2005-Nov-22, 03:00 AM
The big front part is the fan section. The back is the compressor and turbine sections. The fan scoops big gulps of air but most of it is bypassed around the core to cool it and quiet it. The accessory section is outside the core and has the gearbox and all the pumps and stuff. All that's missing from those pictures up there so I suspect that it's not the whole core. The fan section was destroyed by the impact so what you end up with is the smaller core.

A quick google finds this site (http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/212_fall2003.web.dir/Oliver_Fleshman/highbypass.html).

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-22, 03:12 AM
Y'know, to go off topic for a moment. When I first read the title of this post, I thought it was going to be the OPer saying that the gubmint found out he didn't debunk it right, so they were gonna kill him. :P

Cl1mh4224rd
2005-Nov-22, 03:38 AM
You have a lot of people encountering things that you would expect in a fire: Fireballs, pops, booms, and (secondary) explosions. This is not proof of demolitions use in any way.
Pops, booms, and secondary "explosions"? Floors trusses and supports failing. Fireballs and flashes? This is even more rediculous as "evidence". None of these people ever dropped something large onto a bonfire? Good lord...

Also, they keep crying about "independent analysis". Guess what? "Simulation for the Collapse of WTC after Aeroplane Impact" (http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.htm), by the Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing.

sfarq1
2005-Nov-22, 03:38 AM
The big front part is the fan section. The back is the compressor and turbine sections. The fan scoops big gulps of air but most of it is bypassed around the core to cool it and quiet it. The accessory section is outside the core and has the gearbox and all the pumps and stuff. All that's missing from those pictures up there so I suspect that it's not the whole core. The fan section was destroyed by the impact so what you end up with is the smaller core.

A quick google finds this site (http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/212_fall2003.web.dir/Oliver_Fleshman/highbypass.html).
Good link , thanks .

G O R T
2005-Nov-22, 04:00 AM
your response is lacking in logic,reason and common sense

:naughty:


Not very nice. Perhaps I have un-common sense.


About the engine - the same was said about the 3 foot hub of the engine found at the Pentagon. It really does not take a lot of thought to see that the 3 foot diameter intake hub plus the missing 3 foot vanes adds up to 9 feet, does it?

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-22, 04:03 AM
Perhaps I have un-common sense.

I should change my sig to that...

Tolls
2005-Nov-22, 10:17 AM
Pops, booms, and secondary "explosions"? Floors trusses and supports failing. Fireballs and flashes? This is even more rediculous as "evidence". None of these people ever dropped something large onto a bonfire? Good lord...

Also, they keep crying about "independent analysis". Guess what? "Simulation for the Collapse of WTC after Aeroplane Impact" (http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.htm), by the Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing.

Thanks for that, but then I expect Tsinghua University are in on the conspiracy.
;)

Graham2001
2005-Nov-22, 05:00 PM
Now that I have your attention...


wheres your proof?

I could say the same of your posts, the melange of carefully selected pictures and quotes from alleged insiders does not constitute proof that the towers were bought down in the manner you describe.


...explosives were used to bring down wtc1,2 and 7

Nothing either you or Jimbro have stated prove this. To do that you need to be able to explain how the explosives were planted in working buildings without anyone noticing.

To set up buildings for demolition, the following needs to be done:

1. Selected structural members are pre-weakened.

2. Charges are mounted on the selected structural members.

3. Detonators are wired to the charges so that when they detonate in the proper sequence the structure collapses in such a way that debris is confined to a relatively small area.

This cannot be done overnight, nor can it be done without leaving traces that people using the buildings seeing something, whether it be damage to walls or that the carpet has been replaced.

I leave the response open to you...

Cl1mh4224rd
2005-Nov-22, 09:12 PM
Thanks for that, but then I expect Tsinghua University are in on the conspiracy.
;)
Ahh, right. My mistake. I'm still stuck on the "old" definition of independent. The new, CT-sponsored definition is apparently "anti-establishment; anti-mainstream". Therefore, to be considered an independent analysis, it must deny the "official story"... :doh:

akirabakabaka
2005-Nov-23, 12:10 AM
Where's the evidence? There would be a lot of it, you know--not "molten steel," which has been nicely disproven and wouldn't help your cause anyway--because demolition takes a lot of time, preparation, and obvious evidence before the fact.Sorry, I read this thread but I don't see any disproving of the "molten steel" evidence, could you elaborate?

Mark Loizeaux re: molten steel (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.alien.visitors/msg/dfef90067070254e?dmode=source): president of the clean-up firm claims there is video and photographic evidence of "molten steel" from the WTC site

The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel (http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/wpi_steel.html): finally coroborating evidence of melted steel at the site, even providing the mechanism that created it (eutetic reaction) requiring some large amount of sulfur of unverified origin.


You see, this is where woo-woo theories always seem to fall down. They assume that science, in this case engineering, is in the hands of a few elite that can be controlled by The Government (as if there were only one!). However, science is a thing that transcends borders, and the knowledge would spread. Think about it--if some guy who got all caught up in cold fusion a few years back knew this was bogus, wouldn't every structural engineer in the world?Who on this thread blamed the government for 'controlling the science' other than debunkers via repeated strawman attacks? I see an instance where SynKronoS did respond to this allegation and said "the fact that it was an inside job is irrefutable" but he doesn't appear to equate the conspiracy with gov't control of science. He makes further accusations that the gov't has been suppressing evidence, which of course is well known (wouldn't everything be solved re: Pentagon crash if they just released all of the security video footage?) Are there any real debunkers here, or only strawmen?

Almost every 'debunker' (bizarro woo-woo?) on this thread claimed there was no melted steel at the WTC and it took me maybe 2 minutes on google to find they were all wrong. So much for appeals to authority.

akirabakabaka
2005-Nov-23, 12:52 AM
I'm not an expert, so I can't say for sure; however, this is my main problem with the Conspiracy Theory.

Terrorists did hijack the planes. The planes did head to the WTC towers. The planes did crach into the towers. Destruction was had.What proof is there that the planes were legitimately hijacked by the suspected al Qaeda terrorists?

hijacker's passport found near WTC (http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/passport.html): wtf?

Resurrected Hijackers (http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/identities.html): stolen identities?

surveillance tapes (http://www.rense.com/general68/dutch.htm)

more surveillance anomalies (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers_video.html)

Why is so much video evidence being suppressed? I'd really like to see the Pentagon crash also.


A similar thing with the WTC -- after those towers fell, the economy of the US plummeted for a little while. It's like trying to get someone to fight you hand to hand after cutting off your own leg; it's illogical.I have no problem with the rest of your post, but if the neo-cons were really behind the attack then the US economy is irrelevant. If the purpose of 9/11 was to occupy Iraq then that's where the neo-cons thought they'd make all of the real money (and they were right). They even tried for some blatant nepotism, but it backfired since nobody in their right mind is still trying to invest in Iraq.. but they definitely tried to do it.

see Order #39 - Foreign Investment (http://www.cpa-iraq.org/regulations/)

Capitalism gone wild (http://www.redrat.net/BUSH_WAR/order39.htm)

dunno about a 9/11 conspracy though, more like greedy opportunism.

Peter B
2005-Nov-23, 01:05 AM
Akirabakabaka said:
What proof is there that the planes were legitimately hijacked by the suspected al Qaeda terrorists?

hijacker's passport found near WTC: wtf?

Light objects routinely survive plane crashes. There's nothing surprising about it. Have a look at pictures of other plane crashes.


Resurrected Hijackers: stolen identities?

Other people with the same name?


surveillance tapes

more surveillance anomalies

*shrug* I don't know for sure.


Why is so much video evidence being suppressed? I'd really like to see the Pentagon crash also.

Ongoing investigations? Because it came from protected sources?

I'd like to see other footage of the Pentagon crash too, but if it also records images or objects the Pentagon doesn't want publicised, I can understand them wanting to keep things from the public.

Obviousman
2005-Nov-23, 01:26 AM
I said this in another forum, and I think it's just as true here:

If the 'government' faked the moon landings (where there were tens of thousands of personnel involved, warehouses full of technical documentation, thousands of images, the programme was in the public eye, and subject to enormous scientific scrutiny as perhaps the most significant event of history), and the 'government' faked 9/11 (where there were hundreds of people at the scene, a few videotapes of the events themselves, and subject to massive government / public / scientific scrutiny as one of the most significant events in history).... why didn't they fake finding WMDs in Iraq?

The area was under tight control and security, few people would have been involved, the faking (either chemical or nuclear) of WMDs is well within the capability of the forces involved, it would have justified events in Iraq to both domestic & foreign opponents, and it would have been a great PR boost for G.W. Bush.

Yet nothing was found.

Think about it.

Alan G. Archer
2005-Nov-23, 01:49 AM
Light objects routinely survive plane crashes. There's nothing surprising about it. Have a look at pictures of other plane crashes.

Indeed. Two letters carried by either of the two airliners that crashed in New York City are known to have been recovered from the streets. One letter was delivered and the other was returned in damaged condition to its sender. Pam Belluck of The New York Times wrote of this in her Dec. 20, 2001, story, "One Letter's Odyssey Helps Mend a Wound."

Several hundred pieces of crispy mail survived the Hindenburg disaster.

Graham2001
2005-Nov-23, 01:52 AM
What proof is there that the planes were legitimately hijacked by the suspected al Qaeda terrorists?

You might want to have a look at 911Myths (http://www.911myths.com/index.html) for a good look at the online evidence for the above.


hijacker's passport found near WTC: wtf?

From the 911 Myths site a rebuttal (http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html) to claims that finding passports, etc near crash sites is impossible. You can also go to your library and look up books on air crash investigation. I personally recommend a popular series called "Air Disaster" by McArthur Job, this contains plenty of examples of lightweight/delicate objects surviving catastrophic events.


Resurrected Hijackers: stolen identities?

The person who set up the 911Myths site also looked (http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html) into these claims.

Of course none of this will convince a 'true believer' of anything.

I'd also like to add that Obviousman has a good point re: faking WMD.

mostwanted
2005-Nov-23, 02:28 AM
what r CTs?!

Peter B
2005-Nov-23, 03:01 AM
CTs are Conspiracy Theorists.

Gillianren
2005-Nov-23, 04:27 AM
Sorry, I read this thread but I don't see any disproving of the "molten steel" evidence, could you elaborate?

Mark Loizeaux re: molten steel (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.alien.visitors/msg/dfef90067070254e?dmode=source): president of the clean-up firm claims there is video and photographic evidence of "molten steel" from the WTC site

The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel (http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/wpi_steel.html): finally coroborating evidence of melted steel at the site, even providing the mechanism that created it (eutetic reaction) requiring some large amount of sulfur of unverified origin.

I'm sorry, are we talking about the same molten steel that was dipped out by excavators?


Who on this thread blamed the government for 'controlling the science' other than debunkers via repeated strawman attacks? I see an instance where SynKronoS did respond to this allegation and said "the fact that it was an inside job is irrefutable" but he doesn't appear to equate the conspiracy with gov't control of science. He makes further accusations that the gov't has been suppressing evidence, which of course is well known (wouldn't everything be solved re: Pentagon crash if they just released all of the security video footage?) Are there any real debunkers here, or only strawmen?

Almost every 'debunker' (bizarro woo-woo?) on this thread claimed there was no melted steel at the WTC and it took me maybe 2 minutes on google to find they were all wrong. So much for appeals to authority.

How reliable are your sources? Do you know? I didn't look, I'll admit, but that's mostly because one of your sites both has "alien visitors" in its url and says someone claims there's evidence without, apparently, presenting it. Or at least, that's how you described it. There are lots of sites out there that'll talk about pools of molten steel weeks later; that doesn't actually make it true.

What's more, by saying that it was an "inside job," doesn't that rather mean the government? It could be my mistake for assuming that, I'll grant you, but I have actually discussed this with people who say the government set it up. This would require the government to control science, because so few people who are qualified to dispute the official explanation do. In fact, I don't know of anyone who works in a field that would require him/her to understand structural engineering who disputes the official story.

Edit: Okay, I've read your sources now. One of them is someone claiming to have received an e-mail (which, based on its footer, is not intended for public viewing but appears online anyway--if it is, in fact, legitimate) that claims that there is evidence, including the physically impossible "dipping" molten steel into excavators. Mmm hmm. Next?

Oh, right--next is one explaining why there is small amounts of melting, but says nothing about "pools" of molten steel. Drops, maybe, and it certainly doesn't claim that they were still molten any great length of time later.

Kemal
2005-Nov-23, 04:32 AM
Almost every 'debunker' (bizarro woo-woo?) on this thread claimed there was no melted steel at the WTC and it took me maybe 2 minutes on google to find they were all wrong. So much for appeals to authority.

So why didn't NIST find any?

This allegation that there was melted steel there looks pretty flimsy to me. There was probably melted metal there of some kind. Is it possible to tell what type of metal it is by looking at it?

Even if there was melted steel there, how would that prove that high explosives were used to take down the building?

Swift
2005-Nov-23, 04:58 AM
I said this in another forum, and I think it's just as true here:

If the 'government' faked the moon landings (where there were tens of thousands of personnel involved, warehouses full of technical documentation, thousands of images, the programme was in the public eye, and subject to enormous scientific scrutiny as perhaps the most significant event of history), and the 'government' faked 9/11 (where there were hundreds of people at the scene, a few videotapes of the events themselves, and subject to massive government / public / scientific scrutiny as one of the most significant events in history).... why didn't they fake finding WMDs in Iraq?

The area was under tight control and security, few people would have been involved, the faking (either chemical or nuclear) of WMDs is well within the capability of the forces involved, it would have justified events in Iraq to both domestic & foreign opponents, and it would have been a great PR boost for G.W. Bush.

Yet nothing was found.

Think about it.
:clap:

sfarq1
2005-Nov-23, 08:26 AM
why didn't they fake finding WMDs in Iraq?

The area was under tight control and security, few people would have been involved, the faking (either chemical or nuclear) of WMDs is well within the capability of the forces involved, it would have justified events in Iraq to both domestic & foreign opponents, and it would have been a great PR boost for G.W. Bush.

Yet nothing was found.

Think about it.

The simplest answer is finding WMD was not necessary. I don’t think the people telling us Iraq had WMD really cared if it would have justified events in Iraq to both domestic & foreign opponents and G.W.Bush was re-elected.

Tolls
2005-Nov-23, 10:24 AM
hijacker's passport found near WTC: wtf?


I'll pick on this one as well. Did you see what stuff survived from the Columbia accident? If a mission patch can survive that, then there's no problem for a passport to survive an airplane crash.

:think:
Actually, just realised. You're going to tell me Columbia was some sort of conspiracy thing now, aren't you?

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-23, 01:29 PM
Sorry, I read this thread but I don't see any disproving of the "molten steel" evidence, could you elaborate?

Mark Loizeaux re: molten steel (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.alien.visitors/msg/dfef90067070254e?dmode=source): president of the clean-up firm claims there is video and photographic evidence of "molten steel" from the WTC site


Loizeaux's account is already second hand, and doesn't make a lick of sense. No video or photos of the alleged molten steel have ever shown up.



The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel (http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/wpi_steel.html): finally coroborating evidence of melted steel at the site, even providing the mechanism that created it (eutetic reaction) requiring some large amount of sulfur of unverified origin.


Melted steel is not molten steel.

AstroSmurf
2005-Nov-23, 01:48 PM
Melted steel is not molten steel.
Please clarify, if nothing else for the edimafication of the onlookers...

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-23, 03:59 PM
Please clarify, if nothing else for the edimafication of the onlookers...

Melted steel is in its solid state, it reached liquid at some point, not neccessarily due to direct heat. Think candle wax after it has cooled.

Molten steel is steel in its liquid state. It is almost exclusively seen at refineries. Keeping steeel molten requires a tremendous amount of energy, far more than a few thermite bombs could provide. If steel was in its molten state in quantities described, it would take a tremendous amount of energy to get it to that state, and an almost perfect oven situation to keep it there. This is far more energy that any explanation CT's have come up with.

Melted steel can be picked up and carried. Molten steel needs very specialized equipment to move. The idea of dipping molten steel with an excavator is laughable. Its like making a potholder out of styrofoam.

That steel could melt due to weakness, and then exposure to fire, is perfectly understandable. The idea that it would stay molten is laughable.

sfarq1
2005-Nov-23, 05:22 PM
.

That steel could melt due to weakness, and then exposure to fire, is perfectly understandable.

Is their documentation of this happening at other fires?

Doodler
2005-Nov-23, 05:53 PM
So why didn't NIST find any?

This allegation that there was melted steel there looks pretty flimsy to me. There was probably melted metal there of some kind. Is it possible to tell what type of metal it is by looking at it?

Even if there was melted steel there, how would that prove that high explosives were used to take down the building?


Would high explosives actually melt the steel in the first place? Steel's not something you can heat to the melting in just an instant and end up with melted slag, particularly large pieces or pieces that are immediately hurled by explosive force. Steel does warp when it exposed to continuous heating, even if the temperature isn't at the melting point, but to really get a piece of steel to start liquefying, you need a LOT of directed, intense heat going for a good long time, because it doesn't stay hot as its radiating that heat pretty rapidly when the heat source is removed. A single explosion would be unlikely to cause melting. Bending? Sure thing. Warping? Asbsolutely. Melting? Ehm, I don't think so.

I work with steel pretty regularly as a miscellaneous metals detailer and helper. I've watched steel beams warp under continuous heating, and have torched and welded enough of the crap to have a REAL good grasp of what it takes to melt and burn through it. I can believe an explosion would get a beam hot enough to bend or warp under the intense pressure of the blast, but you're not getting any kind of melting unless you keep that steel extremely hot for a much extended period of time compared to a blast.

If they found signs of molten steel, which would logically be *drum roll* melted steel after cooling off, then, at least in my eyes, simple explosive charges are out.

As for knowing which kind it is, easy, structural metals have different physical properties, the most obvious give away for steel over aluminum or even stainless steel is magnetism. Aluminum was probably the second most common metal there from all the window frames, major pieces were all steel, I'll bet.

Swift
2005-Nov-23, 07:13 PM
I have a question for those who think the towers were blown up with explosives....
What was the role of the airplanes? I assume you think that as part of this conspiracy that the government, or whoever did this, crashed the airplanes into the building and then blew the buildings up. But why would you blow up the buildings? Do you think that the public would not be upset enough by the airplanes being flown into the WTC that you had also had to take the buildings down? Do you think we would not have invaded Afghanistan, for example, if the planes had hit the towers but the towers stayed up?

Do you think there was some evidence left by this conspiracy that the airplanes crashes alone were not enough to cover up, but you needed to demolish the buildings to hide? As others have pointed out, placing demolition charges around the WTC would be a big task and you would more likely get caught doing that than just hijacking the airplanes. This makes absolutely no sense to me.

Or are you proposing that there were no airplanes and we all just imagined them? My sister was about four blocks away, looking up at the towers, and watched the second plane hit. Did she just dream that up?

I honestly would like to know what possible reason could anyone have for blowing up the towers.

akirabakabaka
2005-Nov-23, 11:01 PM
What's more, by saying that it was an "inside job," doesn't that rather mean the government?He wasn't speaking in any sort of scientific context, so there's not really a comparison to your accusation. Simulations and other science are not the whole of the evidence used to show how 9/11 happened, and not all of the other evidence is available to the public. Science just happens to be one area where we can check the story independantly.

akirabakabaka
2005-Nov-23, 11:29 PM
How reliable are your sources? Do you know? I didn't look, I'll admit [snip]Then I'll ignore the rest of this paragraph.
Edit: Okay, I've read your sources now.Wonderful!


One of them is someone claiming to have received an e-mail (which, based on its footer, is not intended for public viewing but appears online anyway--if it is, in fact, legitimate) that claims that there is evidence, including the physically impossible "dipping" molten steel into excavators. Mmm hmm. Next?I liked the disclaimer too. :) It doesn't really matter, since he is quoted by NIST testimony and by the press as having seen it.


Oh, right--next is one explaining why there is small amounts of melting, but says nothing about "pools" of molten steel. Drops, maybe, and it certainly doesn't claim that they were still molten any great length of time later.First of all here's the original source (http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html) for that article for authenticity. Secondly, the only claims of "molten steel" were by the two guys in charge, Tully and Loizeaux, not the scientists. Lastly, did you just make up that claim about small drops? Where in the article is it mentioned that only a small amount of melting occurred? Maybe you're referring to the fact that they used microscopes? :doh:

There's been a lot of unsupported claims like this about the WTC steel made on this thread, I'd really like to clean it up now:

kookbreaker (http://bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=600190&postcount=31):

These are used as primary accounts that there was molten steel on site. But I have yet to see one piece of physical evidence that there was any molten steel. One person claims to have seen slides, but where are they? In fact the Penn comment is merely one of writer's prose, the molten steel is assumed to be beneath her feet, but is not actually seen.

The 'molten steel' question was reduced to being laughable on USENET only a couple of years ago.
SynKronoS (http://bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=606707&postcount=59):

as far as fire melting steel goes its ridiculous to attibute office furniture as the cause-- the jet fuel was burned up minutes after the impact and the pools of molten steel which did not cool for up to five weeks after the collapses CANNOT be rationalized through hydrocarbon based fires
kookbreaker (http://bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=606712&postcount=61):

Little problem: There was no molten steel.

For that matter, I'd like to know just what explosive or incendiary can keep steel molten for five weeks.
SynKronoS (http://bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=606707&postcount=65):

its in the nist report--Mark Loizeaux comments on the presence of the pools in wtc1,2 and 7--the core beams in the towers were solid steel and the severing of these supports with thermite is the only explanation for them which smoldered for weeks under the debri
cjl (http://bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=606707&postcount=70):

I cannot IMAGINE how much thermite it would take to make that much molten steel. First, it would take more than an amount that you could just hide - you would need to have massive quantities throughout the floors, and second, the steel would cool off in substantially less than "weeks". Steel does not stay molten for weeks under a pile of debris, it would have to be so hot and in such vast quantities that there really would be nothing left other than molten steel.
Tolls (http://bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=606707&postcount=77):

It would also have helped a lot if you and jimbro had actually read the thread since a lot of your points were answered there...the heat generated and how it softened the steel, not melted it...
kookbreaker (http://bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=600190&postcount=80):

So the primary source is already second hand. No videos or pics of this molten steel have been produced. Furhtermore, Loizeaux's description of excavators 'dipping' molten steel is absolutely laughable.
kookbreaker (http://bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=600190&postcount=90):

Where's the evidence? There would be a lot of it, you know--not "molten steel," which has been nicely disproven and wouldn't help your cause anyway--because demolition takes a lot of time, preparation, and obvious evidence before the fact.Kemal (http://bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=600190&postcount=119):

So why didn't NIST find any?

This allegation that there was melted steel there looks pretty flimsy to me. There was probably melted metal there of some kind. Is it possible to tell what type of metal it is by looking at it?

Even if there was melted steel there, how would that prove that high explosives were used to take down the building?kookbreaker (http://bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=608481&postcount=123):

Loizeaux's account is already second hand, and doesn't make a lick of sense. No video or photos of the alleged molten steel have ever shown up.
That steel could melt due to weakness, and then exposure to fire, is perfectly understandable. The idea that it would stay molten is laughable.Phew, lotsa claims! I'd also like to mention here that G O R T (http://bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=604764&postcount=43) made a good point about the possible electrical sources of heat that havn't been considered.

Ok so where were we...

Did steel ever melt at the WTC sites?

Here is the original source to an article linked earlier in the thread:

http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the World Trade Center.
AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. “Yes,” he said, “hot spots of molten steel in the basements. These incredibly hot areas were found “at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels,” Loizeaux said.

The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.So the guys in charge of cleaning it up claim that steel had melted, and was perhaps even molten weeks later.

I also cited a WPI article about the guys who analyzed the steel remains and found it had melted in a eutectic reaction with sulfur. Here is their official report, with pictures:

Limited Metallurgical Examination (http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_apndxC.pdf) (Barnett, Biederman & Sisson):

(Sample 1) "Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. [...] The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000°C (1,800°F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel."

(Sample 2) "It is much more difficult to tell if melting has occurred in the grain boundary regions in this steel [...] Temperatures in this region of the steel were likely to be in the range of 700–800°C (1,290–1,470 °F)."

So yes, once and for all, steel melted at WTC. It also corroded heavily, which I havn't seen any other mentions of. This was verified unequivocally at WTC7 (Sample 1) and less so at WTC1 and WTC2 (Sample 2). I'll look further into this in a moment, but can we now all agree on the fact that it happened? Anyone still claiming otherwise has to somehow refute the claims of the guys in charge of cleaning up the steel, the claims of the scientists who analyzed it, and pictures of the steel itself.

Kemal
2005-Nov-24, 12:51 AM
If I am reading this correctly...

That document says the steel was chemically attacked by sulfides, not melted by being exposed to melting-point temperatures. According to page 1 this process resulted in some of the steel being liquified at 1,000C, far below melting temp. These changes occurred at the microscopic level(I think.) This "intergranular melting" appears to be a long way from "pools of molten steel." Besides high explosives don't really melt steel, so this doesn't support the conspiracy theory. But it is still interesting.

akirabakabaka
2005-Nov-24, 12:56 AM
I'd like to take a closer look at all of the melted steel evidence now that we know it actually happened, because the story is still not very clear. Here are some outstanding claims:

* was liquid molten steel ever found at WTC, and how would that be possible?
* what caused the steel to melt?
* could explosives have been involved?

The best evidence offered so far is the official report (http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_apndxC.pdf) from WPI. First we need to look at the steel evidence; where did it come from?

WPI: "Two structural steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field. The first appeared to be from WTC 7 and the second from either WTC 1 or WTC 2."

"Although the exact location of this beam in the building was not known, the
severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration."

"The origin of the steel shown in Figure C-9 is thought to be a high-yield-strength steel removed from a column member."

So they don't really know where these beams came from. How was the cleanup operation conducted? It's been widely reported that only 150 beams were retained for the investigation, and the rest was destroyed -- really one of the best clues to any conspiracy, the willful destruction of the evidence.

911research (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/players.html): "Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) appeared to be key player in the expedient removal and recycling of the steel." -- our friends Tully and Loizeaux were in the best position to observe the steel on-site.

World Trade Center Building Performance Study (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apd_x.pdf) (FEMA report): "The ongoing volunteer effort of the SEAoNY engineers is securing WTC steel pieces that will provide physical evidence for studies on WTC building performance. As of March 15, 2002, seventeen engineers visiting four salvage yards, have identified approximately 150 pieces. Pieces have been identified that are from WTC 1, 2, 5, and 7."

That's really sad, 150 pieces taken almost at random out of many thousands. It looks like no effort was made to sort or identify the beams on-site, and these guys had to figure it out after it had been moved. To their credit they at least took the time to pick out beams which were 'interesting' to the investigation. It turns out that we can make an attempt to verify at least Sample 2 from the WPI report. All that is known about sample 2 is that it is probably from either WTC1 or WTC2.

According to WPI: "Temperatures in this region of the steel [from sample 2] were likely to be in the range of 700–800°C (1,290–1,470 °F)."

From the AFP article: Five days after the collapse, on Sept. 16, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) used an Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) to locate and measure the site’s hot spots. Dozens of hot spots were mapped, the hottest being in the east corner of the South Tower where a temperature of 1,377 degrees F was recorded.

This is a really nice fit, and means the sample was likely taken off the top of the WTC2 pile, and subsequently was likely from the upper levels of that tower. It also supports the suggestion that the melting reactions took place while smoldering on the ground in the weeks after the attack, but this is still unclear. It's also unclear how hot the bottoms of those piles got, but their heat must have been significant if after 5 days the top was still smoldering this hot.

None of these temperatures are even close to what was needed to create rivers of molten steel, yet apparently many people witnessed it. Could it have been other metals that were molten? If you can explain it, it's worth $1mil (http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm). ;)

akirabakabaka
2005-Nov-24, 01:00 AM
If I am reading this correctly...

That document says the steel was chemically attacked by sulfides, not melted by being exposed to melting-point temperatures.The question was whether any steel had been melted, not how it happened.


According to page 1 this process resulted in some of the steel being liquified at 1,000C, far below melting temp. These changes occurred at the microscopic level(I think.) This "intergranular melting" appears to be a long way from "pools of molten steel."The molten steel question is a different problem.


Besides high explosives don't really melt steel, so this doesn't support the conspiracy theory. But it is still interesting.That's not a very convincing guess there, but explosives being involved is also another story anyways. I believe the WPI report also didn't find any evidence of magnesium. Also notice the WTC7 steel had been exposed to HIGHER temperatures than the WTC1/2 steel, which doesn't seem to make sense.

akirabakabaka
2005-Nov-24, 02:23 AM
Here's another claim I've seen repeated on this thread, the classic appeal authority.


Again, where are the structural engineers, failure analysts, civil engineers, who say the reports of the failure are bogus?

Fire Engineers Call WTC Probe ‘Half-Baked Farce’ (http://www.americanfreepress.net/Conspiracy/Fire_Engineers_Call_WTC_Probe/fire_engineers_call_wtc_probe.html)

So not every expert is in agreement. There's also an interesting comment by the magazine's editor about the destruction of evidence: “Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza fire? Of course not. But essentially, that’s what they’re doing at the World Trade Center.”

akirabakabaka
2005-Nov-24, 02:33 AM
I have a question for those who think the towers were blown up with explosives....
What was the role of the airplanes? I assume you think that as part of this conspiracy that the government, or whoever did this, crashed the airplanes into the building and then blew the buildings up. But why would you blow up the buildings? Do you think that the public would not be upset enough by the airplanes being flown into the WTC that you had also had to take the buildings down? Do you think we would not have invaded Afghanistan, for example, if the planes had hit the towers but the towers stayed up?Officially the collapse of the buildings is attributed directly to the crash of the planes with no other factors necessary, but it appears to many that this is unlikely to be possible. If someone wanted to bring those buildings down they would likely need explosives throughout the building, which would make an investigation fairly easy; find the compounds used, and find out who could have put them there. With the airplanes, nobody is even looking for residuals of explosives. The planes would just be a diversion. The fact that most of the steel evidence was destroyed without being analyzed supports this sort of theory.

How could they have been planted? Re-open 911 (http://www.reopen911.org/) claims that explosives can be seen throughout the collapse of the towers. This means someone would need access to a lot of areas of the building, and would likely have cooperation by someone of authority. I believe that only ~75% of the WTCs were in use, fingers are pointed at the guy who collected the insurance money as a way for him to make a profit on the failing office building. Can anyone find out which floors were occupied and which were out of use? Also might want to look into recent construction being done on any floors.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-24, 03:06 AM
That animation on that site is hilarious.

"Multiple explosions!"... looks like just one explosion that extends in more than one direction to me.

"They say that NO steel building has collapsed from fire"... well, what building has been soaked in burning jet fuel for a while, and had a rather shakey design that was just asking to collapse in the first place?

"Unharmed monitor?" So... a monitor is "unharmed", so that proves that it was blown up instead of had planes crashing into it?

I'm sorry, but all of this is really really silly.

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-24, 03:22 AM
Here's another claim I've seen repeated on this thread, the classic appeal authority.


Uh, excuse me, but citing relevant experts is not an appeal to authority. The appeal to authority is when you use an expert in one field to cover another field. Like citing an fiction author for his opinion on paranormal events, or an eye doctor to comment on an exercise device.



Fire Engineers Call WTC Probe ‘Half-Baked Farce’ (http://www.americanfreepress.net/Conspiracy/Fire_Engineers_Call_WTC_Probe/fire_engineers_call_wtc_probe.html)

So not every expert is in agreement. There's also an interesting comment by the magazine's editor about the destruction of evidence: “Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza fire? Of course not. But essentially, that’s what they’re doing at the World Trade Center.”

One thing cleverly hidden in your link is that the call to action is from January of 2002. The call to action was to get the kind of results that resulting in the NIST report. The firefighters had concerns, but not so much about conspiracies of explosives, but other incidents.

The text of the call to action, without AmericaFreePresses spin, can be found here:
(in .pdf):

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/PDF/FireEngineering-1-4-02-WTCInvestigation.pdf

Reading the article shows that the firefighters did have concerns, but they were for future safety in hi-rise fires.

So you are using obselete material to invoke a disparity that does not seem to exist.

akirabakabaka
2005-Nov-24, 03:31 AM
That animation on that site is hilarious.

"Multiple explosions!"... looks like just one explosion that extends in more than one direction to me. :) They also cite the holes-in-the-pentagon-not-big-enough problem in that animation, which has been conclusively debunked many times over. What is your point?


"They say that NO steel building has collapsed from fire"... well, what building has been soaked in burning jet fuel for a while, and had a rather shakey design that was just asking to collapse in the first place?Sorry that's a red herring. :naughty: Has any other steel building collapsed from fire or not?


"Unharmed monitor?" So... a monitor is "unharmed", so that proves that it was blown up instead of had planes crashing into it?

I'm sorry, but all of this is really really silly.Did you at least read the $1mil challenge? The fact that you based your whole analysis on an animation proves the point I have been hinting at about bizarro woo-woos. You claim to debunk by pointing at an animation? That's like bizarro Hoagland pointing at doctored images as evidence of aliens. And yet after these specious claims other bizarro woo-woos step in and say 'see I told you so!' Here's a typical bizarro debunking:



http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

It talks about a Brigham Young University physics professor doubting the official story. Granted he is only a physics professor but what is wrong with his arguments about WTC 7 collapse?A reasonable question: Jones claims the official WTC physics were bad and lays out an argument why he believes explosives were involved. So, what is wrong with his arguments?


The Engineer is a Specialist in his field. A physics prof. would be qualified to say when things are obviosuly wrong from a physics standpoint, but not on the level of second-guessing that this Professor does.

I would also point out, (after a Google search reminded) that the good Dr. Jones had his hat well into the Cold Fusion fiasco of a some years ago.Oh well, cold fusion, everything this guy has ever said is obviously wrong! :shifty: Why didn't you just dig him up on ratemyprofessors.com (http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=94424&page=2) and find a bad review of him? It would be just as meaningful.


Dr. Jones has proven nothing except that he can take rumor, innuendo, misquotations and misunderstanding and make as many mistakes as a person without a PHD in physics.Yet not a single rumor, innuendo, misquotations, misunderstanding or mistake is even cited. I believe they call this sort of attack FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt).


I'd like to second that and add that neither SynKronoS or Jimbro have actually stated which 'experts', other than Stephen Jones support the contention that explosives were used in the way they claim.And another bizarro crackpot jumps on the bangwagon. The claim here is only one expert is cited, and so it is obviously not even worth reading his arguments because it is already decided nobody agrees with him. EDIT: special thanks given in the Jones paper: "I gratefully acknowledge comments and contributions by Jim Hoffman and Jeff Strahl, and Professors Jack Weyland, David Ray Griffin, Bryan Peterson, Paul Zarembka and Derrick Grimmer." Were they all in on cold fusion too?

A conclusive debunking of the Jones paper. Even though nobody has even mentioned one single part of the paper being debunked. Brilliant! :clap: Give me a break.

akirabakabaka
2005-Nov-24, 03:50 AM
Uh, excuse me, but citing relevant experts is not an appeal to authority. The appeal to authority is when you use an expert in one field to cover another field. Like citing an fiction author for his opinion on paranormal events, or an eye doctor to comment on an exercise device.You're right, I suppose I was referring to an appeal to popularity. I was referring to the argument that since X amount of engineers agree with the official story, it must be true.


One thing cleverly hidden in your link is that the call to action is from January of 2002. The call to action was to get the kind of results that resulting in the NIST report. The firefighters had concerns, but not so much about conspiracies of explosives, but other incidents.I was responding to the appeal to popularity, I made no mention about explosives or conspiracies.


The text of the call to action, without AmericaFreePresses spin, can be found here:
(in .pdf):

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/PDF/FireEngineering-1-4-02-WTCInvestigation.pdf

Reading the article shows that the firefighters did have concerns, but they were for future safety in hi-rise fires.

So you are using obselete material to invoke a disparity that does not seem to exist.It was asked where are all of the engineers who think the official report is bogus, and I provided them. Nobody asked where are all the engineers who think there was a conspiracy. You're inventing arguments that aren't there. Regardless, can you show that the Fire Engineers are satisfied with the more recent NIST report?

jimbro
2005-Nov-24, 04:20 AM
I have a question for those who think the towers were blown up with explosives....
What was the role of the airplanes? I assume you think that as part of this conspiracy that the government, or whoever did this, crashed the airplanes into the building and then blew the buildings up. But why would you blow up the buildings? Do you think that the public would not be upset enough by the airplanes being flown into the WTC that you had also had to take the buildings down? Do you think we would not have invaded Afghanistan, for example, if the planes had hit the towers but the towers stayed up?

Do you think there was some evidence left by this conspiracy that the airplanes crashes alone were not enough to cover up, but you needed to demolish the buildings to hide? As others have pointed out, placing demolition charges around the WTC would be a big task and you would more likely get caught doing that than just hijacking the airplanes. This makes absolutely no sense to me.

Or are you proposing that there were no airplanes and we all just imagined them? My sister was about four blocks away, looking up at the towers, and watched the second plane hit. Did she just dream that up?

I honestly would like to know what possible reason could anyone have for blowing up the towers.



Ok I think those are good questions.
This is what ive found out that adresses those points
1)Read The project for a new american century, this was a game plan for world domination prepred by wolfowitz rumsfeld and the like. In that they say that in order to capture the resources of world militarily, america would need a "new pearl harbor" in order to galvaize the public behind a war effort
2) Money. Silverstein buys the buildings and when they came down he collects on his insurance to the tune of (i forget the number) billions literally.
3) tramatize the public, buring buildngs is one thing. But to have them come down is a real catastrophy that the public would be really frightened by
4) You can rule by fear.

Now you think its hard to plant charges? I dont. If a sevice or security crew (headed up by a bush family member) annouces they are going to "update the fire alarms" or someting along those lines. I think they could install all the devices they wnted to. And remember about a week before the attack people all noticed that there were fedeal agents "crawling all over the place" as one secretary put it.
I m not proposing that the planes were imaginary

Swift Id like to hear your thoughts on that. maybe you can counter or agree

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-24, 04:45 AM
:) They also cite the holes-in-the-pentagon-not-big-enough problem in that animation, which has been conclusively debunked many times over. What is your point?

That the whole site seems to use "evidence" that me, an average everyday layman with no engineering experience, can deem silly enough to actually point and laugh?



Sorry that's a red herring. :naughty: Has any other steel building collapsed from fire or not?

Has any other plane been crashed into with a large plane, with a tank nearly full with jet fuel, and with the rather silly design of the Twin Towers? You throw a lot of fancy words out, but I don't think you understand a lot of them.

Saying, "It's never happened before, hence, it can't happen" is silly.


Did you at least read the $1mil challenge? The fact that you based your whole analysis on an animation proves the point I have been hinting at about bizarro woo-woos. You claim to debunk by pointing at an animation?

When an animation is a big part of their argument, and shows how they use "Evidence"? Heck, it's certainly not worth my time, personally. I'll let the actual engineers and physicists tear the argument apart; but it's a waste of their time, just like it's a waste of mine.


That's like bizarro Hoagland pointing at doctored images as evidence of aliens.

And the fact that Hoagland does that doesn't make him less credible on other claims?

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-24, 05:41 AM
You're right, I suppose I was referring to an appeal to popularity. I was referring to the argument that since X amount of engineers agree with the official story, it must be true.


That's not the arguement either. The point I was making is that no people with the proper qualificaions have made signifigant disagreements with the model provided. Instead, we are treated to Physicists who have spent most of their careers doing electroplating interactions and told that is just fine.



I was responding to the appeal to popularity, I made no mention about explosives or conspiracies.


Wrong again. An appeal to popularity is the assumption that when many people from all walks of life beleive something to be true, that therefore it must be true. In this case I referring to Engineers with proper qualifications not objecting signifigantly to the NIST model. It is akin to saying that if doctors do not challenge the claim that "Smoking is bad for your health", then the statement is likely to have validity.

Arguement by popularity is like saying "Many people beleive in Astrology, so there must be something to it." That is not the arguement in this case.



It was asked where are all of the engineers who think the official report is bogus, and I provided them.

No, you did not. You provided a biased accounting of a call to action that took place well before the NIST work.



Nobody asked where are all the engineers who think there was a conspiracy. You're inventing arguments that aren't there. Regardless, can you show that the Fire Engineers are satisfied with the more recent NIST report?

Changing the burden of proof is not an effective arguement.

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-24, 06:02 AM
Oh well, cold fusion, everything this guy has ever said is obviously wrong! :shifty: Why didn't you just dig him up on ratemyprofessors.com (http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=94424&page=2) and find a bad review of him? It would be just as meaningful.


He's out of his league to begin with, then you pile on this whopper of a mistake and you'll find that the salt grain I have to take with him is mighty big.



Yet not a single rumor, innuendo, misquotations, misunderstanding or mistake is even cited.

I pointed out that his entire basis of support for Molten steel in the basement was based on bogus accounts.

Others have pointed out that his timing and claims about the collapse rate are demonstratably wrong. Note that this might have been done in the other thread, and people may have not burden this thread with the details to your satisfaction.



I believe they call this sort of attack FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt).


oooooooh.



And another bizarro crackpot jumps on the bangwagon. The claim here is only one expert is cited, and so it is obviously not even worth reading his arguments because it is already decided nobody agrees with him. EDIT: special thanks given in the Jones paper: "I gratefully acknowledge comments and contributions by Jim Hoffman and Jeff Strahl, and

Strahl and Hoffman are 9/11 conspriacy nutters from the 'No plane hit the Pentagon' crowd.



Professors Jack Weyland,


A romance book author, no other info avaialble. Qualifications doubtful



David Ray Griffin,


Professor of Philosophy of Religion.



Bryan Peterson


Forensic Pathologist



, Paul Zarembka


Either Prof of Political Economics or Athletics.



and Derrick Grimmer."


The only scientist in the lot so far: Microelectronics.



Were they all in on cold fusion too?


No, but they are even less qualified than Dr. Jones to judge.



A conclusive debunking of the Jones paper. Even though nobody has even mentioned one single part of the paper being debunked. Brilliant! :clap: Give me a break.

This thread:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=34793

Was started at about the same time as the one we are posting in. It contains much more specific info regarding the Doctors claims. That some did not bother to double up the info on this thread for your benefit is of little concern.

Obviousman
2005-Nov-24, 06:55 AM
The simplest answer is finding WMD was not necessary. I don’t think the people telling us Iraq had WMD really cared if it would have justified events in Iraq to both domestic & foreign opponents and G.W.Bush was re-elected.

No, that doesn't make sense so it can't be right. I don't believe it. If it's not right then my point still remains valid and therefore must be right.

(See? I can reason like a HB as well!)

sfarq1
2005-Nov-24, 08:15 AM
No, that doesn't make sense so it can't be right. I don't believe it. If it's not right then my point still remains valid and therefore must be right.

(See? I can reason like a HB as well!)

Can you please tell me what a HB is? From this thread I have learned people don’t use facts they just call the person a name like conspiracy nutter and believe they won the argument . If you are going to win the argument that way please have the courtesy to spell the word so I realize that I have lost( otherwise I might go on believing I won).

Cl1mh4224rd
2005-Nov-24, 08:53 AM
Can you please tell me what a HB is?
HB = Hoax Believer


From this thread I have learned people don’t use facts they just call the person a name like conspiracy nutter and believe they won the argument . If you are going to win the argument that way please have the courtesy to spell the word so I realize that I have lost( otherwise I might go on believing I won).
This isn't the only, currently active thread about this topic. God knows this crap has been covered thoroughly over the past 4 years. People get tired of having to point out the same, obvious flaws in these tired, old theories over and over and over and over again.

The reason people are short is because the theory is completely offensive and the argument was won 3+ years ago...

Ignorance truly is bliss, apparently...

Hazzard
2005-Nov-24, 09:09 AM
Part of the allure of conspiracies seems to be the excitement of believing something that few other people believe. It´s a way of saying, "I´m different."
We can go beyond that and speculate that they think their beliefs are not only different but also better. :silenced:

It´s not necessarily that there are so many kooks out there.
It may be that the kooks are the ones who feel soo strongly about their beliefs that they have to share them. Some of them would say and do almost anything to remain special,different and "smarter" than all the experts.

But simply the difference is enough to worry about here.
After all what good is being different if no one notices?

Tolls
2005-Nov-24, 10:25 AM
<snip>
There's been a lot of unsupported claims like this about the WTC steel made on this thread, I'd really like to clean it up now:
<snip>
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tolls
It would also have helped a lot if you and jimbro had actually read the thread since a lot of your points were answered there...the heat generated and how it softened the steel, not melted it...
<snip>


Just wanted to clear this up. You seem to have quoted me slightly out of context here. My point about the softened steel was that I believe someone was stating that the heat generated was not enough to melt the steel and therefore the towers wouldn't have collapsed. This is wrong, and the quote above was pointing out that this had been covered previously in the thread.

In short, the heat generated ( about 1000C) was sufficient to soften the steel, which meant that it could no longer support the structure above, resulting in collapse. There may (as Kemal has mentioned from the microscopic analysis) have been additional chemical reactions which helped weaken the steel further, but there is no requirement for there to have been greater heat than was actually available with the aviation fuel and office debris.

One last thing:



<snip>
Regardless, can you show that the Fire Engineers are satisfied with the more recent NIST report?
<snip>


One would assume that if they were not satisfied with the report that they would have produced another article attacking it by now. Unless you can produce such an article I think we can safely say they are satisfied.

Alan G. Archer
2005-Nov-24, 01:04 PM
Well, if you read his article on his Web site, it says "The author is a former member of the Society of Licenced Aeronautical Engineers & Technologist, London".

However, a Google on "Society of Licenced Aeronautical Engineers & Technologist" or simply "Licenced Aeronautical Engineers" turns up nothing but references to Vialls' article.

It seems odd for a professional or trade society to hide its light under a bushel on the Web. By way of contrast, if you Google "Audio Engineering Society" or "motion picture and television engineers" you will get over a hundred thousand hits for each. This obviously doesn't prove that there isn't any such society, but the sheer lack of any reference to it that isn't taken directly from Vialls sure does make me suspicious.

There's also a question of usage. Outside the US, the use of the term "engineer" to mean what we would call "equipment operator" or "technician" seems to be rather common. If I held my present job in a studio in London, I would be called a "maintenance engineer" instead of "the tech guy". If the "Society of Licenced etc." really does exist, it's just as likely to be a society of people who maintain and repair airplanes as of people who design them.

There's nothing like a little title inflation to make claims seem more plausible to people who can't or won't do any checking.

The Society of Licensed Aircraft Engineers and Technologists UK (SLAET UK) merged (http://www.raes.org.uk/raes/about/royalcharter.pdf) with the Royal Aeronautical Society (http://www.raes.org.uk/) on July 1, 1987. Perhaps Mr. Vialls was a member of the society before the merger.

gwiz
2005-Nov-24, 01:51 PM
The Society of Licensed Aircraft Engineers and Technologists UK (SLAET UK) merged (http://www.raes.org.uk/raes/about/royalcharter.pdf) with the Royal Aeronautical Society (http://www.raes.org.uk/) on July 1, 1987. Perhaps Mr. Vialls was a member of the society before the merger.
As a Member of the RAeS, I can confirm this. The Licensed Aircraft Engineers from SLAET were admitted to the RAeS as Associate Members. As ktesibios says, they are the people who do maintenance work on aircraft, a very responsible job but not engineers in the sense that aircraft design staff are.

Graham2001
2005-Nov-24, 02:43 PM
And another bizarro crackpot jumps on the bangwagon. The claim here is only one expert is cited, and so it is obviously not even worth reading his arguments because it is already decided nobody agrees with him. EDIT: special thanks given in the Jones paper: "I gratefully acknowledge comments and contributions by Jim Hoffman and Jeff Strahl, and Professors Jack Weyland, David Ray Griffin, Bryan Peterson, Paul Zarembka and Derrick Grimmer." Were they all in on cold fusion too?

Thanks for at least giving these names, it means that their positions/qualifications can be checked, a process which has doubtless already begun.

Graham2001
2005-Nov-24, 03:02 PM
2) Money. Silverstein buys the buildings and when they came down he collects on his insurance to the tune of (i forget the number) billions literally.

Actually the claim was allegedly in the millions, for more information check here (http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_profit.html).




Now you think its hard to plant charges? I dont. If a sevice or security crew (headed up by a bush family member) annouces they are going to "update the fire alarms" or someting along those lines. I think they could install all the devices they wnted to. And remember about a week before the attack people all noticed that there were fedeal agents "crawling all over the place" as one secretary put it.

911Myths, has looked into this claim as well, the results can be found on this page (http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html).

I agree, planting charges is simple, if you want a big bang. However setting up a controlled demolition is not so simple. I do not claim to posess an explosives licence, nor anything beyond common sense.

To produce the effects claimed by you and SynKronoS it would indeed require a controlled implosion, which requires precisely calculated charges and timing to cause the demolished structure to fall in on itself neatly.

When this is not done, as occurred in Canberra in 1997, the results can be horrific. See this summary Coroners report (http://www.courts.act.gov.au/magistrates/dec/bender/Execsumm.htm) for what can happen when people 'play' with explosives.

Finally, Jimbro, I'd like to see your comments on the above, not just the words I have written, but the material I have linked to.

sfarq1
2005-Nov-24, 07:30 PM
The Society of Licensed Aircraft Engineers and Technologists UK (SLAET UK) merged (http://www.raes.org.uk/raes/about/royalcharter.pdf) with the Royal Aeronautical Society (http://www.raes.org.uk/) on July 1, 1987. Perhaps Mr. Vialls was a member of the society before the merger.


This entire subject is a strawman , nobody has used Mr. Vialls as a source for information on 9/11. Why are people wasting time on this person?

Alan G. Archer
2005-Nov-24, 07:43 PM
As a Member of the RAeS, I can confirm this. The Licensed Aircraft Engineers from SLAET were admitted to the RAeS as Associate Members. As ktesibios says, they are the people who do maintenance work on aircraft, a very responsible job but not engineers in the sense that aircraft design staff are.

Thanks, gwiz.

A piece of written by the late Vialls earlier this year, "Did America Sabotage Airbus Flight 961? (http://www.vialls.com/airbus/transat_flight_961.html)," ends with this about the author:

The author has more than 8,000 total flying hours, and is a retired
member of the Society of Aircraft Engineers and Technologists

Alan G. Archer
2005-Nov-24, 07:50 PM
This entire subject is a strawman , nobody has used Mr. Mr. Vialls as a source for information on 9/11. Why are people wasting time on this person?

I shall waste no more time with Mr. Vialls on this thread.

akirabakabaka
2005-Nov-24, 10:00 PM
Good points jimbro but what is this last one all about?


Now you think its hard to plant charges? I dont. If a sevice or security crew (headed up by a bush family member) annouces they are going to "update the fire alarms" or someting along those lines. I think they could install all the devices they wnted to. And remember about a week before the attack people all noticed that there were fedeal agents "crawling all over the place" as one secretary put it.Putting a Bush family member in charge first of all is a terrible idea, because they are an incompetent group. But seriously, that's like Nixon going to Watergate himself to plant bugs. It just doesn't happen that way.

But I made the same general point in a recent post; I believe only about 75% of the towers were even in use, plus they had been doing work on the central steel core to enhance fireproofing (going from memory here). If this is true, there were plenty of chances to get the needed access to plant bombs.

akirabakabaka
2005-Nov-24, 10:24 PM
Has any other plane been crashed into with a large plane, with a tank nearly full with jet fuel, and with the rather silly design of the Twin Towers? You throw a lot of fancy words out, but I don't think you understand a lot of them.Thanks for being belligerent about it when you were obviously wrong. The point you contested was whether or not any steel building has ever collapsed due to fire, and you just repeated your irrelevant red herring to distract from the point being argued. How the fire collapsed the steel building is completely irrelevant to the fact that a fire had never collapsed a steel building.


Saying, "It's never happened before, hence, it can't happen" is silly.Did anyone on this thread say that? Or are you just throwing more logical fallacies onto your pile?


When an animation is a big part of their argument, and shows how they use "Evidence"? Heck, it's certainly not worth my time, personally. I'll let the actual engineers and physicists tear the argument apart; but it's a waste of their time, just like it's a waste of mine.Then quit responding with such irrelevance, because you're only wasting our time.


And the fact that Hoagland does that doesn't make him less credible on other claims?Yes that was my point, you lost just as much credibility as Hoagland by using his same tactics.

akirabakabaka
2005-Nov-24, 10:49 PM
You're right, I suppose I was referring to an appeal to popularity. I was referring to the argument that since X amount of engineers agree with the official story, it must be true.
That's not the arguement either. The point I was making is that no people with the proper qualificaions have made signifigant disagreements with the model provided. Instead, we are treated to Physicists who have spent most of their careers doing electroplating interactions and told that is just fine.Ok, whatever we call the type of argument we are having, we still agree. It is argued that since most qualified engineers support the official 9/11 physics, it is probably correct. If you were specificaly talking about detractors from the NIST report then I was wrong to mention the Fire Engineers, but you weren't:


Your expert whistleblowers are an economist and and entrepeneur with axes to grind. I am not impressed with cranks making claims, no matter what their position is. There comments are also purely speculative and in some cases ludicrous.

Again, where are the structural engineers, failure analysts, civil engineers, who say the reports of the failure are bogus? A physics professor won't cut it my book: I'm a physics major and while there is overlap our field merely touches on structure, load and other stuff. We tend to be more interested in what makes gravity work than why buildings fall down.You were responding to the Jones paper being used as counter-evidence. You were making the argument that because there were not a large amount of "structural engineers, failure analysts, civil engineers" dissenting from the official story, Jones must be wrong. You also claimed Jones' comments were "purely speculative and in some cases ludicrous" but you don't give any examples. The only mention of NIST in that post was unrelated, a quote taken from SynKronos about Loizeaux's molten steel comments. I would say that unless the Fire Engineers have changed their minds and expressed support, they remain a large group of qualified engineers unsatisfied with the official story, at least FEMA's version of it.


No, you did not. You provided a biased accounting of a call to action that took place well before the NIST work.

Changing the burden of proof is not an effective arguement.I'm not sure who's changing what anymore on this thread. I would just like to ask if anyone is going to claim someone else is wrong on this thread, they actually provide evidence and don't just change the subject.

EDIT: fixed quote, sorry Lonewulf!

akirabakabaka
2005-Nov-24, 10:53 PM
This thread:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=34793

Was started at about the same time as the one we are posting in. It contains much more specific info regarding the Doctors claims. That some did not bother to double up the info on this thread for your benefit is of little concern.Why didn't you say this 5 pages ago? :wall: BTW I like how your first post over on that thread refers back to this one. :)

akirabakabaka
2005-Nov-24, 10:56 PM
Thanks for at least giving these names, it means that their positions/qualifications can be checked, a process which has doubtless already begun.If anyone had bothered to read Jones' paper, they would have found these names themselves. But now I see there is another thread for it.

jt-3d
2005-Nov-24, 11:23 PM
But I made the same general point in a recent post; I believe only about 75% of the towers were even in use, plus they had been doing work on the central steel core to enhance fireproofing (going from memory here). If this is true, there were plenty of chances to get the needed access to plant bombs.

Going from my memory there have been UFOs seen over New York. If this is true there were plenty of oppotunities for the aliens to blast the towers with lasers and cause the molten puddles of steel that were still there weeks later....... Yes it's nonsense but no less speculative than you saying you think the towers were 25% empty and you think they were working on the structure.

I think foriegn hijackers took some of our comercial planes and crashed them into the towers which then burned until the steel softened enough to cause the floors above the fires to collapse onto the floors below causing the whole thing to collapse straight down into a pile of rubble. Now do you have anything that contradicts any of this or just more speculation and what ifs?

sfarq1
2005-Nov-24, 11:31 PM
If anyone had bothered to read Jones' paper, they would have found these names themselves. But now I see there is another thread for it.
If you think you will get answeer from the other thread to Dr. Jones arguments, good luck. It does mention an interesting way to smash pop cans and compares this to the WTC collapses.

akirabakabaka
2005-Nov-24, 11:40 PM
If you think you will get answeer from the other thread to Dr. Jones arguments, good luck. It does mention an interesting way to smash pop cans and compares this to the WTC collapses.LOL thanks. You're right, theres nothing but nonsense in that thread, and no evidence that even one person has read Jones paper. Are there any real debunkers on this forum?

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-24, 11:43 PM
Akirabakabaka:

You quoted me saying this:

"No, you did not. You provided a biased accounting of a call to action that took place well before the NIST work."

I said no such thing. That was "Kookbreaker".

And apparently, my Debunk-fu is too weak for you. I will retreat and laugh in the shadows.

akirabakabaka
2005-Nov-24, 11:47 PM
My bad! Sorry Lonewulf, nothing worse than being misquoted.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-24, 11:48 PM
No problem. Us "bizarro crackpots" need our credibility, after all.

sfarq1
2005-Nov-25, 12:09 AM
If you take the rented space of 8,692,923 sq/ft at the time of the collapse and the available commercial space of 10,000,000 sq/ft . you get an 87% percent occupancy. You need to remove 10000 sq/ft for 16tht and 17th floors the Zim Shipping Co. that broke their lease and moved out before Sept 11th.



http://worldtradeaftermath.com/wta/wtc_info/tenants_by_floor_wtc2.asp

http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html

wayneee
2005-Nov-25, 12:15 AM
I dont believe 9/11 was hoaxed. The only question I ever realy had about 9/11 was about flight 93. On Sept 11, I was busy working in a swamp, as I stripped off my wet suit and threw it in the truck listening to NPR, they were talking and I wasnt paying attention until I heard "it is not yet confirmed that a US military jet has taken down flight 93 over Penn......"

Its the first thing I heard , I didnt know about the other planes. Later it was said that passengers attempting to gain control forced the planes demise , which I could imagine is likely. Yet .... since this was the first news I heard I am still sceptical of the authorized version. I could understand why the flight should have been shot down , and I also understand why our government would want to conceil such a fact if it did happen. I Wonder what you think of this.

Archer17
2005-Nov-25, 03:01 AM
Focusing on sympathetic links that delve into "blast-effect" minutiae overlook the illogic of such a undertaking considering the risk factors (detection of pre-set explosives and the difficulty of "controlled implosions" as two examples) let alone a realistic reason for such an endeavor. The 9/11 attacks resulted in the invasion of the country harboring OBL (Afghanistan) and the removal of the Taleban, not the invasion of Iraq nor martial law.

I would like those that think this government was behind 9/11 to come out and answer the following questions:

1) What was the geo-political situation the day before .. on 9/10/2001? I think most that spout the 9/11 CT nonsense don't have a clue..

2) Airliners were used as missiles that day .. why the "overkill" alleged by those that claim we needed to pre-set explosives on top of what was already done?

3) Why does the CT nonsense have to morph? First, it was posited that 9/11 was staged to enact martial law. Now, in late 2005 when that hasn't happened, we hear it was to invade Iraq. Iraq? Wasn't there another reason we were told that necessitated invading Iraq?

4) Why is the fact that the U.S. supported the Afghan resistance to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1978 during the Cold War (which included arming OBL & friends and anyone who opposed the Soviets ) considered support for same in 2001? :think:

5) Has anyone that really believes/promotes this hokum actually taken the time to ask why it's so impossible that terrorists alone were behind the carnage? CT promoters tell us a massive covert subterfuge is afoot. Really?

Do any of you pay attention to the news? Are all terrorist attacks (Spanish, London, Bali bombings for instance) an aberration? Or are their own governments "behind it" too?

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-25, 06:22 AM
Ok, whatever we call the type of argument we are having, we still agree. It is argued that since most qualified engineers support the official 9/11 physics, it is probably correct. If you were specificaly talking about detractors from the NIST report then I was wrong to mention the Fire Engineers, but you weren't:

You were responding to the Jones paper being used as counter-evidence. You were making the argument that because there were not a large amount of "structural engineers, failure analysts, civil engineers" dissenting from the official story, Jones must be wrong. You also claimed Jones' comments were "purely speculative and in some cases ludicrous" but you don't give any examples.


I confess to not writing everything out, I admit this. I have been argueing with 9/11 kooks from the beginning of their antics. I participated on USENET with this for some time. I even got to see the "molten steel" arguement turned from a CT selling point into a running joke.

Dr. Jones really has provided nothing new at all. He is adding his name to a bunch of kook arguements that have been around for a long time, and have either been debunked, or were not relevant to begin with. Those debunkings are old, and most of them are already covered on the 911myths website. I admit, I get tired of rewriting debunkings of old arguements.



The only mention of NIST in that post was unrelated, a quote taken from SynKronos about Loizeaux's molten steel comments. I would say that unless the Fire Engineers have changed their minds and expressed support, they remain a large group of qualified engineers unsatisfied with the official story, at least FEMA's version of it.


You are still reading too much into the Fire Engineers comments. The pdf I linked to showed the original Call to Action, not the AmericaFreePress spindizzy. The fire Engineers were concerned with procedures and equipment that may have lead to the deaths of more firefighters than might have otherwise happened in the collapse. Their concerns do not in any way conlfict with NIST, or FEMA's analysis of the cause of the building's collapse. They have even less to do with Dr. Jones arguements.

Tolls
2005-Nov-25, 10:08 AM
LOL thanks. You're right, theres nothing but nonsense in that thread, and no evidence that even one person has read Jones paper. Are there any real debunkers on this forum?

What you don't seem to understand is that I don't actually need to read Jones paper to come to a conclusion that it is bunk. He claims explosives were used to bring down the towers, however structural engineers the world over have provided from the word go (the first analysis I saw was from Dec 2001/Jan 2002) the method by which the airliners caused the collapse. Who would you have me follow? The physics professor without any (as far as I can see) expertise in structural engineering or the rather large number of people who do?

I have seen reports from New Zealand, here in the UK, recently from China (can't remember if that was this thread or the other one), the US (obviously)...you would have me believe these people were all talking out of their bum or were somehow involved in this whole thing.

Sorry...that won't wash.

Tolls
2005-Nov-25, 10:14 AM
I was wrong about the first report I saw...it was written a week or so after the event, with minor modifications in December 2001. I saw it in Jan 2002.

http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF%20Files/World%20Trade%20Centre.pdf

This is pretty much the way the collapse is still viewed.

Hazzard
2005-Nov-25, 12:37 PM
Quote from UM.....

"Then the FBI has to show the evidence for their claims. They have not released the actual passenger manifests for the 4 flights. What names did the "hijackers" use to board the planes? Were they even listed on the manifests at all? Why don't they show the airport security videos showing all 19 "hijackers" checking in to board these flights? Do these videos even exist?"
http://911timeline.net/36or37missingand70percentempty.htm


Has the security cam footage been made public?

Graham2001
2005-Nov-25, 05:01 PM
Quote from UM.....

"Then the FBI has to show the evidence for their claims. They have not released the actual passenger manifests for the 4 flights. What names did the "hijackers" use to board the planes? Were they even listed on the manifests at all? Why don't they show the airport security videos showing all 19 "hijackers" checking in to board these flights? Do these videos even exist?"
http://911timeline.net/36or37missingand70percentempty.htm


Has the security cam footage been made public?

I have no idea as to whether it has or not, but the 911Myths site has done some looking into that particular claim (I'm not going to provide the link again, as it can be found in other posts further up the thread.).

The site author has also made at least one Freedom of Information request for documents relating to the attack.

However the actions/statments of the various 911 CT believers that have appeared in this thread seem to bear out the comments made by Fortean Times columnist Robin Ramsay (FT199/ Aug 2005, pg 27) in his regular 'Konspiracy Korner' segment. The essence of his comments (which I will not quote for copyright reasons), is that the typical response of a 911 conspiracy believer to counter-evidence or rebuttal is to ignore the existence of the rebuttal/counter-evidence and continue on regardless. Interestingly for the editor of a conspiracy magazine (The Lobster (http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/)) he seems to have trouble with the 911 story as presented by the CTs. He also appears to have reviewed at least one 911 conspiracy book (The New Pearl Harbour by David Griffin), however, you need to be registered to read the review, which from the sample does not appear to be complimentary.

David Griffins second book is currently being looked at by the author of the 911Myths site. His comments seem to support the idea outlined above, namely that 911 CT believers are either unable, or unwilling to look at counter-evidence to their claims. This article on 1960s/70's era UFO Hoaxing (http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/00/hoaxreview.htm) and this article which deals with one particular hoax (http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/70/hoax.html) (Warminster, 1970) may be of interest to those who want to get some idea of the mindset we may be dealing with.

I'd also like to extend the challenge I made to Jimbro in post #152 to all of the other 911 CT believers who have posted to this thread.

Alan G. Archer
2005-Nov-25, 05:38 PM
Quote from UM.....

"Then the FBI has to show the evidence for their claims. They have not released the actual passenger manifests for the 4 flights. What names did the "hijackers" use to board the planes? Were they even listed on the manifests at all? Why don't they show the airport security videos showing all 19 "hijackers" checking in to board these flights? Do these videos even exist?"
http://911timeline.net/36or37missingand70percentempty.htm


Has the security cam footage been made public?

I took on Dr. Gary North's much reposted Reality Check piece, "The Perplexing Puzzle Of The Published Passenger Lists (http://home.teleport.com/~photoget/north_82.htm)," in '02 (with updates).

I haven't looked in depth into the surveillance camera issue.

SynKronoS
2005-Nov-26, 05:25 AM
You see, this is where woo-woo theories always seem to fall down.?

nothing has fallen except the illusion of the elite--you claim that there would be "more people" yet you ignore Kevin Ryan,Albert Turi,Louie Cacchioli,Karl Schwartz,Morgan Reynolds,dr Steven Jones--norad stands down,alledged fundamentalists avoid targeting "indian point",bush's secret service failing to secure bush in the middle of the attacks,wtc 1,2 and 7 all collapse neatly into fragmented pieces perfect for rapid clean-up,the timing of silverstein's sudden business luck,the lack of an investigation,"put options" on aa ignored,patriot act,pnac's call for a "new pearl harbor",fbi being caught red handed in 93' bombing the wtc and obvious demolitions at the oklahoma murrah building and you still cant see whats right before your eyes?

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-26, 05:38 AM
nothing has fallen except the illusion of the elite--you claim that there would be "more people" yet you ignore Kevin Ryan,Albert Turi,Louie Cacchioli,Karl Schwartz,Morgan Reynolds,dr Steven Jones--norad stands down,alledged fundamentalists avoid targeting "indian point",bush's secret service failing to secure bush in the middle of the attacks,wtc 1,2 and 7 all collapse neatly into fragmented pieces perfect for rapid clean-up,the timing of silverstein's sudden business luck,the lack of an investigation,"put options" on aa ignored,patriot act,pnac's call for a "new pearl harbor",fbi being caught red handed in 93' bombing the wtc and obvious demolitions at the oklahoma murrah building and you still cant see whats right before your eyes?

Gee. There's a convincing arguement. "Look! A big list of things!".

Never mind that most, if not all of them are debunked on the 911myths page.

SynKronoS
2005-Nov-26, 05:41 AM
the faking (either chemical or nuclear) of WMDs is well within the capability of the forces involved,

Yet nothing was found.

of course not--their mission would be a success and there would be no "threat"-- they would not have been able to complete the natural gas pipeline through afgh and would not be in position to "liberate iraq" or out saddam for trading his oil in euros-- much evidence was destroyed in the collpase of the three wtc buildings-from evidence implicating greenspan in gold price fixing to evidence implicating exxon mobile in the manipulation of opec-- there would be no reason strip our freedoms in the guise of a "patriot" act-- im only scratching the surface and there are many more M O's

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 05:44 AM
Gee. There's a convincing arguement. "Look! A big list of things!".

Never mind that most, if not all of them are debunked on the 911myths page.

If by "debunked", you mean "attempted to explain away". No wonder that site gets no notice anywhere but here.

SynKronoS
2005-Nov-26, 07:00 AM
I even got to see the "molten steel" arguement turned from a CT selling point into a running joke.

huh?!?
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=3886

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center.

Tully was contracted after the Sept. 11 tragedy to re move the debris from the site.

Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Md., for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself "the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures."

Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived at the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation.

AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site.

"Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements."

These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels," Loizeaux said.

[B]The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.




Dr. Jones really has provided nothing new at all.

this prooves you have done nothing!-- if you would have taken the time to resaerch it you would have found that it exquitsitely details the "lack" of a certain law of physics called "conservation of momentum"-- he clearly outlines the absurdity in the official theory and claims that in a normal pancaking collapse each floor would have been impeded by the floor and structural supports below it resulting in a momentary delay in time of the collapse--the videos of the collapses all exhibit no signs of conservation of momentum and the free fall of ALL the buildings speaks for itself--



You are still reading too much into the Fire Engineers comments.
:lol:
:whistle:
far from it--remember they spent 40 million investigating a "stain" yet only 600,000 was allowed for the investigation into 9/11 and to top it off bush made sure the investigation focused only on intelligence failures--
*************************************************
A respected firefighting trade magazine with ties to the city Fire Department is calling for a "full-throttle, fully resourced" investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center. A signed editorial in the January issue of Fire Engineering magazine says the current investigation is "a half-baked farce." The piece by Bill Manning, editor of the 125-year-old monthly that frequently publishes technical studies of major fires, also says the steel from the site should be preserved so investigators can examine what caused the collapse. "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happy Land social club fire? ... That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center," the editorial says. "The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately." Fire Engineering counted FDNY Deputy Chief Raymond Downey, the department's chief structural expert, among its senior advisers. Downey was killed in the Sept. 11 attack. John Jay College's fire engineering expert, Prof. Glenn Corbett, serves as the magazine's technical editor.

A group of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, with backing from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has been studying some aspects of the collapse. But Manning and others say that probe has not looked at all aspects of the disaster and has had limited access to documents and other evidence. A growing number of fire protection engineers have theorized that "the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers," the editorial stated.
************************************************
FE's Bill Manning Calls for Comprehensive Investigation of WTC Collapse

Fair Lawn, NJ, January 4, 2002 - Bill Manning, Fire Engineering's editor in chief, is summoning members of the fire service to "A Call to Action." In his January 2002 Editor's Opinion, "$elling Out the Investigation" , he warns that unless there is a full-blown investigation by an independent panel established solely for that purpose, "the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals."

wayneee
2005-Nov-26, 07:09 AM
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=609486#post609486
hey some one answer me on this

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-26, 07:18 AM
If by "debunked", you mean "attempted to explain away". No wonder that site gets no notice anywhere but here.

Were not running a popularity contest. Its funny how those 'explanations' fit the facts.

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-26, 07:26 AM
huh?!?
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=3886


As has been pointed out already: Loizeaux never saw the steel. Tully claims to have seen it, but neither has produced evidence for it. Loizeaux also claims that they dipped the pools with an excavator (NO!). There is no real evidence for pools of molten steel.



this prooves you have done nothing!-- if you would have taken the time to resaerch it you would have found that it exquitsitely details the "lack" of a certain law of physics called "conservation of momentum"-- he clearly outlines the absurdity in the official theory and claims that in a normal pancaking collapse each floor would have been impeded by the floor and structural supports below it resulting in a momentary delay in time of the collapse--the videos of the collapses all exhibit no signs of conservation of momentum and the free fall of ALL the buildings speaks for itself--


Wrong. You can cleary see debris, which is in free fall, falling faster than the collpasing building. We already covered this, and it is nothing more than a rehash of an old CT arguement. The buildings did fall fast, true, because there was quite a bit of potential energy in the building, and when steel gets multiple times its load capacity, it almost might as well not be there.



:lol:
:whistle:
far from it--remember they spent 40 million <snip>

Enough. I have already posted the link to the original Fire Engineering article (in .pfd, possibly in the other thread) which is not saying what the CT spin on it would have us think.

SynKronoS
2005-Nov-26, 08:06 AM
The only question I ever realy had about 9/11 was about flight 93.
9/11 was the new pearl harbor--the craft alledged to be flt 93 was on its way to the white house-- its been documented that debri was found in a lake 1.5 miles from the crash site-- how could debri from the plane get so far away? -- its my opinion that a patriotic pilot ended the attack by disobeying orders or following the standard operating procedure he was used to before cheney,ashcroft and rumsfeld restructured the chain of command concerning the contingincy of such a scenario just weeks prior-- by taking measures into his own hands through a professional confidence known as "discretion"

Jason Gortician
2005-Nov-26, 08:11 AM
Were not running a popularity contest. Its funny how those 'explanations' fit the facts.

That site is a sad attempt at denying each and every aspect of 9/11. Arguing that the "hijackers" did cocaine, and banged hookers, in order to fit in?

Pardon me while I laugh at you and your site.

SynKronoS
2005-Nov-26, 08:18 AM
As has been pointed out already: Loizeaux never saw the steel. Tully claims to have seen it, but neither has produced evidence for it. Loizeaux also claims that they dipped the pools with an excavator (NO!). There is no real evidence for pools of molten steel.

this statement has already been discredited--if you want i can supply thermal images taken weeks after the collapses showing resonant heat inconsistent with hydrocarbon based fires


Wrong. You can cleary see debris, which is in free fall, falling faster than the collpasing building. We already covered this, and it is nothing more than a rehash of an old CT arguement. The buildings did fall fast, true, because there was quite a bit of potential energy in the building, and when steel gets multiple times its load capacity, it almost might as well not be there.

"conservation of momentum" says otherwise and a challenge has been issued by prof steven jones--he has recently withdrawn from debating with non academic theorists and is reserving his time for the highest credentials


Enough. I have already posted the link to the original Fire Engineering article (in .pfd, possibly in the other thread) which is not saying what the CT spin on it would have us think.
all i did was quote it! i havent even linked the really "rude" stuff yet

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-26, 08:19 AM
That site is a sad attempt at denying each and every aspect of 9/11. Arguing that the "hijackers" did cocaine, and banged hookers, in order to fit in?

Pardon me while I laugh at you and your site.

Gee, you're right. Next I'll be saying that Conservative Religious Televangelists dallied with cheap crack whores. Oh, wait.

And gee, could you grossly oversimplify that page any more?

http://911myths.com/html/strip_clubs.html

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-26, 08:28 AM
this statement has already been discredited--if you want i can supply thermal images taken weeks after the collapses showing resonant heat inconsistent with hydrocarbon based fires


Meaning nothing. Where's the molten steel?



"conservation of momentum" says otherwise


No. It does not. You might want to read some physics.



and a challenge has been issued by prof steven jones--


For what?



he has recently withdrawn from debating with non academic theorists and is reserving his time for the highest credentials


Sounds like he is hiding from people who see through his nonsense. Or using the 'highest credentials' bit to exclude engineers.



all i did was quote it! i havent even linked the really "rude" stuff yet

Yes, all you did was quote and article that has little to do with the actual call for action issued by the firefighter engineers.

Graham2001
2005-Nov-26, 04:01 PM
That site is a sad attempt at denying each and every aspect of 9/11. Arguing that the "hijackers" did cocaine, and banged hookers, in order to fit in?

Pardon me while I laugh at you and your site.

While I asked that CT believers check out that site and respond to it I did not expect any of them to actually do so.

However the response made is exactly what I expected, whatever evidence or explanations cannot be responded to is ignored and belittled. If you follow the links to the UFO hoxes in Post N&#186;174 on this thread you will see further evidence of this sort of mindset.

Readers may also like to note that Jason Gortician has twice been asked to explain what happened to the passengers on Flight77 (In this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=610272#post610272)), but has chosen not to do so.

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-26, 04:30 PM
I dont believe 9/11 was hoaxed. The only question I ever realy had about 9/11 was about flight 93. On Sept 11, I was busy working in a swamp, as I stripped off my wet suit and threw it in the truck listening to NPR, they were talking and I wasnt paying attention until I heard "it is not yet confirmed that a US military jet has taken down flight 93 over Penn......"

Its the first thing I heard , I didnt know about the other planes. Later it was said that passengers attempting to gain control forced the planes demise , which I could imagine is likely. Yet .... since this was the first news I heard I am still sceptical of the authorized version. I could understand why the flight should have been shot down , and I also understand why our government would want to conceil such a fact if it did happen. I Wonder what you think of this.

Since you requested an answer over this one.

I'll honestly say I do not know. But what was certain was that a passenger plane crashed in PA, and at the time they did not have the reports of the passengers cell phone calls, etc. So they may have speculated that it was shot down. If you recall, there were lots of other 'false events' that day that turned out to be merely rumor.

I would point out one thing: In the military, one does not go up in a plane and return without a missile without a lot of people noticing. This is one factor CT's never quite grasp. The military mindset is beuracracy-oriented and the modern equipment they use requires loads of maintenance. If you return having fired a missile, the crew is going to notice, as are the crews of other planes. You cannot simply silence a large group of people like this. And remember that miltary gossip is so prominent (and often unreliable) that it has its own terminology.

SynKronoS
2005-Nov-26, 06:45 PM
Readers may also like to note that Jason Gortician has twice been asked to explain what happened to the passengers on Flight77

thats an easy one that can even be answered by the horrendously atrocious "seconds from disaster" series put out by "national propaganda" oops i mean "geographic"--basically the air traffic control revealed exactly what happened-- even though this show is so full of lies it must be accepted as worthless the one thing it does reveal is that all the planes that were off course at the time over the atlantic suddenly cut off their transponders--at which point it is admitted that the planes were tracked into the airspace over the atlantic and their tracking ability lost--then other blips appear in completely different locations in a trajectory with their new impending targets at which point it is "assumed" they are the craft that had been tracked off course over the atlantic--watch it again--its obvious--i suggest searching in the atlantic for the alledged craft--other comments here about prof s jones excluding engineers is ludicrous-- any credentialed engineer is welcomed --when one your credentialed engineers takes up the cause please post back here with the link--but i'm not holding my breath

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-26, 06:52 PM
t-other comments here about prof s jones excluding engineers is ludicrous-- any credentialed engineer is welcomed --when one your credentialed engineers takes up the cause please post back here with the link--but i'm not holding my breath

There really is no point in taking on Dr. Jones, he has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the laws of physics, let alone any basis for structural engineering.

His article is useless gibberish. You may not accept that, but that is what it is.

SynKronoS
2005-Nov-26, 07:04 PM
There really is no point in taking on Dr. Jones, he has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the laws of physics, let alone any basis for structural engineering.

His article is useless gibberish. You may not accept that, but that is what it is.
"wow"--how about posting your credentials so that the casual observer can decide who is mistaken--you or the physics professor from BYU --im sure you have a "logical" reason for making this "assumption" perhaps you can enlighten us as to where err was made considering you feel so strongly about its certainty

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-26, 08:12 PM
"wow"--how about posting your credentials so that the casual observer can decide who is mistaken--you or the physics professor from BYU


I have a mere BA in physics from a small college.

But it does not matter. Applying the 2nd law of thermodynamics is nonsense whatever my, or Dr. Jones' credentials are.



--im sure you have a "logical" reason for making this "assumption" perhaps you can enlighten us as to where err was made considering you feel so strongly about its certainty

When he refers to the 'block' on the South Tower, he says its falling is 'in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics'. That is dreck. It has nothing to do with it.

In the thread specifically about Dr. Jones paper we covered more than a few boners by Dr. Jones.

KookBuster
2005-Nov-26, 08:42 PM
While I asked that CT believers check out that site and respond to it I did not expect any of them to actually do so.

However the response made is exactly what I expected, whatever evidence or explanations cannot be responded to is ignored and belittled. If you follow the links to the UFO hoxes in Post Nº174 on this thread you will see further evidence of this sort of mindset.

Readers may also like to note that Jason Gortician has twice been asked to explain what happened to the passengers on Flight77 (In this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=610272#post610272)), but has chosen not to do so.


The poster has been banned, as I'm sure you know.

It seems to me, any explanation of what happened to the passengers of said flight would imply acceptance of the notion that no 757 hit the Pentagon.

Surely that is not the case, hence the question is pointless. There are any number of possibilities, all of which hinge on the basic notion that no 757 hit the Pentagon.

Unless we accept that premise, the question is (to misuse a word) 'moot'.

SynKronoS
2005-Nov-26, 10:20 PM
I have a mere BA in physics from a small college.

But it does not matter. Applying the 2nd law of thermodynamics is nonsense whatever my, or Dr. Jones' credentials are.



When he refers to the 'block' on the South Tower, he says its falling is 'in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics'. That is dreck. It has nothing to do with it.

In the thread specifically about Dr. Jones paper we covered more than a few boners by Dr. Jones.
is that the best you got?--because you "think" it has nothing to do with it? --thermodynamics has everything to do with the official stroies version and stating that the south tower fell in accordance to a known law of physics is hardly dreck-- the fact that the supports were comprimised beneath that block that tipped over naturally is mathematically undeniable-- where is the logic in dismissing his theory --it should have taken longer to collapse end of story case closed--can you not find one physics professor passionate enough to defend the official story by disclosing their name and thesis?

akirabakabaka
2005-Nov-26, 11:11 PM
nothing has fallen except the illusion of the elite--you claim that there would be "more people" yet you ignore [...] and you still cant see whats right before your eyes?Other than the lack of a proper investigation which everyone knows, is any of that more than just speculation?

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-26, 11:25 PM
is that the best you got?--because you "think" it has nothing to do with it? --thermodynamics has everything to do with the official stroies version and stating that the south tower fell in accordance to a known law of physics is hardly dreck--

Yes, they did fall in accordance with the laws of physics. Those laws have the name "Newton" next to them. Not Thermodynamics. Citing 2LT in regards to a mechanical action is like delcaring a pot of water boils in accordance with The General Theory of Relativity.



the fact that the supports were comprimised beneath that block that tipped over naturally is mathematically undeniable-- where is the logic in dismissing his theory


Because it does not make a lick of sense.



--it should have taken longer to collapse end of story case closed--


No matter how many times you declare something to be so does not make it so. It is the same with Dr. Jones.



can you not find one physics professor passionate enough to defend the official story by disclosing their name and thesis?

Most will not bother with this nonsense. I am not going to waste their time with patently obvious nonsense just because someone falls for it.

akirabakabaka
2005-Nov-26, 11:30 PM
Wrong. You can cleary see debris, which is in free fall, falling faster than the collpasing building. We already covered this, and it is nothing more than a rehash of an old CT arguement. The buildings did fall fast, true, because there was quite a bit of potential energy in the building, and when steel gets multiple times its load capacity, it almost might as well not be there.Potential energy increases gravity?


Enough. I have already posted the link to the original Fire Engineering article (in .pfd, possibly in the other thread) which is not saying what the CT spin on it would have us think.He's talking about the government's disinterest in a thorough investigation into 9-11. That's my take on the whole 'conspiracy' of 9-11; it happened because our government failed terribly to prepare for it, and the lack of an investigation is because they want to avoid responsibility. Afterwards the adminstration got greedy and manipulated the situation to their advantage, but I doubt they were capable of planning it.

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-26, 11:48 PM
Potential energy increases gravity?


No lots of potential energy becomes lots of kinetic energy, which cannot be stopped by the upward force of the remaining structure. In fact the remaining structure does not even slow it down.

akirabakabaka
2005-Nov-26, 11:49 PM
I would point out one thing: In the military, one does not go up in a plane and return without a missile without a lot of people noticing. This is one factor CT's never quite grasp. The military mindset is beuracracy-oriented and the modern equipment they use requires loads of maintenance. If you return having fired a missile, the crew is going to notice, as are the crews of other planes. You cannot simply silence a large group of people like this. And remember that miltary gossip is so prominent (and often unreliable) that it has its own terminology.That ignores the point of the military not wanting to admit they shot down a civilian plane of their own citizens. Reminds me of Pat Tillman being killed by US troops in Afghanistan which was immediately covered up, and the public didn't know he was killed by friendly fire until months after he was propagandized as a hero. How many kept silent during that fiasco? Or Abu Ghraib, or now the secret CIA prisons? Certainly the military and government are capable of much more than you claim.

Frantic Freddie
2005-Nov-26, 11:52 PM
That ignores the point of the military not wanting to admit they shot down a civilian plane of their own citizens.


Proof,please?

akirabakabaka
2005-Nov-26, 11:58 PM
I've got a new scenario for you, SynKronoS. After the '93 bombings the tower basements were redesigned into control centers; what if the FBI bombed the basements the first time so that they could prepare them for 9-11? I quoted an NIST report in the BYU thread that says all of the documentation on those control centers was lost in the attack. How convenient!

kookbreaker
2005-Nov-27, 12:02 AM
That ignores the point of the military not wanting to admit they shot down a civilian plane of their own citizens. Reminds me of Pat Tillman being killed by US troops in Afghanistan which was immediately covered up, and the public didn't know he was killed by friendly fire until months after he was propagandized as a hero. How many kept silent during that fiasco? Or Abu Ghraib, or now the secret CIA prisons? Certainly the military and government are capable of much more than you claim.

I'd say Pat Tillman works against you here. This happened in Afganistan, which is extremely remote, in a combat zone, where munitions are expended and do not need to be accounted for.. and battle damage, and the truth of the matter still got out. The idea that an air-to-air missile, in a peacetime situation, could be loosed to destroy an airplane without anyone able to find out is ludicrous to anyone who has dealt with the military.

With loads of preparation, a special base, a minimal crew, and a jet fighter plane that is somehow magically 'off the roster', you juuuuuuust might be able to cover up something like this. But that assumes nothing goes wrong, and you remember what Murphy said about depending on things not going wrong.

If you have to do all this special preperation it brings the question: Why bother?

I'm sorry, but I find it a lot easier to beleive that the passengers, on hearing that the plane was going to be used as a weapon, decided to fight rather than sit by passively. That fight resulted in the plane's crash, most likely due to a sudden weight shift and a novice pilot.

akirabakabaka
2005-Nov-27, 12:34 AM
Proof,please?It wasn't a factual claim, I was stating the theory being discussed. The conspiracy being proposed was the military covering up shooting down a civilian plane.

akirabakabaka
2005-Nov-27, 12:37 AM
FAA worker says hijacked jeltiners almost collided before striking World Trade Center (http://www.the-movement.com/air%20operation/FAA%20worker%20says%20hijacked%20jeltiners%20almos t%20collided%20before%20striking%20World%20Trade%2 0Center.htm)

A hoax?

Graham2001
2005-Nov-27, 02:13 AM
thats an easy one that can even be answered by the horrendously atrocious "seconds from disaster" series put out by "national propaganda" oops i mean "geographic"--basically the air traffic control revealed exactly what happened-- even though this show is so full of lies it must be accepted as worthless the one thing it does reveal is that all the planes that were off course at the time over the atlantic suddenly cut off their transponders--at which point it is admitted that the planes were tracked into the airspace over the atlantic and their tracking ability lost--then other blips appear in completely different locations in a trajectory with their new impending targets at which point it is "assumed" they are the craft that had been tracked off course over the atlantic--watch it again--its obvious--i suggest searching in the atlantic for the alledged craft-- (Empasis added).

If the program is as you say, 'full of lies' how can you claim that the aircraft were crashed into the Atlantic based on evidence presented in it.

ktesibios
2005-Nov-27, 02:39 AM
FAA worker says hijacked jeltiners almost collided before striking World Trade Center (http://www.the-movement.com/air%20operation/FAA%20worker%20says%20hijacked%20jeltiners%20almos t%20collided%20before%20striking%20World%20Trade%2 0Center.htm)

A hoax?

I don't know about a hoax, but it seems unlikely. The last known communication between UA175's crew and the ground was at 8:42 AM. AA11 crashed into the North Tower at 8:46:40 AM. It seems reasonable to presume that before UA175 was hijacked it was on course for Los Angeles.

UA175 is thought to have been hijacked at about 8:45 AM, a minute and 40 seconds before AA11 crashed. The first definite indication that air traffic controllers had that something was wrong on 175 was at 8:47 AM, after AA11 crashed.

The two airplanes were simultaneously in the hands of hijackers for only two minutes or so. Since UA175 was most likely still on its way to L.A. until just before AA11 hit the tower, it seems very unlikely that they could have come close to each other.

SynKronoS
2005-Nov-27, 02:51 AM
(Empasis added).

If the program is as you say, 'full of lies' how can you claim that the aircraft were crashed into the Atlantic based on evidence presented in it.
let me put it this way-- if you had investigated it for your self from a completely unbiased and open perspective you would have concluded that the only verifyable information in the show was the fact that the planes went off course and their transponder signals were lost over the atlantic everything after that point is fanciful conjecture and inuendo

wayneee
2005-Nov-27, 04:46 AM
The two airplanes were simultaneously in the hands of hijackers for only two minutes or so. Since UA175 was most likely still on its way to L.A. until just before AA11 hit the tower, it seems very unlikely that they could have come close to each other
175 was close accordong to a documentary I watched. When the other plane had turned off its transponder traffic control asked 175 if they could see them. they responded that they spotted them. Little did they know that they were going to be hijacked 10 minutes later.

Graham2001
2005-Nov-27, 04:19 PM
verifyable information in the show was the fact that the planes went off course and their transponder signals were lost over the atlantic everything after that point is fanciful conjecture and inuendo

Could you please advise just where you were able to verify this?

ktesibios
2005-Nov-27, 07:10 PM
175 was close accordong to a documentary I watched. When the other plane had turned off its transponder traffic control asked 175 if they could see them. they responded that they spotted them. Little did they know that they were going to be hijacked 10 minutes later.

I found this:


United Airlines Flight 175, a Boeing 767 carrying 65 passengers from Boston to Los Angeles, took off from Logan Airport at 8:14 a.m. At 8:37 a.m. Boston Center polled United 175, along with other aircraft, about whether they had seen an "American 767" (American 11), and United 175's pilots said they had seen it. The controller turned United 175 away from it as a safety precaution.

here: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/6/17/125037.shtml

It's an AP report of a summary of the 9/11 Commission's report- although I can't find this information in the Commission's final report.

Looking at the maps of the flight paths of AA11 and UA175 in the final report (they're in chapter 1, available at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/ ) and comparing them to the USGS National Map, it does look like the paths of both planes passed over or near New Windsor NY. Since the maps don't provide timing information, it's impossible to say whether the planes themselves- as opposed to their tracks on the map- passed close to each other on their way to NYC.


let me put it this way-- if you had investigated it for your self from a completely unbiased and open perspective you would have concluded that the only verifyable information in the show was the fact that the planes went off course and their transponder signals were lost over the atlantic everything after that point is fanciful conjecture and inuendo

Look at the maps I've just referred to. None of the hijacked planes' flight paths pass over the Atlantic, nor, if you read the report, is there any indication that any of the planes were over the ocean when their transponder signals were lost. Have you got a credible source for your claim, or are you just repeating rumors from some PCT Web site?

SynKronoS
2005-Nov-27, 07:12 PM
Could you please advise just where you were able to verify this?
dont verify my comments verify the national propaganda show-- research and see exactly what can be backed up with eveidence-- only the flight data can be confirmed up to the point where the transponders were alledgedly turned off-- after that its all assumptions and heresay--

R.A.F.
2005-Nov-27, 07:51 PM
dont verify my comments verify the national propaganda show-- research and see exactly what can be backed up with eveidence--

Why don't you "research and see"? Why do you expect others to do your "work" for you? It is your claim, it is up to you to demonstrate it has merit.

So far your claims are nothing more than a "parroting" of CT websites...

...and using "cutesy" names to insult National Geographic is getting old...why don't you stop it.

Cl1mh4224rd
2005-Nov-27, 08:23 PM
dont verify my comments verify the national propaganda show-- research and see exactly what can be backed up with eveidence--
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about how debates are supposed to work, SynKronoS. You make a claim. You support your claim. If you can't support your claim, why make it?

You've been asked for a credible source for you claim that the transponders were turned off over the Atlantic. Still, it's been shown that your claim is quite dubious. I'd say people did do some research, and have actually shown it.

[post-warning (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=613019&postcount=241) edit]

twinstead
2005-Nov-28, 01:43 AM
If you can't support your claim, why make it?


I would imagine that simply making the claim, and thus joining a club of supremely enlightened souls who can't be duped by TPTB and are completely immune to propaganda, is part of the draw.

What could be more exciting to come on a board full of learned folks and some experts in their fields and telling them they are all full of crap? I mean screw any legitimate supporting evidence, that is probably a real rush to some.

Graham2001
2005-Nov-28, 02:03 AM
dont verify my comments verify the national propaganda show-- research and see exactly what can be backed up with eveidence

That's why I asked you to present your supporting evidence, at the moment, all you have done is restate your original claim.

SynKronoS
2005-Nov-28, 04:38 AM
Ohhh, I smell another ban lurking nearby.

You seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding about how debates are supposed to work, SynKronoS. You make a claim. You support your claim. If you can't support your claim, why make it?

You've been asked for a credible source for you claim that the transponders were turned off over the Atlantic. Still, it's been shown that your claim is quite dubious. I'd say people did do some research, and have actually shown it. It's your turn.
are you following the thread?? we are discussing the national geographic "seconds from disaster" series specifically the one about the pentagon-- watch it and you will see where i got my information-- as far as researching it goes it has clearly been expessed by me that researching it is exactly what i did and that all i could verify was the communications concerning the veer off course and subsequent loss of transpondance above the atlantic-- watch it for your self i may have been confused about the area where the transpondance was lost butthere is little doubt as to whether or not the pentagon plane was lost for over half an hour-- i merely called attention to the fact that the control tower was assuming that the craft picked up later vectoring the pentagon was the same they lost communications with and that its positive indentification is not possible with the current data available--

Cl1mh4224rd
2005-Nov-28, 06:10 AM
as far as researching it goes it has clearly been expessed by me that researching it is exactly what i did and that all i could verify was the communications concerning the veer off course and subsequent loss of transpondance above the atlantic--
And you don't seem to understand that you've been asked to provide the sources you used to verify the claim that the transpon--


[...] i may have been confused about the area where the transpondance was lost [...]
Wait, what? You just said you confirmed that there was a "loss of transpondance above the atlantic", and now you're saying you might be wrong? Am I missing something here?

For as much as you love to spam links, I find it hard to believe that you're reluctant to post one for your source(s).

Graham2001
2005-Nov-28, 07:02 AM
-- as far as researching it goes it has clearly been expessed by me that researching it is exactly what i did and that all i could verify was the communications concerning the veer off course and subsequent loss of transpondance above the atlantic-- (Emphasis Added)

Simply stating that you have proof of something, does not consitute proof.

Where did you verify this? In which book/news report or website did you find this proof?

Unless you are able to present this information, there is no way to judge the validity of it.

SynKronoS
2005-Nov-28, 07:18 AM
And you don't seem to understand that you've been asked to provide the sources you used to verify the claim that the transpon--


Wait, what? You just said you confirmed that there was a "loss of transpondance above the atlantic", and now you're saying you might be wrong? Am I missing something here?

For as much as you love to spam links, I find it hard to believe that you're reluctant to post one for your source(s).
i find it interesting that you would focus on a personal error of mine concerning "where" the transpondance was lost instead of the fact that it "was" lost for over half an hour-- diversion becomes you though and i rather enjoy the opportunities to alert you to the many damning facts while staying the course-- imo the audio of albert turi should be paramount as well as the testimony of paul issac jr and william rodriguez-- the "put options" stock trades signaling foreknowledge or the evidence destroyed in the collapses concerning 1) the case against Mobil Oil and James Giffen on illegal oil swaps between Iran and Kazakhstan (at that time before a New York grand jury as described in great detail by Seymore Hersh in the July 9 New Yorker magazine) 2) the evidence in the investigation of gold price fixing stemming from charges brought against Alan Greenspan, Morgan & Comapy, Goldman Sachs

ktesibios
2005-Nov-28, 08:16 AM
American Airlines Flight 77 was scheduled to depart from Washington Dulles for Los Angeles at 8:10. Flying from Washington to L.A. does not involve going over the Atlantic.


American 77 pushed back from its gate at 8:09 and took off at 8:20. At 8:46, the flight reached its assigned cruising altitude of 35,000 feet... At 8:51 American 77 transmitted its last routine radio communication

So now its been flying on a D.C-to-L.A. route for 31 minutes- going away from the ocean.


At 8:54, the aircraft deviated from its assigned course, turning south. Two minutes later the transponder was turned off and even primary radar contact was lost.

Foregoing quotes from pages 8 & 9 of the 9/11 Commission report.

When you're over West Virginia, turning south won't take you out to sea. The notion that a plane that had spent half an hour flying westward from D.C., then turned south, could in the two minutes between the unexpected turn and the loss of transponder signal have made it out over the Atlantic is patently absurd. The air traffic controllers co8ldn't find the plane on radar without the transponder, but does that mean that knowledge of its whereabouts was lost even to a post-attack investigation? We'll have to jump ahead to pages 24 & 25.


American 77 began deviating from its flight plan at 8:54, with a slight turn towards the south. Two minutes later, it disappeared completely from radar at Indianapolis Center, which was controlling the flight. The controller tracking American 77 told us he noticed the aircraft turning to the southwest, and then saw the data disappear. The controller looked for primary radar returns. He searched along the plane's projected flight path and the airspace to the southwest where it had started to turn. No primary targets appeared...

The failure to find a primary radar return for American 77 led us to investigate this issue further. Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56. But fo 8 minutes and 13 seconds, between 8:56 and 9:05, this primary radar information on American 77 was not displayed to controllers at Indianapolis center. The reasons are technical, arising from the way the software processed radar information, as well as from poor primary radar coverage where American 77 was flying.

According to the radar reconstruction, American 77 reemerged as a primary target on Indianapolis Center radar scopes at 9:05, east of its last known position. The target remained in Indianapolis Center's airspace for another six minutes, then crossed into the western portion of Washington Center's airspace at 9:10. As Indianapolis Center continued searching for the aircraft, two managers and the controller responsible for American 77 looked to the west and southwest along the flight's projected path, not east- where the aircraft was now heading. Managers did not instruct other controllers at Indianapolis Center to turn on their primary radar coverage to join in the search for American 77.

In sum, Indianapolis Center never saw Flight 77 turn around. By the time it reappeared in primary radar coverage, controllers had either stopped looking for the aircraft because they thought it had crashed or were looking toward the west.

So, the radar data of flight 77's path weren't lost to posterity- it was recorded, although there was a brief period when the controllers at Indianapolis were unable to see it.

We've already established that American 77 was in the territory of the Indianapolis traffic control center when its transponder was turned off, When it again became visible on Indianapolis Center scopes, it was still within their territory, to the west of the boundary with Washington Center's territory.

If you look at the map of Air Traffic Control Centers on page 15 of the Commission report, you'll see that Indianapolis Center's territory doesn't lie anywhere near the ocean and that the boundary with Washington Center is in the middle of West Virginia, which didn't have a seacoast the last time I checked.

In short, Flight 77 was not over the Atlantic, or anywhere near it, when its transponder was turned off, and it wasn't over the Atlantic, or anywhere near it, when its primary radar return again became visible.

The report I've quoted is drawn from primary sources- interviews with the controllers involved and analysis of recorded radar data. Against this, SynKronos offers an unsupported claim of what he thinks a TV show said.

That's not just clutching at straws, that's pulling them out of your posterior.

I see that in the time it took me to retype all those quotes (@#$% Acrobat files- can't copy/paste text from 'em) SynKronos has resorted to the usual PCT fallback position for when a wildly incorrect claim goes down in flames- Try to weasel out of the fact that you've just been caught making a massive blooper, introduce another unsupported claim (he's wrong about the "radar lost for half an hour"- AA77 was invisible to Indianapolis Center controllers for a little over 8 minutes and was not invisible to subsequent investigation) and then try flinging anything else that comes to mind in the hope that it might stick.

Sorry,that kind of play just don't answer for this league.

Hazzard
2005-Nov-28, 02:23 PM
Well,I dont know about the rest of you but to me that was almost to painful to watch:-) Nice debunking though ktesibios.

R.A.F.
2005-Nov-28, 02:53 PM
i merely called attention to the fact that the control tower was assuming that the craft picked up later vectoring the pentagon was the same they lost communications with and that its positive indentification is not possible with the current data available--

Fact?? What fact?? Positive identification not possible?? HUH?? The examples you have presented are your beliefs. And so far you have presented no evidence that your beliefs and the actual facts of the matter are in any way related to each other.


i rather enjoy the opportunities to alert you to the many damning facts while staying the course...

Once again...if these "damning facts" are so appearent, then why have you presented no evidence to "back them up"??

SynKronoS
2005-Nov-28, 06:56 PM
Sorry,that kind of play just don't answer for this league.
my post proceding this one clearly outlined my error and the FACT that it is irrelevant to the debate-- the fact that transpondance was lost and that the object picked up over half an hour later could have been anything-- do you not care about exposing the continuing cover-up?-- here is a quote from the link provided by ktesibios --even though its newsmax and from the 9/11 commisiion white wash it still shows that positive identification was lost and that the object that struck the pentagon could have been anything--
LINK (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/6/17/125037.shtml)


At 8:54 a.m., American 77 began deviating from its flight plan, first with a slight turn toward the south. Two minutes later it disappeared completely from Indianapolis radar. The controller tracking American 77 told us he first noticed the aircraft turning to the southwest, and then saw the data disappear. The controller looked for primary radar returns. He searched along its projected flight path and the airspace to the southwest where it had started to turn. No primary targets appeared. He tried the radios, first calling the aircraft directly, then the airline. Again there was nothing. At this point, the Indianapolis controller had no knowledge of the situation in New York. He did not know that other aircraft had been hijacked. He believed American 77 had experienced serious electrical and/or mechanical failure, and was gone.

In sum, Indianapolis Center never saw Flight 77 turn around. By the time it reappeared in primary radar coverage, controllers had either stopped looking for the aircraft because they thought it had crashed or were looking toward the west. In addition, while the Command Center learned Flight 77 was missing, neither it nor FAA headquarters issued an "all points bulletin" to surrounding centers to search for primary radar targets. American 77 traveled undetected for 36 minutes on a course heading due east for Washington, D.C.
there are lies within the commision report so it should not be considered conclusive-- again the overall picture is what should be looked at from a distance--you have to remember the purpose of this is to "cover-up" the truth rather than disclose it-- this is petty and the things we should be discussing are things like "why" bush and condi would say that we had never thought of commercial aircraft being used as weapons to target the wtc yet it is a known fact that cheney was in control of wargame drills dealing with "hi-jacked commercial aircraft targeting the wtc"-- again i am amazed at the hoops people will jump through to avoid reality-- if cheney's norad distraction,bush business connections to bin laden,silverstein's business "luck" and bldg7's collapse dont clue you in nothing will but that does not mean it is too late for others trying to make up their mind-- call me all the names you want but i am entitled to my opinion and the right to express it-- if i say the commission is lying thats my opinion and i can debate my position but trying to silence me is obviously the desire of some of you and i find it highly enlightening in observing the rationale of those who oppose me and vitrol they spew--
'

akirabakabaka
2005-Nov-28, 07:24 PM
I noticed SynKronoS has kind of a short attention span when it comes to supporting evidence, but he has a point about the official reports being incomplete or misleading. Throwing around random accusations doesn't help though, unless he plans on actually backing them up.

Sen. Dayton's "NORAD Lied" Transcript (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0408/S00028.htm)

Senator Dayton (D-MN) claimed the NORAD/FAA timeline is bogus. Maybe this is what SynKronos was talking about:

"The NORAD mission commander ordered his only three other planes on alert in Virginia to scramble and fly north to Baltimore. Minutes later when he was told that a plane was approaching Washington he learned that the planes were flying East over the Atlantic Ocean away from Baltimore and Washington so that when the third plane struck the Pentagon NORAD’s fighters were 150 miles away, farther than they were before they took off."

It looks like it was maybe the NORAD jets over the Atlantic, not the passenger planes? This whole story is messy, the transcript wasn't transcribed very well, but here are some other points:

"NORAD issued an official chronology that stated that the FAA notified NORAD of the second hijacking at 8:43, wrong, FAA notified NORAD of the third hijacking at 9:24"

"In public testimony before your 9/11 Commission in May of 2003 NORAD officials stated, I assume under oath, that at 9:16 they had received the hijack notification of United Flight 93 from the FAA. That hijacking did not occur until 9:28"

This is actually covered in the 9-11 commission report in the same pages cited by ktesibios, which lays out all of the false information provided by NORAD to the commission (what's with not being able to copy from these pdfs?):

"NORAD officials stated that at 9:16, NEADS received hijack notification of United 93 from the FAA. This statement was incorrect. [...] NORAD officials stated that at 9:24, NEADS received notification of the hijacking of American 77. This statement was also incorrect. [...] NORAD officials also stated that the Langley fighters were scrambled to respond to the notifications about American 77, United 93, or both. These statements were incorrect as well. [...] this reponse to a phantom aircraft was not recounted in a single public timeline [...] In fact, not only was the scramble prompted by the mistaken information about American 11, but NEADS never received notice that American 77 was hijacked. [...] They had been responding to a report about an aircraft that did not exist." (p.34)

Why was NORAD lying so heavily to the commission?

Cl1mh4224rd
2005-Nov-28, 11:06 PM
I see that more as proof of gross negligence and horrible communication rather than an evil conspiracy.

[post-warning (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=613019&postcount=241) edit]

jt-3d
2005-Nov-29, 12:55 AM
... but i am entitled to my opinion and the right to express it-- if i say the commission is lying thats my opinion and i can debate my position but trying to silence me is obviously the desire of some of you and i find it highly enlightening in observing the rationale of those who oppose me and vitrol they spew--
'

Yes indeed you are but you seem to state your opinion as fact. Just because you are convinced of something doesn't make it true.


do you not care about exposing the continuing cover-up?-
If I thought there was a coverup then yes I'd want it exposed. It's just that I don't think there is one. See, that's my opinion.

PhantomWolf
2005-Nov-29, 02:30 AM
Why was NORAD lying so heavily to the commission?

I'd suggest that it's a case of not attributing fraud where incomptence would work just as well.

akirabakabaka
2005-Nov-29, 03:01 AM
I see that more as proof of gross negligence and ****-poor communication rather than an evil conspiracy.If a group like NORAD concocts a story to cover up their gross negligence, then they conspired to mislead the public. Unless you are referring to some other arcane usage of the word?

wayneee
2005-Nov-29, 03:09 AM
I think the major reason for people thinking that thier is a 9/11 conspiracy can be summed up with "DISMAY"
I never would have thought it possible for ONE plane to be Hijacked so effieciently by so few people wielding box cutters. Then piloted correctly to a precise location. What are the odds that it would succeed? Then mulitiply that by Four or three and a half. We have never seen anything from terrorists so advanced, usualy they take a plane , take some hostages , make the pilot fly to Africa or Peru or something.
Look at the the other mass attack we suffered from, I mean the Japanese used thier own planes , what could have prepared us for this. Its too unreal to accept, we can understand imperial Japan attacking us. But this, REligous Zealots hating us because of what, our support of Isreal?
I am still DISMAYED!

WHarris
2005-Nov-29, 03:13 AM
Then piloted correctly to a precise location.

This is easy. All you need is a semi-competant pilot, the latitude/longitude of the WTC and a GPS reciever.

Peter B
2005-Nov-29, 03:53 AM
Wayneee said:
I never would have thought it possible for ONE plane to be Hijacked so effieciently by so few people wielding box cutters.

I don't see what's so hard about using weapons and violence to take control of a plane. People are generally a passive lot, and if the hijackers use violence the passengers are unlikely to want to draw that violence upon themselves.


Then piloted correctly to a precise location.

WHarris has already described how you'd do it with GPS. But even without it, how hard is it to navigate? Haven't you ever done it?


What are the odds that it would succeed? Then mulitiply that by Four or three and a half.

*shrug* I don't know. But people have taken over planes before, and navigated their way around. What specific problems could you foresee? That the passengers would fight back? We've already discussed how unlikely that is. That the pilots would get lost? I know that New York is on the coast of America. Failing all else, the hijackers could fly to the coast and turn north or south.


We have never seen anything from terrorists so advanced, usualy they take a plane , take some hostages , make the pilot fly to Africa or Peru or something.

The idea of a group of hijackers very specifically intending to end their lives that day, and killing as many people as possible, was unprecedented. Some individuals had previously hijacked planes and crashed them as a messy form of suicide, but such pacts had never been encountered before. And this is what made the response on the day so ineffective. If nothing else, the authorities would likely have been waiting for the hijackers to land somewhere and make their demands.

PhantomWolf
2005-Nov-29, 04:24 AM
I never would have thought it possible for ONE plane to be Hijacked so effieciently by so few people wielding box cutters.

Air NZ's one and only hijacking was done by one guy with a pocket knife. It was ended by one steward with a wine bottle, but it took several hours all while sitting on the runway at Suva.

One of the major problems in this debate is that most of the CT's look at the pre-9/11 times with a post-9/11 mind. The world was a different place, airport security was lax. Hijacked planes landed and where used as ransoms. Few planes had been hijacked in the continental US. The US Law agencies didn't talk to each other (actually they tended to actually keep information from each other.) Even prior to the second plane hitting the Towers, no-one in their right mind would have suggested shooting down a hijacked plane.

In the end to me it comes down to credibility. Bush and Co couldn't organise a booze up in a brewery, and they certainly couldn't keep it a secrect, whereas Al Quada have routinuely and still routinely attacks US and Western concerns and civilians without much trouble, keeping it reasonable quiet until the attack happens (although they screwed up in Jordan when they gave away one of their bombers not knowing her bomb had failed.) Out of the two I knw for sure which has the better ability to pull this off, and it sure isn't the US. Heck the last President can't even get a quickie in the Oval Room with the door locked without it becoming headline news and yet people want me to believe that the drongo in charge now could pull off 9/11 with just 7 months in office? Don't make me laugh.

Van Rijn
2005-Nov-29, 05:35 AM
I never would have thought it possible for ONE plane to be Hijacked so effieciently by so few people wielding box cutters.

Air NZ's one and only hijacking was done by one guy with a pocket knife. It was ended by one steward with a wine bottle, but it took several hours all while sitting on the runway at Suva.

One of the major problems in this debate is that most of the CT's look at the pre-9/11 times with a post-9/11 mind. The world was a different place, airport security was lax. Hijacked planes landed and where used as ransoms.

This can't be overemphasized: Before 9/11 the assumption was that your best chance at survival in a hijacking was to be quiet and let the terrorists take the plane where they wanted. There was no assumption that the terrorists wanted to commit suicide and mass murder. I grew up with hijacked plane jokes, especially about planes being hijacked to Cuba. There is a movie (I think "Our Man Flint") with a "turnabout is fair play" joke about a Soviet plane going to Cuba hijacked to go somewhere else. Hijackings were very rare anyway, and 9/11 was a complete shock. Actually, the impressive thing to me was that, even then, it didn't work all in the terrorists favor. When the people on flight 93 found out what was happening, they took action. They could have easily rationalized an excuse not to in hopes they were wrong.

SynKronoS
2005-Nov-29, 05:40 AM
Yes indeed you are but you seem to state your opinion as fact. Just because you are convinced of something doesn't make it true.


If I thought there was a coverup then yes I'd want it exposed. It's just that I don't think there is one. See, that's my opinion.
well the fact i was refering to in that statement was that "transpondance was lost" and i confused the area where it occurred-- i dont have that NG seconds from disaster pentagon episode recorded so ill have to wait until it airs again but i think akira was right -i may have been recalling the location of the intercepting jets when the signal was relocated-- this particular err may have polluted my use of the word "fact" here but i can assure you that i dont use it loosely-- i have not been here long please check my posts and you will see that every time i used that term it was referenced-- believe me i think it would have come back to me by now-- the guys/girls here are pretty focused on details-- although i have to say there could be somewhat of a double standard here-- many points of interest damning to the official story go uncommented on:doh:

Hazzard
2005-Nov-29, 09:01 AM
This can't be overemphasized: Before 9/11 the assumption When the people on flight 93 found out what was happening, they took action. They could have easily rationalized an excuse not to in hopes they were wrong.

Even if flight 93 would have been left alone by the passengers and smashed right into the White House,Bush not at home and all,the CTs would still claim it was planned and executed by the US government.

And if GW would have been killed,well,just blame some one else.Anyone but the 19 terrorists and their leader UBL.

Tolls
2005-Nov-29, 11:33 AM
<snip>
-- the fact that transpondance was lost and that the object picked up over half an hour later could have been anything--
<snip>


Why do you keep saying this?
It has been pointed out that the plane was on the radar the whole time, but due to the way the system worked it would not appear on the controllers monitors (even with primary data being displayed) for some 10 minutes, by which time it was off in a completely different direction than expected.

Therefore, the plane was never "lost" to the radar, just to the operators. So, no, it couldn't have been "anything".

Tolls
2005-Nov-29, 11:35 AM
Even if flight 93 would have been left alone by the passengers and smashed right into the White House,Bush not at home and all,the CTs would still claim it was planned and executed by the US government.

And if GW would have been killed,well,just blame some one else.Anyone but the 19 terrorists and their leader UBL.

Exactly.
No matter which way it had turned out (even the planes missing the towers) the CTs would have weaved a complicated story together to turn it into some deep government conspiracy.

Graham2001
2005-Nov-29, 02:05 PM
well the fact i was refering to in that statement was that "transpondance was lost" and i confused the area where it occurred-- i dont have that NG seconds from disaster pentagon episode recorded so ill have to wait until it airs again...

As a polite suggestion, why not try your local video/DVD shop and see if they have a copy.

However, that does not eliminate your responsibility to provide the sources (other than your say so) that confirm your assertation that the 911 aircraft were crashed and other aircraft substituted.


-- the guys/girls here are pretty focused on details-- although i have to say there could be somewhat of a double standard here--

Of course we are, it's not simply enough to say 'look at the big picture', if you cannot verify your minor claims, then it makes your major conclusions look suspect, this applies both to 'Independant' and 'Mainstream' sources.


...many points of interest damning to the official story go uncommented on

I think you might want to look at the comments made about some of your sources here (http://911myths.com/index.html). As I've noted above, both 'Independant' media sources are just as prey to seletive quoting and 'spin' as 'mainstream' sources.

Wolverine
2005-Nov-30, 02:18 AM
I see that more as proof of gross negligence and ****-poor communication rather than an evil conspiracy.

Cl1mh4224rd, please watch your language. If a term shows up as asterisks in your, it's bad language censored by the forum software and not allowed here. Additionally, your comments here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=611058#post611058) are inappropriate; banning is a last resort undertaken by the forum staff, not something that should be gossiped about by members. If a user violates the forum rules and/or posts something you feel inappropriate, make use of the report feature so we can handle it accordingly.

Skyfire
2005-Dec-06, 03:15 PM
An interesting thought that I don't seem to have seen mentioned about the 9/11 attack on the pentagon. PLEASE NOTE though, that this is only speculation on my part, there is no proof as such ..... it just kind of sounds plausible.....

The CT believers often seem to mention that "all video evidence was confiscated after the event" and all we now have to go on are a few scraps that were released into the public domain prior to this (supposed??) confiscation.

Now, looking at this from the UK, it strikes me that the building hit (in this case) was the Pentagon which, unless I am very much mistaken, is the controlling centre of all things military to do with the US. Yes?

If so, it would make a kind of sense for there to be some sort of significant "point defence" around it. And they probably want to keep this secret, or at best "low key". Therefore, if this was true, and there was a load of video in the public domain showing the plane strike, some of that footage could quite likely show some of the defense measures in operation ..... which, if this were true, were obviously not good enough .... !! ... It could just be that they wanted none or as little as possible of this information getting out. Now there's a possible conspiracy theory for you!

However, I am speculating from the grounds of no known evidence whatsoever (AFIK) ...... in which case it MUST be a conspiracy?!! .... :) :)

Cl1mh4224rd
2005-Dec-06, 03:27 PM
If so, it would make a kind of sense for there to be some sort of significant "point defence" around it. And they probably want to keep this secret, or at best "low key".
Well, the Pentagon is also a highly visible building. If there were some kind of defense mechanism that they wanted to keep secret, the Pentagon wouldn't be the best place to deploy it. Also, being highly visible, it's not just video evidence you'd have to keep under wraps; there were plenty of witnesses...

JayUtah
2005-Dec-06, 04:22 PM
The Pentagon is the headquarters of the U.S. military, but it is largely a public building made to handle most of the bureaucracy. There is even a Metro stop in the basement. If you've never been there, it's easy to get the notion that it's an impregnable fortress. But in fact there are gift shops. Yes, there are secret areas of the Pentagon, and yes, some of the operational control is conducted from it. But it doesn't have the same security context as, say, a Navy or Air Force base.

The other problem -- and this is true of a lot of potential terror targets -- is that the Pentagon is surrounded by populated areas. Across the Potomac is the urban District of Columbia. To the northwest is Arlington. To the south is another urban center. To the west there are residences. Shooting down an aircraft that is aimed at the Pentagon means it will fall someplace where it might actually cause more loss of life.

You can shoot down an airplane aimed at Whitehall, for example, but how do you keep it from falling on Islington?

Peter B
2005-Dec-07, 12:01 AM
Another point is that the Pentagon is close to a major airport. Any defence system which can shoot down commercial planes is going to have to be *very* carefully managed given the number of commercial planes which fly close to it all the time.

Monique
2005-Dec-07, 12:19 AM
Another point is in democracies human rights come before security.

Skyfire
2005-Dec-07, 12:25 AM
The Pentagon is the headquarters of the U.S. military, but it is largely a public building made to handle most of the bureaucracy. There is even a Metro stop in the basement. If you've never been there, it's easy to get the notion that it's an impregnable fortress. But in fact there are gift shops. Yes, there are secret areas of the Pentagon, and yes, some of the operational control is conducted from it. But it doesn't have the same security context as, say, a Navy or Air Force base.

The other problem -- and this is true of a lot of potential terror targets -- is that the Pentagon is surrounded by populated areas. Across the Potomac is the urban District of Columbia. To the northwest is Arlington. To the south is another urban center. To the west there are residences. Shooting down an aircraft that is aimed at the Pentagon means it will fall someplace where it might actually cause more loss of life.

You can shoot down an airplane aimed at Whitehall, for example, but how do you keep it from falling on Islington?

<puts on HB hat> All irrelevant because what I said MUST be true ...! <takes off HB hat> .... actually Jay, I think you just shot down any thoughts I thought I had on the subject! (and I did say they were just thoughts) The pictures I have seen (admittedly very few) seemd to suggest at least SOME green areas surrounding the pentagon. I guess if it is generally surrounded by urban area the last thing you want to do is shoot down a plane in the area, especially if a mistake could happen .....


Another point is that the Pentagon is close to a major airport. Any defence system which can shoot down commercial planes is going to have to be *very* carefully managed given the number of commercial planes which fly close to it all the time.

.... so therefore unlikely to be much of anything defending it I guess.

I was just wondering ..... would we brits want to shoot down a plane aimed at Whitehall?! :)

PhantomWolf
2005-Dec-07, 03:13 AM
Actually I don't really see anything unusual about it. 9/11 is an ongoing FBI investigation. As such they are responsible for obtaining and maintaining any and all evidence that they can. Part of that is keeping such evidence for any court case that might occur at a later date. Releasing the evedence publically prior to any court case could easily be seen as prejudical to the defendant of the case and could even see the evidence, or worse the entire case thrown out. As such the releasing of evidence is a very bad idea. If they hadn't gathered together any footage that might have shown the crash I'd be worried, and if they released it all I'd be even more worried because it'd mean they weren't planning to prosecute anyone for it and were likely closing the case.

JayUtah
2005-Dec-07, 07:05 AM
The green area near the Pentagon is Arlington National Cemetery: well-populated, but with people who are fortunately already dead. You would avoid great loss of life if you could shoot down a plane so that it crashed there, but there would be sentimental injury. Arlington National Cemetery is equivalent, in some ways, to Westminster Abbey -- many honored dead are buried there.

But the problem of protecting our capital from air attack has always included the calculated risk of having wreckage fall on heavily-occupied areas. A plane that breaks up at 5,000 feet will shower debris over a large area. That has to be weighed against the value of the apparent target. And the need to conduct business over a wide geographic area near the capital makes no-fly zones problematic. As has been noted, the Pentagon is near the principal domestic airport for the capital.

Security, by definition, is inconvenient. And therefore there is always a vacillation between safety and convenience, depending upon which is most valued at any one time.

PhantomWolf
2005-Dec-07, 07:55 AM
Whereas we'd be celebrating if someone flew a plane into the Beehive.