who were behind 9/11? [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

TomCollins

12-13-2005, 03:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
He makes the same mistake as many other documentary film-makers. He exaggerates a few claims which are not correct and thus bring down the overall credibility of the film. I.e. he says the fire could not bring down the building. The fire could definately bring down the building. Fire fighters don't like lightweight buildings like WTC since they do not absorb high amounts of energy.

I personally think the Pennsylvania plane was shut down though.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it was shot down, it would have broken apart in the air. The impact crater is consistent with a nose-dive at a high rate of speed (most crashes are glides into the ground at a slower rate).

I don't think it's unreasonable to think it would have been shot down if it was airborne much longer.

UATrewqaz

12-13-2005, 03:59 PM

Bush orchastrated 9/11 so that the public would be focused on terrorism, thereby allowing him and Halliburton to blow up the levys in New Orleans.

Wes ManTooth

12-13-2005, 04:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I really don't understand how people can be smart enough to use a computer, find a video on the internet, watch it. Then be dumb enough to believe what it says especially in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Beer and Pizza

12-13-2005, 04:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I really don't understand how people can be smart enough to use a computer, find a video on the internet, watch it. Then be dumb enough to believe what it says especially in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Pull the wool from your eyes. In a mere 27 steps starting with the Kennedy assassination, I can prove that today's Iraq quagmire was planned by the Bush family and their willing cohorts. Get your head out of the sand, man.

Rduke55

12-13-2005, 04:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If anybody cares, here's (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=2647915&page=0&fpart=1&v c=1) the link to the original thread. If you have a question regarding the 9/11 conspiracy, chances are somebody already asked it in that thread. And chances are that I or SpearsBritney answered it. Check it out if you got some time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you get a cut of that video's profits or what?

KellyRae

12-13-2005, 06:23 PM

Really stupid post.

Marnixvdb

12-13-2005, 06:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Explain to me why I should listen to someone who starts off the thread with "who were"...?

[/ QUOTE ]

you shouldnt if you don't want to. Excuse me for my grammar errors, im not a native english speaker.

Marnixvdb

12-13-2005, 06:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't want to watch an hour long video so summarize please so I can rip apart your claims. Thank You.

Melch

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't want to watch, fine. Im not claiming anything, just that the video made me think about the whole event again and that it cast doubt on what I thought I knew what happened on 9/11.

I have no clear judgement on the issue and would rather not believe the claims in the video. I also have serious doubt about the methods they use, and find some of the issues they adress bogus. Still I've always had a hard time understanding how the WTC towers 1,2 & especially 7 collapsed in they way the did (fast and on their own footprint). Cause and effect don't seem to correspond very well. This is one of the issues adressed in the video.

Anyway, I will not summarize the claims of the video as Cumulonimbus refered me to a thread that had discussion on most of them, i'll read that first.

Marnix

12-13-2005, 07:01 PM

Tom, I too believe that the plane over Pennsylvania was shot down. When the plane abruptly changed course over Cleveland (it was already known by this time that it had been hijacked) two fighters were scrambled from the airforce base in Dayton, Ohio. They would've caught up with this plane precisely where the plane went down.
Also, there is reason to believe that the order had already been given. It's not clear if Bush had given the order, but it's fairly certain that Cheney had.
Moreover, Rumsfeld, in a press conference mentioned, "when the plane over Pennsylvania was shot down" then, after realizing what he just said, corrected himself. There's no reason to believe that the plane couldn't have been shot down, it has been a long standing policy to do such, just never been enforced before. If you recall a few years ago the situation with the golfer in a private plane that was flying around aimlessly over the midwest and ultimately crashed (they had lost pressure and everyone on board fell unconscious) the order had already been given to shoot it down, they were just waiting until it the debris would fall into a less populated area before shooting it down. However, the plane began to plummet before they had the opportunity they wanted to shoot it down. I think the administration just does not want to admit that they are responsible for the incident over Pennsylvania. Of course, it is entirely reasonable that they did not shoot it down, I just feel that, after three planes had been used as missles, they didn't want to take any chances and brought it down. By the way, it is possible to take a plane down without it breaking up into a million pieces.

BCPVP

12-13-2005, 07:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Explain to me why I should listen to someone who starts off the thread with "who were"...?

[/ QUOTE ]

you shouldnt if you don't want to. Excuse me for my grammar errors, im not a native english speaker.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry then. But this topic has been covered here and I'd rather not watch an hour long rehash.

BCPVP

12-13-2005, 07:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Still I've always had a hard time understanding how the WTC towers 1,2 & especially 7 collapsed in they way the did (fast and on their own footprint).

[/ QUOTE ]
This is another of the conspiracy theorists' claims that I haven't understood. If it's so illogical that the buildings would collapse this way, why wouldn't the gov't rig the building to collaps on surrounding buildings and cause more damage? Obviously they aren't concerned with lives or $'s of damage since they're doing it anyway. So if they're so smart that they can rig this entire scheme to go off without a hitch, why finish it in some illogical fashion and blow their credibility? Is it totally outside the realm of possibility that what happened is naturally what would happen if a plane crashed into such a building?

Shouldn't a computer program be able to show what happened in virtual reality and be able to repeat this and adjust for the variables involved?

jokerthief

12-13-2005, 07:58 PM

Osama didn't do this. It was the Illuminati but the Illuminati isn't really the bad guy. The bad guys are the Jesuits. The Illuminati are really trying free everyone from Jesuit rule but they have to do things like 911 to apease the Jesuits and trick them into thinking that they are a puppet group of the Jesuits. The Jesuits aren't really the top of the pyramid though. They are controlled by reptilian arachnids who live in the center of the earth. The earth, you see, is really hollow and the master race of reptillian arachnids reign from in there. Tolken was a clandestine Jesuit agent and Shelob and Orcs were meant to represent the reptillian arachnids. Also, did you notice that Darth Maul was reptilian looking and the robot leader in Revenge of the Sith looked kinda like a spider. Oh yeah, that is spooky! I think George Lucas is really a reptillian amphibian (the arachnids are too important to come to the surface world, amphibians are lesser beings).

There is so much more to this. PM me and I'll get more into it.

Arnfinn Madsen

12-13-2005, 08:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Explain to me why I should listen to someone who starts off the thread with "who were"...?

[/ QUOTE ]

you shouldnt if you don't want to. Excuse me for my grammar errors, im not a native english speaker.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry then. But this topic has been covered here and I'd rather not watch an hour long rehash.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some parts were interesting, I recommend to watch it.

Marnixvdb

12-13-2005, 08:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Still I've always had a hard time understanding how the WTC towers 1,2 & especially 7 collapsed in they way the did (fast and on their own footprint).

[/ QUOTE ]
This is another of the conspiracy theorists' claims that I haven't understood. If it's so illogical that the buildings would collapse this way, why wouldn't the gov't rig the building to collaps on surrounding buildings and cause more damage? Obviously they aren't concerned with lives or $'s of damage since they're doing it anyway. So if they're so smart that they can rig this entire scheme to go off without a hitch, why finish it in some illogical fashion and blow their credibility? Is it totally outside the realm of possibility that what happened is naturally what would happen if a plane crashed into such a building?

Shouldn't a computer program be able to show what happened in virtual reality and be able to repeat this and adjust for the variables involved?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is very complex to simulate what would happen exactly, but basic physics says it is not very likely that a building like the WTC tower collapses in 10seconds total after structural failure. Then again, neither can I say it is 'totally outside of the realm of possibility' that what happened could have been caused by the plane crashes.

On buildings 1 & 2 that is. Which leaves the odd collapse of 7. If the fire caused it to collapse, that would be a huge enigeering failure.

BCPVP

12-13-2005, 08:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
basic physics says it is not very likely that a building like the WTC tower collapses in 10seconds total after structural failure.

[/ QUOTE ]
Mind you, I haven't taken a physics class, but I would think that several hundred tons of building collapsing and gaining momentum wouldn't take all that long. Why would it take longer after total structural failure if it's caused by an airplane as opposed to demolition?

Marnixvdb

12-13-2005, 09:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
basic physics says it is not very likely that a building like the WTC tower collapses in 10seconds total after structural failure.

[/ QUOTE ]
Mind you, I haven't taken a physics class, but I would think that several hundred tons of building collapsing and gaining momentum wouldn't take all that long. Why would it take longer after total structural failure if it's caused by an airplane as opposed to demolition?

[/ QUOTE ]

The towers collapsed in 10 seconds, which corresponds with the time an object would need to fall down from the height of the building. If a building collapses because of structural failure on the upper or intermediate floors, first the upper part would fall on floor where the support fails. Then the support of a lower floor would fail, the building falls further down, etc. This process gain momentum quickly, but because of the resistance (or "friction") of the underlying structure, it would take more than the freefall time of an object falling down from the same altitude. Maybe if things lined up perfectly the difference would be hard to notice, I don't know enough about it to make an educated guess.

But like I said previously, it's the collapse of building 7 that really puzzles me.

12-13-2005, 09:49 PM

Did Osama claim responsibility for the attack?

Cyrus

12-13-2005, 09:54 PM

I was guessing the same people who were on the grassy knoll but then I thought Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld.

Then somebody told me it was Cheney and Rumsfeld on the grassy knoll! It all makes sense.

12-13-2005, 10:51 PM

The idea that the planes and ensuing fire could not cause the towers to collapse is quite comical. The ignorance of many a poster is astounding. I have a degree in engineering and fire prevention. Unless you have similar expertise and can give me a legitimate reason why the towers couldn't collapse, Shut The F Up.

Arnfinn Madsen

12-13-2005, 10:56 PM

As you could see I typed that I think that was what happened, but thinking that you have a monopoly of analyzing this since you have a degree is very arrogant and incorrect. You need more than a degree to know if what the professors tell you is correct or not. I would take an analytical modest person's opinion over an arrogant expert.

12-13-2005, 11:19 PM

12-13-2005, 11:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
As you could see I typed that I think that was what happened, but thinking that you have a monopoly of analyzing this since you have a degree is very arrogant and incorrect. You need more than a degree to know if what the professors tell you is correct or not. I would take an analytical modest person's opinion over an arrogant expert.

[/ QUOTE ]
And my point is that people who have no knowledge of lightweight highrise construction and fire behavior are spouting off opinions as fact just because they see/hear/read something somewhere. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if they want to add something to the discussion, why not deal in facts and science.

HopeydaFish

12-14-2005, 12:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Explain to me why I should listen to someone who starts off the thread with "who were"...?

[/ QUOTE ]

you shouldnt if you don't want to. Excuse me for my grammar errors, im not a native english speaker.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry then. But this topic has been covered here and I'd rather not watch an hour long rehash.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some parts were interesting, I recommend to watch it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I watched it. I found it interesting. A lot (most) of it is hogwash, but there were a couple of things that I did find pretty compelling. If anything, it'll make me do a little research into some of the claims he made.

NobodysFreak

12-14-2005, 12:26 AM

What counts as science isn't entirely objective. Not to discredit your claim. I agree with you that the planes are capable of brining down the towers and I'm sure you're much more knowledgable about buildings, but to think that engineering and science aren't infuenced by policy and opinion is incorrect.

Cumulonimbus

12-14-2005, 02:28 AM

Here's some random links I have for any of you guys that want to further your investigations.

ABC- Operation Northwoods (a must read!) (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662)

VIDEO: Owner of WTCs admits they "pulled" the building (http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html)

911 Truth (http://www.911truth.org/) Very informative and reliable stuff. You should spend a lot of time here.

EDIT: And two pre-collapse images of the Pentagon. These are what initially drew me in.

http://www.thepowerhour.com/images/pentagonhole.jpg

http://212.87.68.69/phpwebsite/images/photoalbum/1/pentagoncompare.jpg

Flame away.

-Kyle

EDIT 2 - Man, I haven't gotten into this stuff forever. I stopped thinking about it a while ago cuz it just makes ya sad. Anyways, I found a cool little video ... not much for 9/11 evidence, but it illustrates the motives behind it. This was found at 911truth.org (http://www.911blogger.com/2005/11/ask-questions-demand-answers-new-video.html)

Marnixvdb

12-14-2005, 06:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that the planes and ensuing fire could not cause the towers to collapse is quite comical. The ignorance of many a poster is astounding. I have a degree in engineering and fire prevention. Unless you have similar expertise and can give me a legitimate reason why the towers couldn't collapse, Shut The F Up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Banks, I haven't said that the towers could not have collapsed because of the plane crashes, only that the way how they collapsed struck me as inconsistent with the damage.

Also, I have stressed a few times that I am mainly interested in WTC tower 7 - the 47 story building that collapsed later on the day. I have a degree in architecture and engineering, and although I am not a fire-prevention specialist, I have been trained in designing buildings to perform under heavy strain. I cannot explain how the fires in building 7 could have caused it to collapse like it did (symmetrical, fast, on its own footprint). And I know they shouldnt have.

Maybe you can explain it to me with your expertise?

Marnix

BCPVP

12-14-2005, 07:03 AM

FWIW, I have talked to a firefighter who was at the Pentagon. She said it was a plane and she hates Bush. Uber-liberal, so she has no reason to cover for the administration. She even ragged on people like Rumsfeld for trying to "help" while they were really just in the way.

Cumolo, you do see a huge difference between the Pentagon building and Slobodan's house, right? Like the fact that a good chunk of the face of the building is on fire in the Pentagon, but in Slobodan's house the damage is mostly interior (makes sense, the missle penetrates and then explodes). There's hardly any fire damage to Slobodan's house. How can you make that comparison?

12-14-2005, 07:50 AM

i was at a party once, and there was a guy there who had worked for the green party. anyway, on 9/11 he was staying at some hotel near the pentagon, i think he said it was the sheraton, anyway, he said he was in his room, heard a roar, looked out and saw a plane flying really low. then like 30 seconds later, loud explosion. unrelated conversation revealed him to be pretty anti bush. in any event, there are tons of witnesses who saw the plane which hit the pentagon as it made its final approach. if you want to jump on a conspirocy theory, go with the, "yeah it was planes, but the cia/mossad orchestrated the attack" Also, think about the logistics if this were an inside job. We cant even kidnap arabs in europe. tortue and fly them around without getting found out. NO WAY we could pull this off.

Arnfinn Madsen

12-14-2005, 07:55 AM

I think you are one of the guys paid by CIA to post such stories on the internet.

(just kidding)

mackthefork

12-14-2005, 08:34 AM

Marnixvdb

12-14-2005, 09:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if they want to add something to the discussion, why not deal in facts and science.

[/ QUOTE ]

see this article (http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html) by prof. David Griffin for a scientic, factual analysis of the collapses, and of the theories of collapse from the NIST, FEMA an 9/11 comission reports.

I warn you it's long, but if you want to see facts and science you shouldnt be bothered by that.

wh1t3bread

12-14-2005, 10:08 AM

Try playing golf on this:

http://members.shaw.ca/freedomtwo/wreckage.jpg

Exsubmariner

12-14-2005, 11:21 AM

Post to the OP:
I watched your whole video. Interesting.

I have a couple of questions for you. These are proceeding from the standpoint that this production is, at face value accurate. I am also making the assumption that the producers of this video are in no way interested in perpetuation of this theory because they have an interest in making a living off of it.

First Question: What is to be gained by whom for pulling off this sort of coup?
Second Question: Once that objective is gained, what are they going to do with it?

12-14-2005, 01:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if they want to add something to the discussion, why not deal in facts and science.

[/ QUOTE ]

see this article (http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html) by prof. David Griffin for a scientic, factual analysis of the collapses, and of the theories of collapse from the NIST, FEMA an 9/11 comission reports.

I warn you it's long, but if you want to see facts and science you shouldnt be bothered by that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Read the article. I really wouldn't call it factual or scientific. He obviously has an agenda and does a lot of A to B to Z logic to fit his claims. I'll give you one example where he talks about a sampling of 1% of the core and 3% of the perimeter steel beams showing low temp. fire damage. He then concludes that there was insufficient damage to the steel to cause the collapse. Hardly a proper scientific sampling to draw conclusions from on many levels. Found the article quite entertaining.

Marnixvdb

12-14-2005, 01:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if they want to add something to the discussion, why not deal in facts and science.

[/ QUOTE ]

see this article (http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html) by prof. David Griffin for a scientic, factual analysis of the collapses, and of the theories of collapse from the NIST, FEMA an 9/11 comission reports.

I warn you it's long, but if you want to see facts and science you shouldnt be bothered by that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Read the article. I really wouldn't call it factual or scientific. He obviously has an agenda and does a lot of A to B to Z logic to fit his claims. I'll give you one example where he talks about a sampling of 1% of the core and 3% of the perimeter steel beams showing low temp. fire damage. He then concludes that there was insufficient damage to the steel to cause the collapse. Hardly a proper scientific sampling to draw conclusions from on many levels. Found the article quite entertaining.

[/ QUOTE ]

EDIT: the following quote is from the article

"NIST (2005) says that it “did not generalize these results, since the examined columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns and 1 percent of the core columns from the fire floors”. That only such a tiny percent of the columns was available was due, of course, to the fact that government officials had most of the steel immediately sold and shipped off. In any case, NIST’s findings on the basis of this tiny percent of the columns are not irrelevant: They mean that any speculations that some of the core columns reached much higher temperatures would be just that---pure speculation not backed up by any empirical evidence."

Funny. It seems like the author and you agree on not drawing conclusions on too small sample sizes.

I would still be interested to hear from you, from your fire-prevention expertise, how the fire in building 7 caused it to implode in the way it did.

Marnix

Andrew Fletcher

12-14-2005, 01:53 PM

Best. Response. Ever.

Go White Soxs, by the way! Who do you like for the super bowl? I'm with Indy.

Andrew Fletcher

12-14-2005, 01:55 PM

I have yet to meet a liberal who isn't completely insane who actually thinks that. Frankly, the right has a lot more to gain from these conspiaracy theories than the left.

Marnixvdb

12-14-2005, 02:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Post to the OP:
I watched your whole video. Interesting.

I have a couple of questions for you. These are proceeding from the standpoint that this production is, at face value accurate. I am also making the assumption that the producers of this video are in no way interested in perpetuation of this theory because they have an interest in making a living off of it.

First Question: What is to be gained by whom for pulling off this sort of coup?
Second Question: Once that objective is gained, what are they going to do with it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good questions. The attack would create huge national and international support for (inter)national operations that could be linked to the attack, enabling the group of people in charge to chase geopolitical interests that go hand in hand with vested personal interests in the companies profiting from the operations. This, in the middle long term, would enable this group of people to lead U.S. to worldwide economic and military dominance, and to keep hold of the leadership.

I believe I have stated it before: I'd rather not believe the claims and the scenario from above, but I have questions about the perfect collapse of above all WTC7 that I cannot answer. And if WTC7 was brought down (I have heard no other reasonable explanation for the collapse of WTC7), then what happened to the other towers, and what does it imply for the other events on the day. I hope that Banks2334 can shed some light on the collapse of WTC7.

Exsubmariner

12-14-2005, 02:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Good questions. The attack would create huge national and international support for (inter)national operations that could be linked to the attack, enabling the group of people in charge to chase geopolitical interests that go hand in hand with vested personal interests in the companies profiting from the operations. This, in the middle long term, would enable this group of people to lead U.S. to worldwide economic and military dominance, and to keep hold of the leadership. [\quote]

Why is this a bad thing, for me as a US citizen, that is?
Why would it be a bad thing for the citizens of US allied countries?
Would there perhaps be a broader objective than just simple military and economic dominance, which the US already obtained at the end of the cold war?

[ QUOTE ]

I believe I have stated it before: I'd rather not believe the claims and the scenario from above, but I have questions about the perfect collapse of above all WTC7 that I cannot answer. And if WTC7 was brought down (I have heard no other reasonable explanation for the collapse of WTC7), then what happened to the other towers, and what does it imply for the other events on the day. I hope that Banks2334 can shed some light on the collapse of WTC7.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I remember watching on ABC news on 9/11 and the announcers said that WTC7 was intentionally detonated because of the structural damage caused by the collapse of WTC 1&2. I don't know if that adds anything to the discussion or proves or disproves anything.

Arnfinn Madsen

12-14-2005, 02:22 PM

But what I don't get and is one of the many reasons why I don't believe in this conspiracy is that it wasn't necessary. If Bush wanted to attack Afghanistan, he would not meet much international opposition anyway. And it was not made in a way to justify an attack on Iraq either. The only one benefiting from such an attack would be Al-Qaida.....

MelchyBeau

12-14-2005, 02:38 PM

i'm a liberal and hate bush, however this is BS.

One of the major flaws of these peoples arguements is that all hydrocarbons burn at the same temperature. This is completely wrong. Whoever thought this was a good point should be forced to go back and reread an elementary chemistry book.

Second, there is talk about how fast the buildings collapsed? The buildings didn't initially fall the second the plane hit. There was some additional time. The fire could have easily weakened the structure. You've already heard the momentum talk.

Arnfinn is right about the conspiracy theory. However I think he left out one little detail. Why would Bush be reading my pet goat in front of children when this was happening. Why would he target the pentagon?

Melch

Marnixvdb

12-14-2005, 02:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why is this a bad thing, for me as a US citizen, that is?
Why would it be a bad thing for the citizens of US allied countries?
Would there perhaps be a broader objective than just simple military and economic dominance, which the US already obtained at the end of the cold war?

[/ QUOTE ]

The bad thing would be that you'd be submitted by a leadership that decieves, lies and kills to pursuit their personal, financial and political objectives.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I believe I have stated it before: I'd rather not believe the claims and the scenario from above, but I have questions about the perfect collapse of above all WTC7 that I cannot answer. And if WTC7 was brought down (I have heard no other reasonable explanation for the collapse of WTC7), then what happened to the other towers, and what does it imply for the other events on the day. I hope that Banks2334 can shed some light on the collapse of WTC7.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I remember watching on ABC news on 9/11 and the announcers said that WTC7 was intentionally detonated because of the structural damage caused by the collapse of WTC 1&2. I don't know if that adds anything to the discussion or proves or disproves anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to have been brought down, but it's impossible to prepare a controlled demolition in a single day. If they took it down on 9/11, that was prepared. The official government reports concluded that fire and damage from falling debris caused the building to collapse, an explanation that is unsatisfactory. The fires were relatively small, the building stood quite far away from the towers, and even if the fire and the indirect damage would have caused the collapse, it would never cause the building to implode perfectly on its own footprint, as far as I can judge from my professional background.

Exsubmariner

12-14-2005, 02:46 PM

"The bad thing would be that you'd be submitted by a leadership that decieves, lies and kills to pursuit their personal, financial and political objectives."

Doesn't everybody?
I submit that I am already no matter who is in charge. Please name a political figure in history where this has not been true.

12-14-2005, 02:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if they want to add something to the discussion, why not deal in facts and science.

[/ QUOTE ]

see this article (http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html) by prof. David Griffin for a scientic, factual analysis of the collapses, and of the theories of collapse from the NIST, FEMA an 9/11 comission reports.

I warn you it's long, but if you want to see facts and science you shouldnt be bothered by that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Read the article. I really wouldn't call it factual or scientific. He obviously has an agenda and does a lot of A to B to Z logic to fit his claims. I'll give you one example where he talks about a sampling of 1% of the core and 3% of the perimeter steel beams showing low temp. fire damage. He then concludes that there was insufficient damage to the steel to cause the collapse. Hardly a proper scientific sampling to draw conclusions from on many levels. Found the article quite entertaining.

[/ QUOTE ]

EDIT: the following quote is from the article

"NIST (2005) says that it “did not generalize these results, since the examined columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns and 1 percent of the core columns from the fire floors”. That only such a tiny percent of the columns was available was due, of course, to the fact that government officials had most of the steel immediately sold and shipped off. In any case, NIST’s findings on the basis of this tiny percent of the columns are not irrelevant: They mean that any speculations that some of the core columns reached much higher temperatures would be just that---pure speculation not backed up by any empirical evidence."

Funny. It seems like the author and you agree on not drawing conclusions on too small sample sizes.

I would still be interested to hear from you, from your fire-prevention expertise, how the fire in building 7 caused it to implode in the way it did.

Marnix

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what your problem is with Build. 7 collapsing. Do you not think that damage done by debris and a fire that was burning all day was enough to bring it down? The author of that article refers a lot to eyewitness testimony. Anything that supports his calims is the truth and anything that doesn't, he dismisses with someone else's account. I.E the extent of damge to the strucure and the size of the fire inside. Was it one floor, ten floors etc. A timeline of the eyewitnesse accounts could help shed some light on the discrepencies.
As for the steel beam samples, like in real estate, its location, location, location. Where were the samples taken from? You can have extensive, catastophic damage in one area but not another.

Marnixvdb

12-14-2005, 02:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i'm a liberal and hate bush, however this is BS.

One of the major flaws of these peoples arguements is that all hydrocarbons burn at the same temperature. This is completely wrong. Whoever thought this was a good point should be forced to go back and reread an elementary chemistry book.

Second, there is talk about how fast the buildings collapsed? The buildings didn't initially fall the second the plane hit. There was some additional time. The fire could have easily weakened the structure. You've already heard the momentum talk.

Arnfinn is right about the conspiracy theory. However I think he left out one little detail. Why would Bush be reading my pet goat in front of children when this was happening. Why would he target the pentagon?

Melch

[/ QUOTE ]

Obv my reaction to most of the presented claims is the same as yours, but I cannot explain parts of the story. Just looking for answers. Do you understand the collapse of WTC7?

In his speech on november 10th to the General Assembly, Bush stressed "We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty."

This struck me as odd at the time it was broadcasted. What was his motive to say that? What bad would outrageous conspiracy theories do?

Marnixvdb

12-14-2005, 03:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what your problem is with Build. 7 collapsing. Do you not think that damage done by debris and a fire that was burning all day was enough to bring it down? The author of that article refers a lot to eyewitness testimony. Anything that supports his calims is the truth and anything that doesn't, he dismisses with someone else's account. I.E the extent of damge to the strucure and the size of the fire inside. Was it one floor, ten floors etc. A timeline of the eyewitnesse accounts could help shed some light on the discrepencies.
As for the steel beam samples, like in real estate, its location, location, location. Where were the samples taken from? You can have extensive, catastophic damage in one area but not another.

[/ QUOTE ]

My problem is not that fire cannot take a building down, but by the strict engineering standards for high-rise buildings it should take much longer for fire (even when huge) to cause critical damage to the core construction. Do you know of other examples where fire brought down a steel-frame constructed, modern highrise building?

But let's accept fire caused it to collapse. How would the damage cause the perfect collapse? That is my concern. I can see parts of the building losing support, collapsing, extending damage to oher parts of the construction and collapsing gradually in a chain of events. But not symmetrically, superfast and on its own footprint. That would be highly unlikely, wouldnt it?

12-14-2005, 03:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i'm a liberal and hate bush, however this is BS.

One of the major flaws of these peoples arguements is that all hydrocarbons burn at the same temperature. This is completely wrong. Whoever thought this was a good point should be forced to go back and reread an elementary chemistry book.

Second, there is talk about how fast the buildings collapsed? The buildings didn't initially fall the second the plane hit. There was some additional time. The fire could have easily weakened the structure. You've already heard the momentum talk.

Arnfinn is right about the conspiracy theory. However I think he left out one little detail. Why would Bush be reading my pet goat in front of children when this was happening. Why would he target the pentagon?

Melch

[/ QUOTE ]

Obv my reaction to most of the presented claims is the same as yours, but I cannot explain parts of the story. Just looking for answers. Do you understand the collapse of WTC7?

In his speech on november 10th to the General Assembly, Bush stressed "We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty."

This struck me as odd at the time it was broadcasted. What was his motive to say that? What bad would outrageous conspiracy theories do?

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't stand bush as well and would love to pin 9/11 on him, but I just don't see any evidence. As for his quote, who the hell knows what's going on between his ears.

MelchyBeau

12-14-2005, 03:05 PM

Marnix, I think early on there were people blaming the jews. There was a (false) claim that jews got a call not to go to work. Also another (false) claim that no jews were killed.

Here is a link debunking the conspiracy theorists

Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1)

Melch

12-14-2005, 03:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what your problem is with Build. 7 collapsing. Do you not think that damage done by debris and a fire that was burning all day was enough to bring it down? The author of that article refers a lot to eyewitness testimony. Anything that supports his calims is the truth and anything that doesn't, he dismisses with someone else's account. I.E the extent of damge to the strucure and the size of the fire inside. Was it one floor, ten floors etc. A timeline of the eyewitnesse accounts could help shed some light on the discrepencies.
As for the steel beam samples, like in real estate, its location, location, location. Where were the samples taken from? You can have extensive, catastophic damage in one area but not another.

[/ QUOTE ]

My problem is not that fire cannot take a building down, but by the strict engineering standards for high-rise buildings it should take much longer for fire (even when huge) to cause critical damage to the core construction. Do you know of other examples where fire brought down a steel-frame constructed, modern highrise building?

But let's accept fire caused it to collapse. How would the damage cause the perfect collapse? That is my concern. I can see parts of the building losing support, collapsing, extending damage to oher parts of the construction and collapsing gradually in a chain of events. But not symmetrically, superfast and on its own footprint. That would be highly unlikely, wouldnt it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you expect it to tip over like a tree? If the main load bearing structures have failed, where is the mass of the building going to go?

12-14-2005, 03:27 PM

Great link Mealchy.

Marnixvdb

12-14-2005, 03:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Did you expect it to tip over like a tree? If the main load bearing structures have failed, where is the mass of the building going to go?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the idea that a building can tip over so strange to you? It's the perfect implosion that is rare and extremely difficult to achieve. Tipping a building over is the preferred method of use of controlled demolition companies. They take away part of the load bearing structure and what happens? The building tips over. Uncontrolled collapses will usually show partial structural failure starting a chain of events that causes the builing to collapse. The most likely process is that the building tips over and breaks - or at the very least, shows an outward movement.

btw the Popular Mechanics article is not scientific in any way and is not conclusive.

Beer and Pizza

12-14-2005, 04:06 PM

Why are people still conversing with this troll? There are better topics to discuss, like how the Communists killed Lincoln.

Marnixvdb

12-14-2005, 04:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why are people still conversing with this troll? There are better topics to discuss, like how the Communists killed Lincoln.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe they are still discussing with me because I am only trying to get some questions answered here. Thx for the input.

12-14-2005, 04:25 PM

I always suspected it was those Canadian rockers.

Marnixvdb

12-14-2005, 04:33 PM

EDIT: nm

CORed

12-14-2005, 06:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Do you know of other examples where fire brought down a steel-frame constructed, modern highrise building?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. but I don't know of any other examples where the fire involved several thousand gallons of jet fuel, either. The conspiracy theorists would have us believe that a large crew spent several hours placing exploseves and wiring the detonators, and nobody noticed, and none of the demolition crew ever talked. I find this much harder to believe than that the plane crashes, fire, and falling debris brought the buildings down. As for WTC 7, maybe some corners were cut in constructionk some building ispectors paid off. If there's a conspiracy, that's the place to look.

zipo

12-14-2005, 07:05 PM

>>I personally think the Pennsylvania plane was shut down though.<<

Personally, I think it may well have been shot down also.

Tough to make the decision to do that, but I don't know of a viable alternative.

Cumulonimbus

12-14-2005, 07:41 PM

It seems you guys think that the collapsing of the towers is the main piece of evidence of the conspiracy theorists. Regardless of what brought the buildings down, (even though there is much evidence and many news reports of "bombs" in the building, including police claiming that there was a bomb in a white van in the basement of one of the towers, the video of Silversteing SAYING HE PULLED THE BUILDING, and even though frame-by-frame analysis shows explosions popping out the columns just like a demolition) this is only one claim.

There's many many more pieces out there and I encourage you all to not only focus on the destruction of the towers, but on the other claims as well. Explore the links I gave, at least.

-Kyle

EDIT - I guess what I'm trying to say is view all these evidences as a collective whole instead of tearing apart a single piece of evidence. There's plenty of evidence out there for you to form a story in your head of what really happened, not what our warmonger-leaders and their news stations tell you. Spend your time researching it instead of arguing in a forum. It will lead nowhere but more arguments!

MelchyBeau

12-14-2005, 08:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
the video of Silversteing SAYING HE PULLED THE BUILDING,

[/ QUOTE ]

Pulling the building could either mean evacuating the building or pulling fire hoses on the building.

debunking silly ideas one at a time,
Melch

Cumulonimbus

12-14-2005, 09:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the video of Silversteing SAYING HE PULLED THE BUILDING,

[/ QUOTE ]

Pulling the building could either mean evacuating the building or pulling fire hoses on the building.

posting really silly ideas with a closed mind one at a time,
Melch

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

12-14-2005, 09:19 PM

And what is a collapsing building supposed to sound like? Is it going to be silent? Its going to be very loud with lots of popping and bomb-like noises. There are going to be explosions as trusses and beams break. All that air that is being compressed has to go somewhere. So yes, its looks and souns like a demolition, but doesn't mean there was one.

Shaun

12-14-2005, 10:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Osama didn't do this. It was the Illuminati but the Illuminati isn't really the bad guy. The bad guys are the Jesuits. The Illuminati are really trying free everyone from Jesuit rule but they have to do things like 911 to apease the Jesuits and trick them into thinking that they are a puppet group of the Jesuits. The Jesuits aren't really the top of the pyramid though. They are controlled by reptilian arachnids who live in the center of the earth. The earth, you see, is really hollow and the master race of reptillian arachnids reign from in there. Tolken was a clandestine Jesuit agent and Shelob and Orcs were meant to represent the reptillian arachnids. Also, did you notice that Darth Maul was reptilian looking and the robot leader in Revenge of the Sith looked kinda like a spider. Oh yeah, that is spooky! I think George Lucas is really a reptillian amphibian (the arachnids are too important to come to the surface world, amphibians are lesser beings).

There is so much more to this. PM me and I'll get more into it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I nominate this for post of the century! ROFL

BCPVP

12-15-2005, 01:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I guess what I'm trying to say is view all these evidences as a collective whole instead of tearing apart a single piece of evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know of a much better way to tear down someone's argument than by attacking their supporting evidence. Now you want us to lay off that so your precious theory is perserved. Nice try.

Marnixvdb

12-15-2005, 06:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
And what is a collapsing building supposed to sound like? Is it going to be silent? Its going to be very loud with lots of popping and bomb-like noises. There are going to be explosions as trusses and beams break. All that air that is being compressed has to go somewhere. So yes, its looks and souns like a demolition, but doesn't mean there was one.

[/ QUOTE ]

ah, thx for the logic: the fact that 9/11 looked and sounded like an foreign terrorist attack, doesnt mean there was one

BCPVP

12-15-2005, 06:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
the fact that 9/11 looked and sounded like an foreign terrorist attack, doesnt mean there was one

[/ QUOTE ]
What's a foreign terrorist attack sound like?

Marnixvdb

12-15-2005, 07:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the fact that 9/11 looked and sounded like an foreign terrorist attack, doesnt mean there was one

[/ QUOTE ]
What's a foreign terrorist attack sound like?

[/ QUOTE ]

You start asking questions. Good.

Marnixvdb

12-15-2005, 07:59 AM

Banks,

I have still not had a decent explanation from you how building 7 collapsed due to fire damage, and the damage from falling debris.

I know that high rise buildings are designed to withstand prolonged periods of fire. The video of the collapse does not show a building heavily on fire. I know that a building collapses assymmetrically when the damage is assymetrical. The video of the collapse shows a perfect symmetrical collapse.

You asked me: "Do you expect a building to tip over like a tree" as if it is very obvious buildings don't tip over. This makes me question your expertise, since in designing high-rise buildings the most challenging aspects of the construction is preventing the buildings from tipping over. Transfering the vertical loads is easy, making the building rigid to withstand horizontal forces and torques is the challenge.

So, from my expertise, I know that

1) Fire can damage the steel, causing it to loose strength, warp and deform the construction. This is a gradual process, that may eventually reach a point where parts of the support system fail
2) A single failure in the support system should never lead to inmediate collapse of the entire system.
3) Partial failure of the support system should always be visible before it is critical
4) A total collapse of a medium to high rise will thus always start with partial failure of the support system, and therefore start gradually and progress assymetrically.

Once again I ask you to prove my points wrong. I am interested in it, because of my professional backgrounds, and I'd be happy to hear a believable explanation on how fire cause WTC7 to collapse in the way it did. So far, I haven't heard one yet, that isnt highly unlikely.

I hope we can have a technical discussion on this, disregarding the implications that any conclusion might have. Could prove to be interesting for both of us.

ty,

Marnix

wh1t3bread

12-15-2005, 09:52 AM

If the plane in PA was shot down then are you also saying the government forged the recordings found on the black box which proved that members of that flight attempted to take control of the plane back from the terrorists?

And this forgery was of such good quality that they even had the balls to play the recording to the victim's families?

superleeds

12-15-2005, 11:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
We cant even kidnap arabs in europe. tortue and fly them around without getting found out. NO WAY we could pull this off.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is off course the best argument against a conspiracy. The one big problem I have with 9/11 is the lack of evidence. It was the biggest terror crime ever and yet the authorities allowed over an extended period of time, virtually all physical evidence from the scene to be removed, recycled or suffienctly tampered with to render it useless as evidence. Their is a reason the police cordon off crime areas and are very systematic in their collection and recording of anything that could even remotely be used in court. And yet over a period of months nobody thought it important, (and still don't).

But then again as in48092 points out the one area where this administration has been entirely consistant is it's gross incompetence.

Cumulonimbus

12-15-2005, 04:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If the plane in PA was shot down then are you also saying the government forged the recordings found on the black box which proved that members of that flight attempted to take control of the plane back from the terrorists?

And this forgery was of such good quality that they even had the balls to play the recording to the victim's families?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yes to both questions.

If they (I think "they" would be CIA agents) had the balls to kill thousands of innocent people, I'm sure that playing a forged tape to the surviving families wasn't much of a stretch.

wh1t3bread

12-15-2005, 04:41 PM

Ha. You are too funny. You can't actually believe what you are writing in this thread, right Cumulonimbus?

wh1t3bread

12-15-2005, 04:52 PM

All of you Conspiracy Theorists in this thread need to stop for a moment and think LOGICALLY (I do have my doubts about your capability to do this) about this:

Did the CIA/US Gov't/President Bush/Dick Cheney need to murder 3000 innocent American lives, destroy part of the Pentagon and damage the economy of the nation's largest city to go to war in the Middle East?

The answer is OF COURSE NOT. Bush could have easily made a case for invading Afghanistan or Iraq without 9/11 ever happening.

Marnixvdb

12-15-2005, 05:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
All of you Conspiracy Theorists in this thread need to stop for a moment and think LOGICALLY (I do have my doubts about your capability to do this) about this:

Did the CIA/US Gov't/President Bush/Dick Cheney need to murder 3000 innocent American lives, destroy part of the Pentagon and damage the economy of the nation's largest city to go to war in the Middle East?

The answer is OF COURSE NOT. Bush could have easily made a case for invading Afghanistan or Iraq without 9/11 ever happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I know Americans have not been very happy to sacrice the life of their soldiers after Vietnam, and even after 9/11 there is enough resistance from within the country. A lot of analysis regarding the Afghanistan and Irak wars mentioned how 9/11 helped the American governemt in the national and international support for their war operations in the Middle East. It even offended a lot of the victims of the 9/11 attacks that those tragic events were used as a pretext for the war in Irak.

So yes, 9/11 and the subsequent Acts aided the government and gave tremendous exta power to group of people leading the government.

wh1t3bread

12-15-2005, 05:31 PM

I'm not saying that 9/11 didn't aid the government in making it's case for war.

What I'm saying is that it was definitely NOT necessary.

The US government could have in a completely less elaborate plan planted some WMD'S in Iraq/Afghanistan/where ever they wanted and gotten all those things you just mentioned, without murdering a single American life.

I find it sad for the human race that people like you can truly believe this nonsense.

TroutMaskReplica

12-15-2005, 06:10 PM

I wasn't going to wade into this mess because i don't believe in a conspiracy the likes of which is alleged by the movie OP links to, but there are a few details which continue to trouble me.

this one I'm throwing out there just because I've never seen anyone really make a deal of it in the media or anyone respond to it satisfactorily when I've brought it up in conversation: why did Bush claim (on at least two occasions) that he saw the first plane fly into the WTC on TV before entering the classroom in Florida? (there was no footage of the first plane crashing until a day or two later - that of the french crew shooting the documentary on the rookie firemen).

i bring this up from time to time with friends because it's always bugged me...some folks brush it off - typical bush, he meant something other than he said, or "you *know* what he meant", but
a) he said this on more than one occasion, and
b) let's face it, it was a pretty historical moment, one I can personally remember quite clearly four years later (Bush made the comments below only three months later)
c) he told the 9/11 commission a different story, or at least Andrew Card did (the report says that Karl Rove informed him a twin-engine plane had crashed into the towers a few minutes before he entered the classroom)

I find it implausible that he could be confused about these details a mere three months later. What does it mean? I don't know, but I suspect that this president is a liar. (For the sake of bi-partisanship I will add "like the president before him")

[ QUOTE ]
I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.

[/ QUOTE ]

source (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.html)

wh1t3bread

12-15-2005, 08:11 PM

Now that is a good question. I just read the press release that you linked. Obviously nobody knows what is going on in that guy's brain. But I think its probable that he didn't actually see the plane hit the tower, but rather watched the news which SAID that a plane flew into the first tower. You are right though, that isn't what he said. Really though, is it that that much of a shock? The guy can't get through a State of the Union Address (a speech President's probably rehearse for hours and hours) or even a 10 minute press conference without bumbling 100 words and just as many sentences.

Marnixvdb

12-15-2005, 11:25 PM

Wh1t3bread,

You find it sad for the human race that I believe this nonsense. In this thread I have never said I believe this 'nonsense', I have stressed that I'd rather not believe it, as the reality it implies (cynical domestic terrorism by U.S. Government) is much grimmer than the reality of the official story (the western world threatened by foreign, islamic terrorism). I do have a lot of questions regarding 9/11 though, and I would want to have an explanation that I can live with.

What bugs me a lot, is that 9/11 was covered intensively the few days afterward, planting all the images and the stories in our minds, to later stop broadcasting the images because it would be too painful for us to see. This is a bs reason. We have always been shown the images of WW2, and a lot of other man and nature related disaters, to remind us of what happened, to not to forget. How come that everything surrounding 9/11 is now clouded in secrecy, when a lot of people, even the victims, are simply looking for answers to some very basic questions of what happened that day, who were responsible, how they could have pulled it off, and how it comes that before 9/11 the gov't had no idea of what was about to happen, yet after 9/11 they had a perfect explanation and were able to point at the culprits at the speed of light.

Why is nearly ALL of the essential evidence now secret? Why, for example, were the relatives of the people who died in flight 93 told to not disclose anything they heard of the flight recordings? The government claims it is 'to protect national security' but that is a hollow phrase. The disaster has already happened, openness about what happened is not going to hurt national security in any way. Why is the access to photomaterial, videomaterial, witness accounts, material samples, flight recordings, etc. denied? Can you think of one reasonable reason, other than that there may be something to hide, whatever that may be?

What I am trying to do here, is to falsify the theory that it was a conspiracy. I am not trying to prove the theory, I am trying to falsify it, and I fail at doing so - I find no convincing arguments how it could not have been an inside job. World politics are cynical. You should open your mind to alternative explanations, research them, to either reject them, or investigate further until you can reject them, or until you have no other option than accept them as a possible reality. This is how scientific research works. I have asked a lot of questions in this thread that have found no satisfactory answer. I still hope someone can provide them, but at this point I am pessimistic.

Marnix

12-15-2005, 11:32 PM

Marnix- The exterior of the building was damaged causing a redistribution of loads to the perimeter walls and columns. You also have fires which are burning for 7 hours. You are going to have a difference in thermal expansion between the core and exterior load bearing systems. The floors will begin to sag pulling inwards and bowing the perimeter columns and walls. As the loads are shifted, the whole structure becomes highly unstable and overloaded, leading to the collapse. Can I tell you it was a truss or column on the nth floor that was the straw that broke the camels back? No. I don't have specifics on floor plans, building materials, fire loacations, etc. I will be very interested to see the NIST report on WTC7 in 2006. I think then we will be able to have a much more detailed discussion. If you haven't seen their website, I suggest you check it out.

What I would like to know is how did so many people conspire to detonate #7. Were explosives placed during construction, before 9/11, on 9/11? How has nobody talked? Just imagine the magnitude of the operation. The only "evidence" is people saying they herd bombs going off and explosions. Again, do they expect it to just quietly begin to fall? Where is the paper trail? Who's responsible?

12-16-2005, 02:45 AM

First of all, nobody except the victims families and certain people in the government know the content of those tapes. By all accounts the tapes are of a struggle between the passengers and the terrorists. That, in and of itself, does not adequately explain the plane going down. The terrorists had a mission, they would not have nose-dived the plane in the face of resistance, they would have continued toward D.C. had they successfully fought off the partisan-passengers. Had the passengers killed off the terrorists, they would have at least made radio contact. There is no report of that. They would have made radio contact even if they had killed all the terrorists with the exception of the one piloting the plane. There is no doubt in my mind that a struggle took place. I know that I would drop the copy of "Super System" that I would have been reading and led a charge against fundamentalists that wanted to hijack the plane I was on, but nothing has been reported about any of the passengers during or after a struggle making radio contact. I doubt the struggle itself caused the plane to plummet to the earth; a missle probably did that.

Cumulonimbus

12-16-2005, 03:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]

What I would like to know is how did so many people conspire to detonate #7. Were explosives placed during construction, before 9/11, on 9/11? How has nobody talked? Just imagine the magnitude of the operation. The only "evidence" is people saying they herd bombs going off and explosions. Again, do they expect it to just quietly begin to fall? Where is the paper trail? Who's responsible?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm really glad you mentioned this, cuz I was about to. This is yet another monstrous piece of evidence. Demolishing a building takes 2-3 weeks of planning. It's going to be especially hard to set up explosives when the [censored] buliding is on fire. Whoever mentioned it above, how about YOU do some logical analysis. Seriously, the amounts of evidence regarding 9/11 are monstrous. It is really easy to accept that the government did this when you get rid of your damn CNBC/Bill O'Reilly/Stars and Stripes/propaganda-filled block in your head. I say that not in a vicious way, keep in mind, because I had that block at one time too. I know, it's hard to move and I understand if anybody does not want to accept it. But it did happen, the government DID do this, and I will discuss and argue it to my grave because this country and it's money-motivated politics will never change for the better if people don't start figuring out what is really going on. I mean, I'm arguing this on a poker forum, risking being called all kinds of names and such while risking my credibility as well. And it's easy, cuz it means something to me, and it feels right to make people, especially you, my 2+2 friends, understand.

Anyways, here's something I didn't know about the tower collapses. Man, there's so much more evidence than there was when I researched this stuff last year.

And here's building 7 on fire, taken from [url="http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7fire1.html"]this link (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html[/url) :

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/b7_east_fire2.jpg

-Kyle

BCPVP

12-16-2005, 03:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, I'm arguing this on a poker forum, risking being called all kinds of names and such while risking my credibility as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
What credibility? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Cumulonimbus

12-16-2005, 04:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I mean, I'm arguing this on a poker forum, risking being called all kinds of names and such while risking my credibility as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
What credibility? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Rawr.

Marnixvdb

12-16-2005, 06:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Marnix- The exterior of the building was damaged causing a redistribution of loads to the perimeter walls and columns. You also have fires which are burning for 7 hours. You are going to have a difference in thermal expansion between the core and exterior load bearing systems. The floors will begin to sag pulling inwards and bowing the perimeter columns and walls. As the loads are shifted, the whole structure becomes highly unstable and overloaded, leading to the collapse. Can I tell you it was a truss or column on the nth floor that was the straw that broke the camels back? No. I don't have specifics on floor plans, building materials, fire loacations, etc. I will be very interested to see the NIST report on WTC7 in 2006. I think then we will be able to have a much more detailed discussion. If you haven't seen their website, I suggest you check it out.

What I would like to know is how did so many people conspire to detonate #7. Were explosives placed during construction, before 9/11, on 9/11? How has nobody talked? Just imagine the magnitude of the operation. The only "evidence" is people saying they herd bombs going off and explosions. Again, do they expect it to just quietly begin to fall? Where is the paper trail? Who's responsible?

[/ QUOTE ]

The magnitude of the operations would be large. But not in the thousands of people, rather hundreds. Everybody involved would first be willing to be involved and therefore not mind not talking, and will also have good reasons not to talk. Even if they'd talk, most people would not believe them. Evidence will have been destroyed, and anyone in the lower ranks who would talk would be discrecdited by the gov't inmediately.

The paper trail? In building 7, there were offices of the CIA and the Secret Services. If it was planned, it was probably planned from there. The paper trail would be gone on the day of the attack itself. Troughout history, the CIA has done a pretty good job in keeping things secret.

Of course, the above is hypothetical. There have been big complots and secret operations in the past. Try to think and imagine yourself how such conspiracies are organised. The fact that you cannot understand or comprehend how the government could pull this off, does not prove it can't.

There is more suspicious surrounding the desctruction of the complex. Did you know that the owner of WTC7, Larry Silverstein, had only recently purchased the lease of the entire WTC complex? That he took out sky high terrorism insurace? That he made billions (yes: billions) of dollars of 9/11? Is that all coincidental? Possibly.

As to building 7: I will check out the NIST website. You refer to the damage caused by fired that burned for 7 hours. On the photo's and videos that are available, there is not a convincing sign of huge fire. There is smoke and flames coming from some of the floors, but it is nothing big compared to other, well recorded, high-rise buildings on fire. You say the only 'evidence' of planned destruction is eye-witness accounts, but the fact remains that it is unlikely for WTC7 to collapse after the damaged suffered. Everything that could have provided hard evidence to prove either hypothesis has been shipped away and recycled quickly. Anyway, I'll definitely check out the NIST report when it's finished to see what analysis they produce - thx for your answer.

wh1t3bread

12-16-2005, 09:44 AM

I am thinking about this logically. I think that you are the one that is not.

Answer me this:

What is more likely, the US government secretly planned and conspired to cause 9/11 with such precision and secrecy that no one would ever find out?

Or...

19 terrorists took flight lessons, learned how to fly then hijacked four passenger planes and flew them into buildings?

The answer is obvious. The US government can't even leak the name of one CIA agent without getting caught. The government can't maintain supposedly secret prisons in eastern europe without getting caught. A past President couldn't keep a simple BJ from an intern underwraps.

And now you are all saying that the US government can keep a secret as big as this one. It's completely laughable.

wh1t3bread

12-16-2005, 09:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]

You find it sad for the human race that I believe this nonsense. In this thread I have never said I believe this 'nonsense', I have stressed that I'd rather not believe it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. My apologies.

[ QUOTE ]

What bugs me a lot, is that 9/11 was covered intensively the few days afterward, planting all the images and the stories in our minds, to later stop broadcasting the images because it would be too painful for us to see.

[/ QUOTE ]

This couldn't be farther from the truth. Maybe where you are from, these images are not showed over and over again. But I can tell you that here in America I am reminded of them everyday.

[ QUOTE ]

We have always been shown the images of WW2

[/ QUOTE ]

Many of those horrendous images of WW2 weren't shown the public for many years after the war completed.

[ QUOTE ]

yet after 9/11 they had a perfect explanation and were able to point at the culprits at the speed of light.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's really not that difficult to figure out who the culprits were when hours after the attack a terrorist group CLAIMED responsibility.

[ QUOTE ]

Why, for example, were the relatives of the people who died in flight 93 told to not disclose anything they heard of the flight recordings?

[/ QUOTE ]

I imagine the sounds of the recordings on the black box are extremely terrifying and gruesome. You are forgetting that the US is a country were someone can't even pass gas on the radio without getting fined.

[ QUOTE ]

Can you think of one reasonable reason, other than that there may be something to hide, whatever that may be?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, I agree with you for once. Yes I bet there is something to hide. But that something isn't that the US government caused 9/11. That something is that the US government failed its citizens up and down the board. Every agency, politician, policital committee, etc. failed the citizens of this country on that day. I think that's a more likely reason to not disclose many of those things you mentioned. And I think someday many years from now we all will have access to that information and we will see that our government did fail us and they knew the failed us.

[ QUOTE ]

I still hope someone can provide them, but at this point I am pessimistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I can tell you that you aren't going to find the answers that you seek here. But I do hope that you find what you are looking for.

12-16-2005, 11:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There is more suspicious surrounding the desctruction of the complex. Did you know that the owner of WTC7, Larry Silverstein, had only recently purchased the lease of the entire WTC complex? That he took out sky high terrorism insurace? That he made billions (yes: billions) of dollars of 9/11? Is that all coincidental? Possibly.

[/ QUOTE ]

The businessman who took over the lease of a building complex that was the site of a previous terror attack in 1993 took out insurance against terrorism. What next? Will businessmen in California buy earthquake insurance? Possibly.

wh1t3bread

12-16-2005, 11:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What next? Will businessmen in California buy earthquake insurance? Possibly.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way, that would be a conspiracy!!!! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Wes ManTooth

12-16-2005, 01:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It is really easy to accept that the government did this when you get rid of your damn CNBC/Bill O'Reilly/Stars and Stripes/propaganda-filled block in your head. I say that not in a vicious way, keep in mind, because I had that block at one time too. I know, it's hard to move and I understand if anybody does not want to accept it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because you disagree with some media sources does not mean that these sources are intentional preaching propaganda over every issue.

[ QUOTE ]

But it did happen, the government DID do this, and I will discuss and argue it to my grave because this country and it's money-motivated politics will never change for the better if people don't start figuring out what is really going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

You just asked people to remove "propaganda-filled block" in their heads asking not to be ignorant. Then you say that you will argue this till the day you die? Is this being just slightly ignorant?

[ QUOTE ]

I mean, I'm arguing this on a poker forum, risking being called all kinds of names and such while risking my credibility as well. And it's easy, cuz it means something to me, and it feels right to make people, especially you, my 2+2 friends, understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its ok to be passionate about certain ideas and beliefs, to the point that it makes one close-minded is dangerous.

wh1t3bread

12-16-2005, 01:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]

when you get rid of your damn CNBC/Bill O'Reilly/Stars and Stripes/propaganda-filled block in your head.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW: I [censored] hate Bill OReilly. I'm not a Republican nor a Democrat (hell the last two elections I voted for Republicans and Democrats). My views on 9/11 are based solely on common sense which dictates that Foreign Terrorists hijacked 4 planes and killed 3000+ people.

I think I might be done contributing to this debate.

12-16-2005, 03:17 PM

Marnix- You talked about falsifying the conspiracy theory and because you could not, you believe it. I see where you are coming from, but on the flip side, the rest of us are saying prove it did happen, and since it can't be proven, we choose to believe it didn't.

As for WTC 7 and the fires, yes they were not huge, but were left to burn on multiple floors all day. There is the question of the fuel tanks in the building. Perhaps a BLEVE contributed to the structure failure. How much did the debris damage contribute to overloading the structure? Again its speculation without knowing the specifics which I hope will be in the NIST report. Did you read the report on 1+2? Do you agree/disagree with their analysis, methodology, conclusions?

12-16-2005, 03:20 PM

Cumulo, I see that new medication is working just fine.

Cumulonimbus

12-16-2005, 11:50 PM

Funny. I'll be back on Sunday night to hash up some replies. For now, snowboarding Mt. Bachelor is my only concern.

But I will say this - somebody asked us to prove this theory. Well I've given a significant amount of evidence of which about 5% (yes, I pulled this figure out of thin air) has been responded to by you guys. This whole "What theory is less-crazy sounding" idea is not going to cut it; in other words, I ask you all to respond to those links I posted. If you want me to prove this to you, you're going to have to respond to my evidence, at least so that I know that you read it. To you flamers: This whole argument of calling me crazy and such isn't going to get us anywhere, and I really don't see why you post on this thread if that's all you're going to post. Anyways, see you all on Sunday night.

-Kyle