who were behind 9/11?

[Marnixvdb]

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]

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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

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

[wh1t3bread]

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]

[ 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]

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]

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

[wh1t3bread]

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.