Learn the Truth about 9/11!

135678

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 152
    I have met some great guys from the NYC FD, NYPD, and NYPA and the ones who were there had this to say (paraphrasing of course):



    * All of them said that in their careers prior to 9-11, none of them had the experience to handle, much less witness a crisis of that nature. They had what they were trained for, nothing else. Many heard and saw things they questioned that day, but there was nothing, nothing that presented to them a controlled demolition (all agreed to that). One fireman said that the sounds emitted from the people who impacted the ground from a hundred stories up is the same as a grenade going off.



    * I have talked to demolition experts (how come no one in the Truther movement does?) and they laugh at the mere idea of such an operation, much less clandestine. Whole sections of concrete, drywall, electrical and plumbing fixtures have to be gutted to even consider placing detonation wiring, charges or squibs into any building for detonation. It would take over a year or more to set up one building the size of one WTC tower.



    We all know what the real conspiracy is...even the de-bunkers do.



    This too.
  • Reply 42 of 152
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


    I have met some great guys from the NYC FD, NYPD, and NYPA and the ones who were there had this to say (paraphrasing of course):



    * All of them said that in their careers prior to 9-11, none of them had the experience to handle, much less witness a crisis of that nature. They had what they were trained for, nothing else. Many heard and saw things they questioned that day, but there was nothing, nothing that presented to them a controlled demolition (all agreed to that). One fireman said that the sounds emitted from the people who impacted the ground from a hundred stories up is the same as a grenade going off.



    It's very interesting to go back to footage recorded on the day itself (when the event was unfolding and the memory of the witnesses was not colored by politically expedient pronouncements), and listen to what government agencies, such as the FBI, were saying on the mainstream media. There are countless extracts suggesting that "the current line of thinking is that devices have been planted in the buildings" or words to that effect. These are not my words; I am merely quoting those of law enforcement, as relayed by the MSM at the time. I don't have the time to go trolling the net to quote links that you are undoubtedly familiar with.. but here's one in *hundreds* of others. Listen to what the commentators are saying re. what the FBI etc are thinking.



    Quote:

    * I have talked to demolition experts (how come no one in the Truther movement does?) and they laugh at the mere idea of such an operation, much less clandestine*.



    Actually, I have. I video-interviewed a demolition expert who used to work for Loiseaux and has been running a successful demolition business in Orange County (they take down buildings using explosives, or from the top down in piecemeal fashion, or by swinging a wrecking ball on a chain from a crane, or by using ropes/lines.. etc etc. This was in August 2004; the purpose of the interview was actually unrelated to 9/11, but I took the opportunity at the end of the 45 minute interview (just before I was about to break down) to ask him if there was any possibility that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolitions (how could I resist?). He immediately asked if I was still rolling tape. (I was, of course) He said he could not comment on camera for obvious reasons; he had a business to run, he did not want to get involved, or have any associations with such lines of thought. Two things of interest that are in the interview, however, are as follows, which I was unaware of at the time:



    (1) The term "pulling" a building in the demolition business refers to attaching lines to the structure and literally "pulling it down", or "over". (Larry Silverstein's referral to "pulling it" did not mean what many in the Truth Movement have implied, i.e. a demolition term for taking a building down with explosives. However, he was not referring to "attaching lines to #7 to "pull it". Also, he was not referring to pulling any firefighting operation out of #7 because there was no operation ongoing to fight any fire in #7 that coincided with the timeline he was referring to! The "pull it" comments have been taken out of context on both sides of the argument; unfortunately Mr.Silverstein has not shed any credible light on what he was referring to, either.



    (2) Demolition crews tend to avoid operations using explosives when there is a full overcast, especially when there is a full cloud cover of low altitude (ie under 3000 ft). Apparently, a full low overcast can contribute to collateral damage to (glass) windows in nearby structures, presumably by standing LF waves bouncing off the low cloud and causing amplification of the such waves by "in-phase summation".



    Quote:

    Whole sections of concrete, drywall, electrical and plumbing fixtures have to be gutted to even consider placing detonation wiring, charges or squibs into any building for detonation. It would take over a year or more to set up one building the size of one WTC tower.



    One year! That's a lot of explosives charges.... and apparently, according to the official story, the 3 major buildings failed without the aid of such. (That is a scary thought... I wonder if other large structures have been examined and retrofitted to guard against complete failure due to fire damage?)



    It remains peculiar that both towers came down in almost identical fashion, at almost freefall acceleration against the line of most resistance (namely the 47 column cores) of which nothing remained except a large pile of massive, neatly severed girders.

    I still ask: "how did all that concrete get pulverized in mid air, literally in the first few seconds after the initiation of the collapses, well before hitting the ground, and above the region of structural failure? The Twin Towers were literally reduced to steel and dust, and there is very little in the way of macroscopic pieces of reinforced concrete apparent in the photos of the wreckage. Reinforced concrete does not transform itself in mid air into fine powder, all by itself... C'mon physics majors... what was that energy source?



    Aspects of the Twin Towers demise like this are why people are now speculating about explosives use. Such a notion is only deemed as "outlandish" or "nuts" if attributed to a false flag attack. Had al Qaeda been blamed from the get go in rigging the buildings beforehand, this would have been gleefully acceptable to the media. Unfortunately, rational debate has been closed off, in the political need to create and sustain a bogeyman.



    Quote:

    We all know what the real conspiracy is...even the de-bunkers do.



    This too.



    Of course there was a conspiracy. Everyone knows that, unless one has almost zero command/comprehesion of the English language. The $2.3+ trillion question however, is who organized it? If a group of 19 people (allegedly) with pocketknives, whose members included a coke and liquor freak, a 100lb lad who was unable to fly a 2 seater Cessna (even after plenty of practise), and a Saudi Airlines pilot who wasn't even in the US at the time (!) could singlehandedly run rings around the entire US military, evade every intelligence and law enforcement agency, and somehow all manage to simultaneously board commercial planes without being apprehended by airport security, then we are in deep doo-doo if a real "bona fide" terrorist gang with malintent towards the US were to initiate a real campaign against soft targets here. It doesn't beat thinking about... and any organization with sufficient funds could do it so easily, given the will and enough psychopathic dysfunctionality.
  • Reply 43 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


    I still ask: "how did all that concrete get pulverized in mid air, literally in the first few seconds after the initiation of the collapses, well before hitting the ground, and above the region of structural failure? The Twin Towers were literally reduced to steel and dust, and there is very little in the way of macroscopic pieces of reinforced concrete apparent in the photos of the wreckage. Reinforced concrete does not transform itself in mid air into fine powder, all by itself... C'mon civil engineering majors... what was that energy source?



    From wikipedia (in turn taken from the NIST report(s));



    Quote:

    The floors consisted of 4 inch (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs (~ 100 PCF would be my guess) laid on a fluted steel deck.



    WTC structural design



    [CENTER][/CENTER]



    So the unreinforced concrete slap was poured on top of the corrugated sheet metal. The compressive strength was 3.000 psi (minimum specification, in situ ~4,000 psi likely per NIST), and the tensile strength ~ 400 psi at normal room temperature.



    Of course the floors with fires would have had elevated temperatures of ~600+ degrees C, so the steel (A36 which means Fy = 36 ksi (not the 36-100 ksi range wikipedia suggests)) and the concrete had different thermal coefficients, the trusses, as modeled sagged down 40+ inches. Thus implying that the concrete may have been already spalled and cracked significantly prior to collapse. Also the concrete loses about a third (to a half ) of it's stength on the floors with significant elevated (~600 degrees C) temperatures.



    Anyway once the structure above the failure point started falling as a unit through the remaining floors, the steel components must have chopped up or crushed these slabs, and the lighter pulverized pieces were ejected as shown in the WTC collapse videos.



    I don't know how much concrete dust was on the ground, but I'd SWAG that only 10-20 percent of these concrete slabs were, in fact, pulverized into the grey clouds of dust that was visible on that fateful day.



    Also remember that the initial blast wave (assuming adiabatic ignition of the jet fuel, since initially at least the ambient air was already in the building and the holes created by the 767's as they entered/exited the WTC's created additional exterior air access initally) was HOT (~ 4,000 degrees F) and undoubtedly fractured much of the unreinforced lightweight concrete (due to the heat and initial blast wave) in the blast wave areas.



    [CENTER]

    757 Fuel Tank Locations[/CENTER]



    See 767 SERIES FLAMMABLE MATERIAL LOCATIONS (1st page of PDF) for 767 fuel tank locations (but very similar to the 757 graphic shown above).



    So, once the 767's entered the WTC's the normal coolant to the engines (intake air) was cutoff (the planes were "forced" to stop very quickly by the WTC's \) the jet engines where already very hot and their exhaust temperature would also be very hot entering the WTC's). So we have all that is necesssary for the fireballs (and blast waves) we saw after immediate impact. \



    The two engines were undoubtedly the hottest parts of the plane once inside the WTC. Were they hot enough, or sustained enough heat energy density to melt A36 steel? Don't know the answer to that one.



    When in doubt, I always apply Occam's Razor;



    Quote:

    All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one.



    It should be pretty obvious by now, what my position is with respect to alternatives to the official explanation.
  • Reply 44 of 152
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,929member
    Sammi,



    Did you not see it with your own eyes? Here's what I saw. I saw two planes fly into the buildings and explode into giant fireballs. This started fires which burned very hot, weakening the concrete and steel. Eventually the points of impact could sustain the floors above them, and each building collapsed on itself.



    http://www.911research.com/wtc/evide...ower_1st24.mpg



    http://www.911research.com/wtc/evide..._collapse.mpeg



    The second clip shows clearly that the point of failure was the bottom of the fire. The steel folded like my back on a bad day. Anyone with a set of eyes can see what happened. Anyone.
  • Reply 45 of 152
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Sammi,



    Did you not see it with your own eyes? Here's what I saw. I saw two planes fly into the buildings and explode into giant fireballs. This started fires which burned very hot, weakening the concrete and steel. Eventually the points of impact could sustain the floors above them, and each building collapsed on itself.



    http://www.911research.com/wtc/evide...ower_1st24.mpg



    http://www.911research.com/wtc/evide..._collapse.mpeg



    The second clip shows clearly that the point of failure was the bottom of the fire. The steel folded like my back on a bad day. Anyone with a set of eyes can see what happened. Anyone.



    If one wants to get analytical and scientific, nobody knows how hot the fires were; the temperatures were not measured. All there was to go on was visual evidence from an external aspect. There is plenty to suggest the fires were rather more inefficient and relatively lower temperature than what has been endlessly circulating in the media. Anyway, I am not interested in joining in the speculation on how and why the buildings failed because the concrete evidence isn't there (literally), and having to resort to computer modeling to duplicate the failures by inputting wildly unrealistic parameters and then arrogantly pronouncing that "we know how the towers collapsed" is not good science; it appears that faith-based elements, or "political expediency parameters" have crept into the equations. More to the point, is why the factors that implied more than (or other than) the "impact + fire damage" were disqualified from the Commission's hearings, and those contrary factors that did make it to the Commission hearings were omitted from their final report, en masse.



    As I said earlier, I do not know how the towers collapsed. But when evidence that suggests additional or contrary factors is ignored by the Commission, which not only used circular arguments, but also lied and misrepresented on multiple occasions in their final report, is it not natural to become suspicious? Their mission (inexplicably delayed by 441 days on account of the Bush Administration's intransigence) was to get to the bottom of the what happened that morning and "leave no stone unturned". That did not happen; the entire "investigation was sabotaged (even hijacked) from the inside by Philip Zelikow, not to mention lack of time, funding, the extraordinary (ab)use of "executive privilege" and all the other BS that accompanied it. Even the mainstream reported on this, although the really blatant stuff was not mentioned. And when key aspects of the official story get altered in response to emerging facts, that clearly indicates that certain officials are not being straight and honest.



    If the Twin Towers failed on account of factors in addition to fire and plane impact damage, then that is one more reason, amongst hundreds of others, to suspect that parties in addition to (or other than?) the 19 alleged al Qaeda men were responsible. It's not just about the most spectacularly horrific part of the attacks, ie the towers' collapses (nobody knows how or why that happened empirically, including everyone on this board of course).... there is all the other material about what happened (or otherwise) on that day that does not gel with the official account. And when the official body assembled to "investigate" fails to deliver in such a spectacular fashion, then it is reasonable to expect suspicion from those who have the time and interest to look beyond the baby formula and pabulum dished up by Fox, CNN and the rest of the MSM.
  • Reply 46 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


    If one wants to get analytical and scientific, nobody knows how hot the fires were; the temperatures were not measured. All there was to go on was visual evidence from an external aspect. There is plenty to suggest the fires were rather more inefficient and relatively lower temperature than what has been endlessly circulating in the media. Anyway, I am not interested in joining in the speculation on how and why the buildings failed because the concrete evidence isn't there (literally), and having to resort to computer modeling to duplicate the failures by inputting wildly unrealistic parameters and then arrogantly pronouncing that "we know how the towers collapsed" is not good science; it appears that faith-based elements, or "political expediency parameters" have crept into the equations. More to the point, is why the factors that implied more than (or other than) the "impact + fire damage" were disqualified from the Commission's hearings, and those contrary factors that did make it to the Commission hearings were omitted from their final report, en masse.



    As I said earlier, I do not know how the towers collapsed. But when evidence that suggests additional or contrary factors is ignored by the Commission, which not only used circular arguments, but also lied and misrepresented on multiple occasions in their final report, is it not natural to become suspicious? Their mission (inexplicably delayed by 441 days on account of the Bush Administration's intransigence) was to get to the bottom of the what happened that morning and "leave no stone unturned". That did not happen; the entire "investigation was sabotaged (even hijacked) from the inside by Philip Zelikow, not to mention lack of time, funding, the extraordinary (ab)use of "executive privilege" and all the other BS that accompanied it. Even the mainstream reported on this, although the really blatant stuff was not mentioned. And when key aspects of the official story get altered in response to emerging facts, that clearly indicates that certain officials are not being straight and honest.



    If the Twin Towers failed on account of factors in addition to fire and plane impact damage, then that is one more reason, amongst hundreds of others, to suspect that parties in addition to (or other than?) the 19 alleged al Qaeda men were responsible. It's not just about the most spectacularly horrific part of the attacks, ie the towers' collapses (nobody knows how or why that happened empirically, including everyone on this board of course).... there is all the other material about what happened (or otherwise) on that day that does not gel with the official account. And when the official body assembled to "investigate" fails to deliver in such a spectacular fashion, then it is reasonable to expect suspicion from those who have the time and interest to look beyond the baby formula and pabulum dished up by Fox, CNN and the rest of the MSM.



    But we do know two jet planes struck WTC1 and WTC2, we do see fireballs created when the jet fuel "exploded," we do know that the interiors of several floors were on fire throughout initial impact through to building failure of WTC1 and WTC2, and we do know that the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 damaged key areas of WTC7, and that many parts of that building were also on fire for many hours, prior to, and up to it's collapse.



    So we already know that significant structural damage had occurred, due to the initial impacts, the subsequent fireballs/blastwaves, and subsequent weakening of the steel framed buildings due to the continued fires inside these structures in the areas already weakened by the initial impacts and fireballs/blast waves.



    Would you deny any of those very basic FACTS?



    As to the precise nature of structural failure, since we will never know a priori exactly what the full nature of the internal damage was and how it progressed through to the point of failure, these facts results in various plausible assumptions that are applied using SOTA FEA codes.



    Both the NIST and Purdue studies have shown that under very plausible sets of assumptions that both structures would have failed from the combination of events that occurred that day without the need to introduce conjectures of "controlled demolitions" or other extremely implausible sets of additional forces to explain the WTC's failures.



    This "debate" is quite similar to the AGW and evolution evidence and theoretical models, these explanations of record are in a constant state of deconstructionism by the contrarians, who only "seem to pick apart" the prevailing explanation, without offering equally compelling alternative(s) based on the evidentiary records, and the expertise necessary to examine the evidentiary record(s) in an unbiased fashion.



    And if they did have a compelling alternative to explain why four planes with hijackers did what they did that day, I'd like to hear it, in the mainstream peer reviewed engineering and scientific literature, with the caveat that it must stand the test of scientific time and become the de facto predominant theory that explains the events that occurred ON September 11th, 2001. \
  • Reply 47 of 152
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,929member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


    If one wants to get analytical and scientific, nobody knows how hot the fires were; the temperatures were not measured. All there was to go on was visual evidence from an external aspect. There is plenty to suggest the fires were rather more inefficient and relatively lower temperature than what has been endlessly circulating in the media. Anyway, I am not interested in joining in the speculation on how and why the buildings failed because the concrete evidence isn't there (literally), and having to resort to computer modeling to duplicate the failures by inputting wildly unrealistic parameters and then arrogantly pronouncing that "we know how the towers collapsed" is not good science; it appears that faith-based elements, or "political expediency parameters" have crept into the equations. More to the point, is why the factors that implied more than (or other than) the "impact + fire damage" were disqualified from the Commission's hearings, and those contrary factors that did make it to the Commission hearings were omitted from their final report, en masse.



    As I said earlier, I do not know how the towers collapsed. But when evidence that suggests additional or contrary factors is ignored by the Commission, which not only used circular arguments, but also lied and misrepresented on multiple occasions in their final report, is it not natural to become suspicious? Their mission (inexplicably delayed by 441 days on account of the Bush Administration's intransigence) was to get to the bottom of the what happened that morning and "leave no stone unturned". That did not happen; the entire "investigation was sabotaged (even hijacked) from the inside by Philip Zelikow, not to mention lack of time, funding, the extraordinary (ab)use of "executive privilege" and all the other BS that accompanied it. Even the mainstream reported on this, although the really blatant stuff was not mentioned. And when key aspects of the official story get altered in response to emerging facts, that clearly indicates that certain officials are not being straight and honest.



    If the Twin Towers failed on account of factors in addition to fire and plane impact damage, then that is one more reason, amongst hundreds of others, to suspect that parties in addition to (or other than?) the 19 alleged al Qaeda men were responsible. It's not just about the most spectacularly horrific part of the attacks, ie the towers' collapses (nobody knows how or why that happened empirically, including everyone on this board of course).... there is all the other material about what happened (or otherwise) on that day that does not gel with the official account. And when the official body assembled to "investigate" fails to deliver in such a spectacular fashion, then it is reasonable to expect suspicion from those who have the time and interest to look beyond the baby formula and pabulum dished up by Fox, CNN and the rest of the MSM.



    There is no good reason to be suspicious. You pointed out Occam's razor (at least, someone did). That's exactly what we should be using here. The most reasonable explanation, the one most verifiable by the video evidence, is that two planes exploded, thereby damaging the structure and causing fires that eventually damaged the structure to the point where it collapsed. There is no hard evidence to the contrary. Yes, there are questions. There are unknowns. But, those don't amount to evidence.
  • Reply 48 of 152
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    There is no good reason to be suspicious. You pointed out Occam's razor (at least, someone did). That's exactly what we should be using here. The most reasonable explanation, the one most verifiable by the video evidence, is that two planes exploded, thereby damaging the structure and causing fires that eventually damaged the structure to the point where it collapsed. There is no hard evidence to the contrary. Yes, there are questions. There are unknowns. But, those don't amount to evidence.



    I have noticed that the debunkers of "alternative 9/11 hypotheses" remain glued to the demise of the Twin Towers, the cause of which remains (in my mind at least), an unknown. There are arguments that support both sides, but I shall refrain from speculating for obvious reasons. However, I will add just one thing, when it comes to government agencies investigating politically loaded matters especially something as controversial as 9/11: if evidence was found that pointed any blame, either wholly or proportionately, towards an(other) element of government, then there is a lesser chance that this evidence would see the light of day, than if the investigation was done by a fair and independent team of experts outside of any federal agency, whose members were selected across the board, ie covering the entire political/racial/socio-economic etc. etc. spectrum. But that is just my mindset: I am disinclined to trust the powers-that-be to conduct themselves in a fair and honest manner, on account of the historical record, as well as human nature.



    I also notice that the points I raised earlier in the thread about other aspects of 9/11 have been quietly not addressed. That's OK.. I wasn't expecting anyone to jump to the defense of the official line, especially when their own facts, evidence and timeline run counter to their story, which has even been altered to fit in with new information. It makes rational explanations tough... apart from people telling lies, that is.
  • Reply 49 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


    I have noticed that the debunkers of "alternative 9/11 hypotheses" remain glued to the demise of the Twin Towers, the cause of which remains (in my mind at least), an unknown. There are arguments that support both sides, but I shall refrain from speculating for obvious reasons. However, I will add just one thing, when it comes to government agencies investigating politically loaded matters especially something as controversial as 9/11: if evidence was found that pointed any blame, either wholly or proportionately, towards an(other) element of government, then there is a lesser chance that this evidence would see the light of day, than if the investigation was done by a fair and independent team of experts outside of any federal agency, whose members were selected across the board, ie covering the entire political/racial/socio-economic etc. etc. spectrum. But that is just my mindset: I am disinclined to trust the powers-that-be to conduct themselves in a fair and honest manner, on account of the historical record, as well as human nature.



    I also notice that the points I raised earlier in the thread about other aspects of 9/11 have been quietly not addressed. That's OK.. I wasn't expecting anyone to jump to the defense of the official line, especially when their own facts, evidence and timeline run counter to their story, which has even been altered to fit in with new information. It makes rational explanations tough... apart from people telling lies, that is.



    Please explain first underlined comment, TYVM.



    Oh, like a trial, where all the mountains of evidence, would be brought forward to confuse the "jury" of novices with no formal skills in such matters, kind of what we have now with the "truth" movements!



    What points, the three you posted in your first reply in this thread? Because I dealt with the first point in a previous 911 thread, which you never responded to!



    Your other two points don't directly address events that occurred on that fateful day with respect to jet planes hitting buildings (or the ground), and the subsequent destruction of those (and surrounding) buildings (or the ground).



    See when you write a good movie script, it's not a good idea to leave your plot outline incomplete, you must gather up your "Loose Change" and see if it amounts to anything more than what it is. It must amount to something complete and stand on it's own, to demand a plot rewrite. And so far all your "Loose Change" from all various time eras, all countries of origin, and all denominations, doesn't add up or stand on it's own merits.



    But when you do come up with some lightweight unreinforced concrete data that can withstand the heat, fireball, blast waves, mass and inertia of what actually happened on that fateful day, that forms a complete picture on it's own, then and only then, will the real SME's begin to take notice.
  • Reply 50 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Sammi,



    Did you not see it with your own eyes? Here's what I saw. I saw two planes fly into the buildings and explode into giant fireballs. This started fires which burned very hot, weakening the concrete and steel. Eventually the points of impact could sustain the floors above them, and each building collapsed on itself.



    http://www.911research.com/wtc/evide...ower_1st24.mpg



    http://www.911research.com/wtc/evide..._collapse.mpeg



    The second clip shows clearly that the point of failure was the bottom of the fire. The steel folded like my back on a bad day. Anyone with a set of eyes can see what happened. Anyone.





    Did you actually see the concrete and steel weaken the way you suggest and then the points "could [NOT???] sustain the floors above them..."?

    Nobody could actually see in to the buildings after the impacts, so nobody really knows for sure what transpired next.



    Were the impacts in the middle of each building (as in from side to side) or off to one side? If the latter, then the structure would not fail in the clean manner which it did and there would have been much more debris off to the sides of the buildings. Ever play the game of basic physics called Jenga? Ever felled a tree? Ever watched the demolition of a building?



    How do they explain the necessary evenness of the fire (to cause a clean collapse) when the momentum and direction of the planes would take the vast majority of the fuel into one area of the buildings and there were very large elevator mechanisms blocking the way to the other side of the building?



    The south tower did start collapsing off to one side... would this have then continued straight down?
  • Reply 51 of 152
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,929member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


    Did you actually see the concrete and steel weaken the way you suggest and then the points "could [NOT???] sustain the floors above them..."?

    Nobody could actually see in to the buildings after the impacts, so nobody really knows for sure what transpired next.



    Were the impacts in the middle of each building (as in from side to side) or off to one side? If the latter, then the structure would not fail in the clean manner which it did and there would have been much more debris off to the sides of the buildings. Ever play the game of basic physics called Jenga? Ever felled a tree? Ever watched the demolition of a building?



    How do they explain the necessary evenness of the fire (to cause a clean collapse) when the momentum and direction of the planes would take the vast majority of the fuel into one area of the buildings and there were very large elevator mechanisms blocking the way to the other side of the building?



    The south tower did start collapsing off to one side... would this have then continued straight down?



    You're insane. I don't mean that to attack you. I just really think that's true. Have a nice day.
  • Reply 52 of 152
    Even if bombs were set to explode inside the WTC towers, a friggin big plane-looking thing complete with fireballs and stuff caused enough damage.



    My impression is that a big ass "thing" (eg. plane) with fiery stuff caused good enough damage. If the conspirators planted bombs to go off timed with the planes (or "planes") crashing into the building, that was clearly overkill. Pardon the pun.
  • Reply 53 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


    Did you actually see the concrete and steel weaken the way you suggest and then the points "could [NOT???] sustain the floors above them..."?

    Nobody could actually see in to the buildings after the impacts, so nobody really knows for sure what transpired next.



    Were the impacts in the middle of each building (as in from side to side) or off to one side? If the latter, then the structure would not fail in the clean manner which it did and there would have been much more debris off to the sides of the buildings. Ever play the game of basic physics called Jenga? Ever felled a tree? Ever watched the demolition of a building?



    How do they explain the necessary evenness of the fire (to cause a clean collapse) when the momentum and direction of the planes would take the vast majority of the fuel into one area of the buildings and there were very large elevator mechanisms blocking the way to the other side of the building?



    The south tower did start collapsing off to one side... would this have then continued straight down?



    The link between massive damage to the tower due to planes/ "planes" and the tower collapsing is an interesting one for conspiracy buffs.
  • Reply 54 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


    Did you actually see the concrete and steel weaken the way you suggest and then the points "could [NOT???] sustain the floors above them..."?

    Nobody could actually see in to the buildings after the impacts, so nobody really knows for sure what transpired next.



    Were the impacts in the middle of each building (as in from side to side) or off to one side? If the latter, then the structure would not fail in the clean manner which it did and there would have been much more debris off to the sides of the buildings. Ever play the game of basic physics called Jenga? Ever felled a tree? Ever watched the demolition of a building?



    How do they explain the necessary evenness of the fire (to cause a clean collapse) when the momentum and direction of the planes would take the vast majority of the fuel into one area of the buildings and there were very large elevator mechanisms blocking the way to the other side of the building?



    The south tower did start collapsing off to one side... would this have then continued straight down?



    ... I saw great balls of fire, I saw subsequent sustained fires, I saw the exterior structural damage, I saw the WTC's collapse, and I saw the NIST and Purdue studies.



    What part of the above did you not see?



    And to answer your last question, yup.
  • Reply 55 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


    ... I saw great balls of fire, I saw subsequent sustained fires, I saw the exterior structural damage, I saw the WTC's collapse, and I saw the NIST and Purdue studies.



    What part of the above did you not see?



    And to answer your last question, yup.



    Semi rant...



    See, I have stated that I watched it on TV live. I was out of work and I had been up early to search for jobs online. At that time I had Excite.com (remember them?) as my homepage. I don't recall the exact time, but when I got online the homepage had a headline "Plane hits WTC tower" "Huh?" So I immediately turned on the TV and there it was...within minutes I saw the second plane hit. Then after a good dumbfounded disbelief watching the Pentagon in flames, evacuations and speculations, I needed some grounding. I called my mother and started talking to her. As I talked to her, the tower collapsed. Now here's the thing, I saw the impact area give inward and that top half, like a giant hand pushed itself onto the other floors and squashed the building down. I recall the sounds too. The sound of concentrated impacts and an unbelievable sustained roaring sound. Then dust and debris.



    What bothered me next was the undeniable belief that the next tower was going to fall (it never seemed to important to the reporters at the time). I hoped that by then the police, firemen and EMTs knew this and would get the hell out of that area. Years later, The firemen, police and others I met said that they would never leave, that's their job. Their duty to help and rescue people in danger. What a great group of dedicated people. If there were anyone to convince me that those towers were brought down by other means they would have told me (and they know there are others who will, only to get attention). They aren't happy that their group are being shafted for medical benefits and other deserved services from New York City, but the one thing they can't fathom are people, who weren't there, would actually believe what they see and read from anyone who was not.



    As far as the government is concerned, they knew something was going to happen again. But their intelligence sources were in a bureaucratic mess. They either couldn't comprehend or piece together within each other to get a handle on it. And yes, they could have plain ignored the information and warnings. Some in office had already started their agenda to reclaim more powers to the president, had plans for a Middle Eastern incursion and that was their plan from the beginning. When 9-11 played into their hands, it was the watershed for an unparalleled advance to enforce and bring about this agenda with unbelievable speed. We as Americans wanted, no needed immediate justice for this act and let the leaders take us on this journey. And what a trip it's been. To keep trying to explain 9-11 I think it has made a lot of us veer off into a sea of confusion, speculation and even fear. Maybe if we just close our eyes and just let our memory of that day roll off in our minds, a sense of clarity as what it means to ourselves is the most important thing.



    Semi rant over...too much coffee and I needed to get that off my chest.



    Oh and please, watch Arundhati Roy's We. A very good 9-11 speech and a brilliant vision of strife and hope.
  • Reply 56 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


    Semi rant...



    See, I have stated that I watched it on TV live. I was out of work and I had been up early to search for jobs online. At that time I had Excite.com (remember them?) as my homepage. I don't recall the exact time, but when I got online the homepage had a headline "Plane hits WTC tower" "Huh?" So I immediately turned on the TV and there it was...within minutes I saw the second plane hit. Then after a good dumbfounded disbelief watching the Pentagon in flames, evacuations and speculations, I needed some grounding. I called my mother and started talking to her. As I talked to her, the tower collapsed. Now here's the thing, I saw the impact area give inward and that top half, like a giant hand pushed itself onto the other floors and squashed the building down. I recall the sounds too. The sound of concentrated impacts and an unbelievable sustained roaring sound. Then dust and debris.



    What bothered me next was the undeniable belief that the next tower was going to fall (it never seemed to important to the reporters at the time). I hoped that by then the police, firemen and EMTs knew this and would get the hell out of that area. Years later, The firemen, police and others I met said that they would never leave, that's their job. Their duty to help and rescue people in danger. What a great group of dedicated people. If there were anyone to convince me that those towers were brought down by other means they would have told me (and they know there are others who will, only to get attention). They aren't happy that their group are being shafted for medical benefits and other deserved services from New York City, but the one thing they can't fathom are people, who weren't there, would actually believe what they see and read from anyone who was not.



    As far as the government is concerned, they knew something was going to happen again. But their intelligence sources were in a bureaucratic mess. They either couldn't comprehend or piece together within each other to get a handle on it. And yes, they could have plain ignored the information and warnings. Some in office had already started their agenda to reclaim more powers to the president, had plans for a Middle Eastern incursion and that was their plan from the beginning. When 9-11 played into their hands, it was the watershed for an unparalleled advance to enforce and bring about this agenda with unbelievable speed. We as Americans wanted, no needed immediate justice for this act and let the leaders take us on this journey. And what a trip it's been. To keep trying to explain 9-11 I think it has made a lot of us veer off into a sea of confusion, speculation and even fear. Maybe if we just close our eyes and just let our memory of that day roll off in our minds, a sense of clarity as what it means to ourselves is the most important thing.



    Semi rant over...too much coffee and I needed to get that off my chest.



    Oh and please, watch Arundhati Roy's We. A very good 9-11 speech and a brilliant vision of strife and hope.



    I just watched the Bill Moyers piece from 2004 (re-shown earlier this year), and the 9-11 truth piece about the four NJ widows of 9-11 victims (don't know the exact name of that one) getting the ball rolling to create the 9-11 commission using public pressure. Both were quite good. IMHO, in the second one with Clark warning the Bushies, and the Bushies basically ignoring him.



    The Bushies were asleep at the wheel and the basic intelligence was there, perhaps not "actionable" but you would have thought they'd have had heightened security, used profiling, and better readiness of fighter jets to take down those planes if necessary.



    The Bushies are so "Executive Privilege" and wanted at all costs to avoid the "blame game" pointing at them. But those hijackers were pretty clever with the box cutters and disabling the aircraft transponders (if that's the right word (?)). Bush is such a TARD!



    And yes firefighters do great things, they place themselves in harm's way to save lives, as they did on 9-11!
  • Reply 57 of 152
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,929member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


    I just watched the Bill Moyers piece from 2004 (re-shown earlier this year), and the 9-11 truth piece about the four NJ widows of 9-11 victims (don't know the exact name of that one) getting the ball rolling to create the 9-11 commission using public pressure. Both were quite good. IMHO, in the second one with Clark warning the Bushies, and the Bushies basically ignoring him.



    The Bushies were asleep at the wheel and the basic intelligence was there, perhaps not "actionable" but you would have thought they'd have had heightened security, used profiling, and better readiness of fighter jets to take down those planes if necessary.



    The Bushies are so "Executive Privilege" and wanted at all costs to avoid the "blame game" pointing at them. But those hijackers were pretty clever with the box cutters and disabling the aircraft transponders (if that's the right word (?)). Bush is such a TARD!



    And yes firefighters do great things, they place themselves in harm's way to save lives, as they did on 9-11!



    Blaming either Bush or Clinton is stupid. Neither administration connected the dots or did enough to prevent terrorism prior to 9/11. The problem was that while we knew hijackings were likely coming and we knew Al-Qaeda might want to fly planes into buildings, no one at any sufficient level of authority put it together that they were going to take a civilian airliner and use it as a missile.



    The problem with this kind of thinking ("the Bushies were asleep") is that someone can easily point to all the things that the prior President did or didn't with respect to preventing terrorism. One could even say his failure to respond to the 1993, 1998 and 2000 terror attacks encouraged more terrorism. We already know that OBL used the Blackhawk Down incident to encourage his recruits. And then someone else will point out Bush didn't focus on AQ enough when coming into office. It never ends.



    The government was totally negligent in protecting us from terrorism pre-9/11, Enough said.
  • Reply 58 of 152
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


    Please explain first underlined comment, TYVM.



    Re. "Refrain from speculating". Exactly that... it should be plain enough. If you read back the 9/11 threads in which I have contributed, I have asked a lot of questions, and linked to a bunch of information (mostly) quoted from mainstream sources and/or government agencies. The implications inferred by these points cannot be equated to (my) speculating as to what might have happened.



    Quote:

    Oh, like a trial, where all the mountains of evidence, would be brought forward to confuse the "jury" of novices with no formal skills in such matters,



    Why did you conjure up the word "novices" when I specifically quoted "experts". Is this your method, to misrepresent an opposing argument in order to put your points over?



    Quote:

    ...kind of what we have now with the "truth" movements!



    I imagine you are referring to the disinformation that has been embedded within the truth movement by hostile parties in order to discredit such (S.O.P). Legitimate parties in the truth movement ask questions rather than speculate or draw conclusions with insufficient information. Yes, there are a mountain of unanswered questions re. 9/11; some concern the demise of the Twin Towers, but there are many more regarding other aspects of the attacks. Why is the truth movement called such? Because there are a lot of people who are skeptical of wild fairytales loaded to the gills with impossibilites, beyond-bizarre coincidences and extreme unlikelihoods. These people are only trying to find out what actually happened that morning: it is as simple as that.



    Tell me, all you people who are so convinced that we have a lily-white, honest administration of extraordinary integrity complete with haloes around their crowns, what is so wrong about asking them a question or two about the most drastic event in our lifetimes, most aspects of which have been neither adequately explained (nor even addressed at all!). And when they and their close associates (in political, religious and business circles) are the ones who have made out like bandits as a result of *that event*, I think they owe us all a far more cohesive, consistent story than what they have dished up so far, much of which is quite frankly, gibberish. Give us at least something that would stand up in a US court of law! Their chief witnesses have lied, on multiple occasions... the glove does not fit. And there are a lot of people who don't appreciate being lied to, especially when their hard-earned tax dollars are squandered on massive corporate welfare, waging insane and illegal wars, instigating a surveillance type society, all on account of those lies.



    Quote:

    What points, the three you posted in your first reply in this thread?



    See 12th entry in this thread. They do not concern the physics of the destruction of the Twin Towers.



    Quote:

    Because I dealt with the first point in a previous 911 thread, which you never responded to!



    LOL Ok, Your turn!
  • Reply 59 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    The problem was that while we knew hijackings were likely coming and we knew Al-Qaeda might want to fly planes into buildings, .




    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the connection here...



    ---



    As you point out at the end of your post, the government completely missed this one.



    ---



    Which is why I really believe there is something fishy going on as in it was allowed to happen.
  • Reply 60 of 152
    ke^inke^in Posts: 98member
    I can't believe half of the things people actually believe in this thread...



    Amazing.

    Quote:

    They happens because everyone can see that BUSH and co are just the sort of people who ARE actually capable of such a thing whether they did it or not.



    I am not pro rah rah Bush fan, and I can't wait for him to get out of office. If anything so the anti-Bush zealots that blame him for everything will finally STFU. If you believe that above, well I feel sorry for you.
Sign In or Register to comment.