PDA

View Full Version : Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition & 'Inside



Hardrock69
06-13-2005, 09:34 AM
Highly recognized former chief economist in Labor Department now doubts official 9/11 story, claiming suspicious facts and evidence cover-up indicate government foul play and possible criminal implications.
June 12, 2005

By Greg Szymanski

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

"If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling," said Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, a former member of the Bush team who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX.

Reynolds, now a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University, also believes it's 'next to impossible' that 19 Arab Terrorists alone outfoxed the mighty U.S. military, adding the scientific conclusions about the WTC collapse may hold the key to the entire mysterious plot behind 9/11.

"It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7," said Reynolds this week from his offices at Texas A&M. "If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings.

"More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would follow if impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC. Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9/11 right."

However, Reynolds said "getting it right in today's security state' remains challenging because he claims explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11.

From the beginning, the Bush administration claimed that burning jet fuel caused the collapse of the towers. Although many independent investigators have disagreed, they have been hard pressed to disprove the government theory since most of the evidence was removed by FEMA prior to independent investigation.

Critics claim the Bush administration has tried to cover-up the evidence and the recent 9/11 Commission has failed to address the major evidence contradicting the official version of 9/11.

Some facts demonstrating the flaws in the government jet fuel theory include:

-- Photos showing people walking around in the hole in the North Tower where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel supposedly was burning..

--When the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower's flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes, making it relatively easy to contain and control without a total collapse.

--The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating, indicating without added explosive devices the firs could have been easily controlled.

--FDNY fire fighters still remain under a tight government gag order to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a similar 9/11 gag order.

--Even the flawed 9/11 Commission Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible."


-- Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.

-- The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were relatively small.

-- WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.

-- WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams.

-- In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, told the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 that. "may be the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it.

-- It's difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.

Despite the numerous holes in the government story, the Bush administration has brushed aside or basically ignored any and all critics. Mainstream experts, speaking for the administration, offer a theory essentially arguing that an airplane impact weakened each structure and an intense fire thermally weakened structural components, causing buckling failures while allowing the upper floors to pancake onto the floors below.

One who supports the official account is Thomas Eager, professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at MIT. He argues that the collapse occurred by the extreme heat from the fires, causing the loss of loading-bearing capacity on the structural frame.

Eagar points out the steel in the towers could have collapsed only if heated to the point where it "lost 80 percent of its strength," or around 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit. Critics claim his theory is flawed since the fires did not appear to be intense and widespread enough to reach such high temperatures.

Other experts supporting the official story claim the impact of the airplanes, not the heat, weakened the entire structural system of the towers, but critics contend the beams on floors 94-98 did not appear severely weakened, much less the entire structural system.

Further complicating the matter, hard evidence to fully substantiate either theory since evidence is lacking due to FEMA's quick removal of the structural steel before it could be analyzed. Even though the criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be kept for forensic analysis, FEMA had it destroyed or shipped overseas before a serious investigation could take place.

And even more doubt is cast over why FEMA acted so swiftly since coincidentally officials had arrived the day before the 9/11 attacks at New York's Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, named "Tripod II."

Besides FEMA's quick removal of the debris, authorities considered the steel quite valuable as New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and even fired one truck driver who took an unauthorized lunch break.

In a detailed analysis just released supporting the controlled demolition theory, Reynolds presents a compelling case.


"First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not," said Reynolds. "These extraordinary collapses after short-duration minor fires made it all the more important to preserve the evidence, mostly steel girders, to study what had happened.

"On fire intensity, consider this benchmark: A 1991 FEMA report on Philadelphia's Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so energetic that 'beams and girders sagged and twisted, but despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.' Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no resemblance to what we observed at the WTC."


After considering both sides of the 9/11 debate and after thoroughly sifting through all the available material, Reynolds concludes the government story regarding all four plane crashes on 9/11 remains highly suspect.

"In fact, the government has failed to produce significant wreckage from any of the four alleged airliners that fateful day. The familiar photo of the Flight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania shows no fuselage, engine or anything recognizable as a plane, just a smoking hole in the ground," said Reynolds. "Photographers reportedly were not allowed near the hole. Neither the FBI nor the National Transportation Safety Board have investigated or produced any report on the alleged airliner crashes."

For more informative articles, go to www.arcticbeacon.com.


http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/27302.htm

BigBadBrian
06-13-2005, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by Hardrock69
A former chief economist in the Labor Department during President Bush's first term now believes the official story about the collapse of the WTC is 'bogus,' saying it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.



There's a little green man running around inside of his head. :D


That's about the 25th time for one of these nutball threads. :rolleyes:

FORD
06-13-2005, 09:42 AM
**Insert standard Busheep denials here.....**

Nickdfresh
06-13-2005, 10:08 AM
Okay, I'll be a BUSHEEP today.:) As PENN & TELLER would say, BULLSHIT!

Did You Know?

1. Most structural engineers were surprised when the World Trade Center towers collapsed.

2. Engineers believe that part of the reason why the towers remained standing as long as they did after impact was because of redundancy in their design: The weight of upper floors pushing down on columns lost in the impact was transferred to other columns nearby that were left intact.

3. Only four people escaped either tower from above the floors where the planes struck, using what appears to have been the only stairwell not destroyed or blocked by the impacts: Stairway A in the South Tower.

4. One of those survivors recalled that when struck by United 175, the South Tower swayed in one direction for seven to ten seconds before swinging back and stabilizing.


5. The World Trade Center was designed to withstand hurricane-force winds.

6. It was also designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, though engineers apparently did not take into consideration the plane's fuel load.


7. Each plane that hit the Twin Towers released an estimated 10,000 gallons of flaming jet fuel into the buildings.

8. Temperatures of the fuel fire may have reached 2,000°F.

9. Though no evidence has turned up that the fires burned hot enough to melt any of the steel, eventually the steel lost 80 percent of its strength because of the intensity of the fire.

10. While there are signs that the fire melted aluminum from the fuselage or wings of at least one of the planes, there is no evidence that the aluminum burned.

11. Many structural engineers feel the weak link in the chain within the towers was the angle clips that held the floor trusses between the interior and exterior steel columns.

12. The angle clips were smaller pieces of steel than the columns and therefore gave out first.

13. Each floor was designed to support approximately 1,300 tons beyond its own weight, but when one or more gave way in the intense fire of the impact zone, the combined weight of higher floors crashing down reached into the tens of thousands of tons.

14. Each tower weighed about 500,000 tons.

15. There was no chance of either tower tipping over, for a 500,000-ton building has too much inertia to fall any way except virtually straight down.

16. Each 208-foot-wide building would had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base.

17. Each building collapsed in about ten seconds, hitting the ground with an estimated speed of about 125 miles per hour.

18. The collapse was a near free-fall. With no restraint, the collapse would have taken eight seconds and would have impacted at about 185 miles per hour.

19. The reason the 110-story towers collapsed into a rubble pile only a few stories high was that they were about 95 percent air.

20. The roughly 300,000 tons of steel from the World Trade Center is fully recyclable and represents just a single day's production by the U.S. steel industry.

Sources

Note: Unless otherwise specified, all sources are NOVA/WGBH.

7. "Towers Fell as Intense Fire Beat Defenses, Report Says," by James Glanz and Eric Lipton, The New York Times, 3/29/02, p. A14.
8. Ibid, p. A1.
13. "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation," by Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso, JOM: The Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society, December 2001, available at www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
15. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
20. Ibid.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/dyk.html

FORD
06-13-2005, 10:16 AM
So why did they "pull" Building 7?

Nickdfresh
06-13-2005, 10:17 AM
The Collapse: An Engineer's Perspective

It wasn't until Dr. Thomas Eagar saw Building 7 of the World Trade Center implode late on the afternoon of September 11th that he understood what had transpired structurally earlier that day as the Twin Towers disintegrated. A professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Eagar went on to write an influential paper in the journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society entitled "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation" (JOM, December 2001). In this interview, Eagar explains the structural failure, what can be done within existing skyscrapers to improve safety, and what he believes the most likely terrorist targets of the future may be.


NOVA: After the planes struck and you saw those raging fires, did you think the towers would collapse?

Eagar: No. In fact, I was surprised. So were most structural engineers. The only people I know who weren't surprised were a few people who've designed high-rise buildings.

NOVA: But you weren't surprised that they withstood the initial impacts, is that correct?

Eagar: That's right. All buildings and most bridges have what we call redundant design. If one component breaks, the whole thing will not come crashing down. I once worked on a high-rise in New York, for example, that had a nine-foot-high beam that had a crack all the way through one of the main beams in the basement. This was along the approach to the George Washington Bridge. They shored it up and kept traffic from using that area.

Some people were concerned the building would fall down. The structural engineers knew it wouldn't, because the whole thing had an egg-crate-like construction. Or you can think of it as a net. If you lose one string on a net, yes, the net is weakened but the rest of the net still works.

Traditional design
WTC design Earlier skyscrapers (top) had columns spaced evenly across every floor. The World Trade Center (bottom) broke with tradition by having columns only in the central core and along the exterior walls.
That's essentially how the World Trade Center absorbed an airplane coming into it. It was somewhat like the way a net absorbs a baseball being thrown against it. If you lose a couple of the columns, that's not the end of the world. It will still stand up.

NOVA: The World Trade Center was also designed to take a major wind load hitting from the side.

Eagar: Yes. A skyscraper is a long, thin, vertical structure, but if you turned it sideways, it would be like a diving board, and you could bend it on the end. The wind load is trying to bend it like a diving board. It sways back and forth. If you've been on the top of the Sears Tower in Chicago or the Empire State Building on a windy day, you can actually feel it. When I was a student, I visited the observation deck of the Sears Tower, and I went into the restroom there, and I could see the water sloshing in the toilet bowl, because the wind load was causing the whole building to wave in the breeze.

NOVA: Are skyscrapers designed that way, to be a little flexible?

Eagar: Absolutely. Now, there are different ways to design things. For example, Boeing designs their aircraft wings to flap in the breeze, while McDonnell Douglas used to design a very rigid wing that would not flex as much. You can design it both ways. There are trade-offs, and there are advantages to both ways.



"Most buildings are designed to sway in the breeze."
Most buildings are designed to sway in the breeze. In fact, one of the big concerns in the early design of the World Trade Center, since it was going to be the tallest building in the world at the time, was that it not sway too much and make people sick. You can get seasick in one of these tall buildings from the wind loads. So they had to do some things to make them stiff enough that people wouldn't get sick, but not so rigid that it could snap if it got too big a load. If something's flexible, it can give; think of a willow tree. If you have a strong wind, you want the building, like the tree, to bend rather than break.

NOVA: Brian Clark, one of only four people to get out from above where United 175 hit the South Tower, says that when the plane struck, the building swayed for a full seven to 10 seconds in one direction before settling back, and he thought it was going over.

Eagar: That estimate of seven to ten seconds is probably correct, because often big buildings are designed to be stiff enough that the period to go one way and back the other way is 15 or 20 seconds, or even 30 seconds. That keeps people from getting sick.

Pancaking Upper floors pancaked down onto lower floors, causing a domino effect that left each building in ruins within ten seconds.
NOVA: The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over?

Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over.

Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, "How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?" They said, "Oh, it's really how you time and place the explosives." I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big. With anything that massive -- each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons -- there's nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways.


Impact Even traveling at hundreds of miles an hour, the planes that struck the World Trade Center did not have enough force to knock the towers over.
NOVA: I think some people were surprised when they saw this massive 110-story building collapse into a rubble pile only a few stories tall.

Eagar: Well, like most buildings, the World Trade Center was mostly air. It looked like a huge building if you walked inside, but it was just like this room we're in. The walls are a very small fraction of the total room. The World Trade Center collapse proved that with a 110-story building, if 95 percent of it's air, as was the case here, you're only going to have about five stories of rubble at the bottom after it falls.

NOVA: You've said that the fire is the most misunderstood part of the World Trade Center collapse. Why?

Eagar: The problem is that most people, even some engineers, talk about temperature and heat as if they're identical. In fact, scientifically, they're only related to each other. Temperature tells me the intensity of the heat -- is it 100 degrees, 200 degrees, 300 degrees? The heat tells me how big the thing is that gets hot. I mean, I could boil a cup of water to make a cup of tea, or I could boil ten gallons of water to cook a bunch of lobsters. So it takes a lot more energy to cook the lobsters -- heat is related to energy. That's the difference: We call the intensity of heat the temperature, and the amount of heat the energy.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

NOVA: So with the World Trade Center fire, the heat was much greater than might have been expected in a typical fire?

Eagar: Right. We had all this extra fuel from the aircraft. Now, there have been fires in skyscrapers before. The Hotel Meridien in Philadelphia had a fire, but it didn't do this kind of damage. The real damage in the World Trade Center resulted from the size of the fire. Each floor was about an acre, and the fire covered the whole floor within a few seconds. Ordinarily, it would take a lot longer. If, say, I have an acre of property, and I start a brushfire in one corner, it might take an hour, even with a good wind, to go from one corner and start burning the other corner.

That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing for -- a fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it started have already started to cool down and regain their strength before you start to weaken the ones on the other side.

On September 11th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse. There was so much fuel spread so quickly that the entire floor got weakened all at once, whereas in a normal fire, people should not think that if there's a fire in a high-rise building that the building will come crashing down. This was a very unusual situation, in which someone dumped 10,000 gallons of jet fuel in an instant.

NOVA: How high did the temperatures get, and what did that do to the steel columns?

Eagar: The maximum temperature would have been 1,600°F or 1,700°F. It's impossible to generate temperatures much above that in most cases with just normal fuel, in pure air. In fact, I think the World Trade Center fire was probably only 1,200°F or 1,300°F.

Investigations of fires in other buildings with steel have shown that fires don't usually even melt the aluminum, which melts around 1,200°F. Most fires don't get above 900°F to 1,100°F. The World Trade Center fire did melt some of the aluminum in the aircraft and hence it probably got to 1,300°F or 1,400°F. But that's all it would have taken to trigger the collapse, according to my analysis.

NOVA: You've pointed out that structural steel loses about half its strength at 1,200°F, yet even a 50 percent loss of strength is insufficient, by itself, to explain the collapse.

Eagar: Well, normally the biggest load on this building was the wind load, trying to push it sideways and make it vibrate like a flag in the breeze. The World Trade Center building was designed to withstand a hurricane of about 140 miles an hour, but September 11th wasn't a windy day, so the major loads it was designed for were not on it at the time.


"You can't explain the collapse just in terms of temperature."
As a result, the World Trade Center, at the time each airplane hit it, was only loaded to about 20 percent of its capacity. That means it had to lose five times its capacity either due to temperature or buckling -- the temperature weakening the steel, the buckling changing the strength of a member because it's bent rather than straight. You can't explain the collapse just in terms of temperature, and you can't explain it just in terms of buckling. It was a combination.

NOVA: So can you give a sequence of events that likely took place in the structural failure?

Eagar: Well, first you had the impact of the plane, of course, and then this spreading of the fireball all the way across within seconds. Then you had a hot fire, but it wasn't an absolutely uniform fire everywhere. You had a wind blowing, so the smoke was going one way more than another way, which means the heat was going one way more than another way. That caused some of the beams to distort, even at fairly low temperatures. You can permanently distort the beams with a temperature difference of only about 300°F.

NOVA: You mean one part of a beam is 300°F hotter than another part of the same beam?

Eagar: Exactly. If there was one part of the building in which a beam had a temperature difference of 300°F, then that beam would have become permanently distorted at relatively low temperatures. So instead of being nice and straight, it had a gentle curve. If you press down on a soda straw, you know that if it's perfectly straight, it will support a lot more load than if you start to put a little sideways bend in it. That's what happened in terms of the beams. They were weakened because they were bent by the fire.

But the steel still had plenty of strength, until it reached temperatures of 1,100°F to 1,300°F. In this range, the steel started losing a lot of strength, and the bending became greater. Eventually the steel lost 80 percent of its strength, because of this fire that consumed the whole floor.

If it had only occurred in one little corner, such as a trashcan caught on fire, you might have had to repair that corner, but the whole building wouldn't have come crashing down. The problem was, it was such a widely distributed fire, and then you got this domino effect. Once you started to get angle clips to fail in one area, it put extra load on other angle clips, and then it unzipped around the building on that floor in a matter of seconds.


Collapse Watch an animation of the floor trusses giving way, followed by the buckling of the outer columns.

QuickTime | RealVideo: 56K/ ISDN+
NOVA: Many other engineers also feel the weak link was these angle clips, which held the floor trusses between the inner core of columns and the exterior columns. Is that simply because they were much smaller pieces of steel?

Eagar: Exactly. That's the easiest way to look at it. If you look at the whole structure, they are the smallest piece of steel. As everything begins to distort, the smallest piece is going to become the weak link in the chain. They were plenty strong for holding up one truss, but when you lost several trusses, the trusses adjacent to those had to hold two or three times what they were expected to hold.

Those angle clips probably had two or three or four times the strength that they originally needed. They didn't have the same factor-of-five safety as the columns did, but they still had plenty of safety factor to have people and equipment on those floors. It was not that the angle clips were inadequately designed; it was just that there were so many of them that the engineers were able to design them with less safety factor. In a very unusual loading situation like this, they became the weak link.

NOVA: I've read that the collapse was a near free-fall.

Eagar: Yes. That's because the forces, it's been estimated, were anywhere from 10 to 100 times greater than an individual floor could support. First of all, you had 10 or 20 floors above that came crashing down. That's about 10 or 20 times the weight you'd ever expect on one angle clip. There's also the impact force, that is, if something hits very hard, there's a bigger force than if you lower it down very gently.

NOVA: Miraculously, a number of firefighters survived inside Tower One. They were on the third or fourth floor in a stairwell, and immediately after the collapse they looked up and saw blue sky above their heads -- their part of the stairwell survived. How is that possible, with all the force of that 500,000-ton building coming down?


"They were very, very fortunate that they happened to be in an area that was somewhat shielded."
Eagar: Well, you have to understand the stairwells were reinforced areas of the building. The stairwells were in the central core, which had more steel than the outer areas, which were big open floors. So that extra steel formed a little cage to protect them. It's still amazing, though.

Now, there could have been someone two floors below who could have been completely crushed. It just depends on how the steel buckled. If you take that soda straw again, and you push it sideways, it will develop a buckle at some location, probably somewhere in the middle third. Well, if you happen to be where the buckling occurs, that area is going to get smashed, but if you're, say, below where the buckling occurred, basically the whole thing can push sideways. They were very, very fortunate that they happened to be in an area that was somewhat shielded and protected by all the extra steel in the central core.

I read one of those people's statements in the paper the other day, and he said that if they'd been in the lobby, they'd be gone. I was in the lobby of the World Trade Center years ago, and it was some three or four stories tall. What was going to buckle? Well, the lobby had the longest columns, so they were going to buckle. Those firefighters were just above that, so they were protected by the buckling underneath, within this sort of steel cage.

In fact, that's how they design automobiles for crashworthiness. They try to design the passenger compartment to be a cage, and the hood and trunk are supposed to deform and absorb the energy so that you're protected by this little cage of steel that hopefully won't deform.


Plane approaching Engineers have found evidence that the aluminum of the planes' fuselages and wings may have melted, but there is no evidence that it burned.
NOVA: There's a theory that the aluminum of the planes caught fire.

Eagar: Yes, a number of people have tried to reinforce that theory. Now, the aluminum of the planes would have burned just like a flare. Flares are made out of aluminum and magnesium, so are fireworks, and they burn hot enough to melt steel in certain cases.

However, they have had people sorting through the steel from the World Trade Center, and no one has reported finding melted steel, which means that we didn't have that aluminum flare. In any case, burning aluminum would have been white-hot, about 4,000°F, and someone would have seen it even through that dense black smoke.

Of course, aluminum can burn. That's what demolished the Sheffield in the Falklands War [when it was struck by an Argentinian missile]. It wasn't the Exocet missile that destroyed the superstructure of the Sheffield. The missile wasn't big enough, just like the plane wasn't big enough to bring down the World Trade Center. That Exocet missile did damage the Sheffield, but what doomed the Sheffield was the aluminum superstructure caught fire and burned. So you suddenly had something like 1,000 or 10,000 times as much fuel as you had in that Exocet missile.

Now, this is not a type of fire we have to worry about in buildings. We don't have anywhere close to those types of conditions. And we didn't have those in the World Trade Center, in my opinion.

NOVA: How soon will a definitive report of the causes of the collapse be released?

Eagar: Well, there's some very sophisticated analysis that various people in the government, at universities, and at structural engineering firms are doing to understand it. Most of those people have not yet published any conclusions. To do a good job of research on something like this can typically take one to two years. I don't expect to see any conclusive reports probably until about the first anniversary of the attack.


"There will still be people worrying about this ten years from now."
There are different levels of analysis. You can do the back-of-the-envelope, which was what I and other people did early on. But to do the full analysis will take much longer. I suspect there will still be people worrying about this ten years from now.

NOVA: In your back-of-the-envelope analysis, you concluded the World Trade Center was not defectively designed, but not everyone apparently accepts that conclusion.

Eagar: A lot of people said, Well, the building failed. That's true, but nothing is indestructible. The question is, why did it fail? In this case, as I've explained, it was the fire covering the whole floor in a few seconds that made this different from any other fire that anyone had ever designed for.

If people say, Well, couldn't we have designed it for this, I say, Yes, we could have. We could build buildings that could survive a jet running into them with a full fuel load. In fact, the military does. But they're bunkers. We build these things for the President and the rest of the 150 leaders of the country to go to as a secure area. You can do that, but your building costs go up by a factor of about 100. Well, do we want to have 100 times fewer homes for people to live in? Do we want to have 100 times fewer roads?

If we were to harden everything against a terrorist attack, we'd push ourselves back into the first half of the 19th century in terms of living style. Now, some people might consider that an improvement, but not everybody, so society has some important tradeoffs here. There's got to be some middle ground where we can make things more secure but not destroy our standard of living.

NOVA: Anything we should do now to retrofit existing skyscrapers like the Sears Tower?

Eagar: Well, one of the things that's really important and is relatively inexpensive is a public communication system. I've been in high-rises when the fire alarm goes off, and everyone looks around the room and decides, Should we just continue meeting and ignore the fire alarm, or should we evacuate? Fortunately, in most cases -- and I've had to be the person in a few of those cases -- people say, Look, it's a fire alarm. We don't know if it's real. Evacuate. So you need better public-address systems to inform people that this is not a test, this is not a false alarm, you'd better get out of the building.


Stairwell Better communications systems may have allowed more people to escape the towers before they collapsed, Eagar believes. For instance, if more people had known that Stairway A in the South Tower, shown here in green, had survived the impact, more people may have gotten out before the building collapsed.
Survivors from the World Trade Center have said that some people took four or five minutes to figure out there was something more than just some false alarm. Other people started moving immediately. Obviously, the quicker people started to move, the better chance they had of reaching safety.

NOVA: How about improving the fire safety of the building or putting in extra stairwells?

Eagar: These are very difficult things to redesign into current buildings. They can and will be added to future buildings. The simplest thing is the communication system. And better training of firefighters. Those things will definitely be done.

If you look at the World Trade Center disaster, it would have been greatly minimized if the safety personnel had been aware of the danger they were in. They didn't realize it was going to collapse. As I said earlier, there are only a few engineers in the country who had ever designed skyscrapers like this who would have realized, but they couldn't communicate within that first hour with the people at ground zero. Nobody could call to New York City at that time.

So better communication. The military's known that for years. They've invested tremendous amounts of money in better communications. That's been one of the differences in having fewer lives lost on the American side in recent wars. We've got much better C3I -- Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence. They've spent billions of dollars, and it's saved thousands and thousands of lives in the military. We can do that on the civilian side as well for these big structures, though, in my opinion, skyscrapers are not the problem anymore.


"A terrorist is not going to attack the things you expect him to attack."
NOVA: What is?

Eagar: I think the terrorist danger will be other things. A terrorist is not going to attack the things you expect him to attack. The real problem is pipelines, electrical transmission, dams, nuclear plants, railroads. A terrorist's job is to scare people. He or she doesn't have to harm very many people. Anthrax is a perfect example. If someone could wipe out one electrical transmission line and cause a brownout in all of New York City or Los Angeles, there would be hysteria, if people realized it was a terrorist that did it.

Fortunately, we have enough redundancy -- the same type of redundancy we talk about structurally in the World Trade Center -- in our electrical distribution. We have that redundancy built in. I shouldn't say this, but this was how Enron was able to build up a business, because they could transfer their energy from wherever they were producing it into California, which was having problems, and make a fortune -- for a short period of time.

NOVA: Gas pipelines don't have redundancy built in, though.

Eagar: No, but one advantage of a gas pipeline is the damage you can do to it is relatively limited. You might be able to destroy several hundred yards of it, but that's not wiping out a whole city. The bigger problem with taking out a gas pipeline is if you do it in the middle of winter, and that gas pipeline is heating 20 percent of the homes in the Northeast. Then all of a sudden you have 20 percent less fuel, and everybody's going to have to turn the thermostat down, and you're going to terrorize 30 million people.

The lesson we have to learn about this kind of terrorism is we have to design flexible and redundant systems, so that we're not completely dependent on any one thing, whether it's a single gas pipeline bringing heat to a particular area or whatever.

Remember the energy crisis in 1973? That terrorized people. People were sitting in long lines at gas pumps. It takes five or 10 years for society to readjust to a problem like that. What happened in the energy crisis in 1973 was we had essentially all our eggs in one basket -- the oil basket. But by 1983, electric generating plants could flip a switch and change from oil to coal or gas, so no one could hold a gun to our head like they did before.

[b]Thomas Eagar is Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT. He was recently nominated to serve on a National Research Council committee on homeland security. To see Eagar's article, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation," which was coauthored by MIT graduate student Christopher Musso, go to www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

Interview conducted by Peter Tyson, editor in chief of NOVA Online

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse2.html

Nickdfresh
06-13-2005, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by FORD
So why did they "pull" Building 7?

I don't know much about that. But that could be a cover-up...The diesel fuel tanks inside for the emergency center?

knuckleboner
06-13-2005, 11:53 AM
ah...the ol' conspiracy vs. science argument.

(sorry, i think science has long since won this one...)

Keeyth
06-13-2005, 12:42 PM
Busheep wake up! This is the thing that gets to me the most about 9/11:

#1. The name of the company first on the scene after the collapse of the towers? ...Controlled Demolition.

#2. Tower #1 gets hit with a direct hit, and all the fuel goes into the tower, Tower #2 gets clipped on the corner with 95% of the fuel going out into the air, yet it falls BEFORE tower #1????!?!????

#3 The tower clipped on the corner does not tip over, as it should, but falls in a beautiful symmetry... ...just as in a controlled demolition.

#4We've all seen how the real terrorists work. If they do something, they get on TV, they take credit for it, they make demands for what they want... ...Osama bin Laden forgot to make any demands OR take credit for it... ...Hmmmm...

#5. There are too many other things I could go on about that need to be explained logically that never have been but I have to get back to work...

Nickdfresh
06-13-2005, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by Keeyth
Busheep wake up! This is the thing that gets to me the most about 9/11:

#1. The name of the company first on the scene after the collapse of the towers? ...Controlled Demolition.

#2. Tower #1 gets hit with a direct hit, and all the fuel goes into the tower, Tower #2 gets clipped on the corner with 95% of the fuel going out into the air, yet it falls BEFORE tower #1????!?!????

#3 The tower clipped on the corner does not tip over, as it should, but falls in a beautiful symmetry... ...just as in a controlled demolition.

#4We've all seen how the real terrorists work. If they do something, they get on TV, they take credit for it, they make demands for what they want... ...Osama bin Laden forgot to make any demands OR take credit for it... ...Hmmmm...

#5. There are too many other things I could go on about that need to be explained logically that never have been but I have to get back to work...

Yeah, right....I guess the several thousand workers inside the towers could never have seen workers planting explosives all over the building...:rolleyes:

BigBadBrian
06-13-2005, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by Keeyth
Busheep wake up! This is the thing that gets to me the most about 9/11:

#1. The name of the company first on the scene after the collapse of the towers? ...Controlled Demolition.

#2. Tower #1 gets hit with a direct hit, and all the fuel goes into the tower, Tower #2 gets clipped on the corner with 95% of the fuel going out into the air, yet it falls BEFORE tower #1????!?!????

#3 The tower clipped on the corner does not tip over, as it should, but falls in a beautiful symmetry... ...just as in a controlled demolition.

#4We've all seen how the real terrorists work. If they do something, they get on TV, they take credit for it, they make demands for what they want... ...Osama bin Laden forgot to make any demands OR take credit for it... ...Hmmmm...

#5. There are too many other things I could go on about that need to be explained logically that never have been but I have to get back to work...

Finally out on parole, huh? :rolleyes:

Warham
06-13-2005, 04:50 PM
This theory is right up there with Eisenhower meeting aliens in 1954 at Edward's Air Force Base, and the hoaxed moon landing in 1969 where Armstrong stepped out on a soundstage in Nevada.

Guitar Shark
06-13-2005, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by Warham
This theory is right up there with Eisenhower meeting aliens in 1954 at Edward's Air Force Base, and the hoaxed moon landing in 1969 where Armstrong stepped out on a soundstage in Nevada.

I think it's worse.

FORD
06-13-2005, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yeah, right....I guess the several thousand workers inside the towers could never have seen workers planting explosives all over the building...:rolleyes:

Just literally days (maybe a week or so) before 9-11-01) there was a "new sprinkler system" installed over the weekend in the WTC. It would have been very easy to install charges in the buildings using this as a "cover". With the work being done on the weekend, there would be far less people on the scene, and the installation of sprinklers was the perfect cover.

By Silverstein's own admission, he asked them to "pull" Building #7.

Yet there was no time for them to place the charges in that building on the day of the attack between the times when the towers collapsed and the time that building #7 was imploded (about 5:30 EST)

Furthermore, the power was cut to the entire WTC after the second plane hit.

Simply put, they could not have possibly wired WTC 7 on that day, in the dark, with professionally placed charges for the purpose of controlled demolition of the building.

Therefore, the charges must have existed in the building already.

And if WTC #7 was already pre-wired for a controlled demolition, then how is it a stretch to say that the towers themselves were also pre-wired?

Guitar Shark
06-13-2005, 06:05 PM
FORD, I thought you agreed not to stop taking your medication.

FORD
06-13-2005, 06:09 PM
Examine the evidence, counselor.

diamondD
06-13-2005, 06:18 PM
You don't offer any evidence, just theories.

There's plenty of evidence that everything happened just as it's been reported, but you don't want to hear it.

FORD
06-13-2005, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by diamondD
You don't offer any evidence, just theories.

There's plenty of evidence that everything happened just as it's been reported, but you don't want to hear it.

Like I said, they admitted WTC #7 was a controlled demolition.

So when was the building wired with charges? It could not possibly have been done on 9-11-01. Therefore it was done at an earlier date.

Those are the facts.

The towers themselves being wired with charges IS speculation, however it is LOGICAL speculation, as it wouldn't make sense to plant these charges in one building and not the others.

diamondD
06-13-2005, 06:52 PM
No one admitted that #7 was a controlled demolition. Who says he said that? Do you have any proof? Or do you just want to believe it so bad that you can't see it any other way? He could have meant to pull the operation and get the people out. That's logical too. ;)

Saying that the charges had to be put in before 9-11 and calling that "the facts" is hallucinatory grasping.

Nickdfresh
06-13-2005, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Like I said, they admitted WTC #7 was a controlled demolition.

So when was the building wired with charges? It could not possibly have been done on 9-11-01. Therefore it was done at an earlier date.

Those are the facts.

The towers themselves being wired with charges IS speculation, however it is LOGICAL speculation, as it wouldn't make sense to plant these charges in one building and not the others.

So is the theory that the towers were rammed by Boeing 757 airliners, travleing at 400mph and that were nearly full of jet fuel. This caused a very intense fire that weakened the steel supports by up tp 80% thereby causing a failure in structural integrity, which led to a pancake effect collapse...

Warham
06-13-2005, 07:10 PM
The whole conspiracy theory doesn't make a whit of sense when you look at all the evidence, AND read expert analysis by credible sources.

diamondD
06-13-2005, 07:10 PM
Hey Dave, why are you so willing to take the word of someone who is obviously BCE? :confused:

A former chief economist has controlled demolition theories? Wow, I'm overwhelmed by the amount of authority he brings to the argument. I'll dismiss all the scientific evidence immediately. :rolleyes:

Keeyth
06-13-2005, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Finally out on parole, huh? :rolleyes:

That was a good one, I'll give ya that. :D No, I've just been without a computer or a job in this wonderful Bush economy lately, but I've fixed that now. You know you missed me, BBB!;)

Keeyth
06-13-2005, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Like I said, they admitted WTC #7 was a controlled demolition.

So when was the building wired with charges? It could not possibly have been done on 9-11-01. Therefore it was done at an earlier date.

Those are the facts.

The towers themselves being wired with charges IS speculation, however it is LOGICAL speculation, as it wouldn't make sense to plant these charges in one building and not the others.

Glad to see you're still keeping up the fight FORD. It's nice to know there are still some people out there who won't allow themselves to be completely brainwashed by this friggin LIAR we have in the oval office...

FORD
06-13-2005, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
So is the theory that the towers were rammed by Boeing 757 airliners, travleing at 400mph and that were nearly full of jet fuel. This caused a very intense fire that weakened the steel supports by up tp 80% thereby causing a failure in structural integrity, which led to a pancake effect collapse...

We know for a fact that the second tower was hit with a large plane, probably a 757, because there is live footage of that happening, from every angle imaginable.

But the very same live footage also shows that the plane, failing to hit it's logical planned target in the center of the floor, instead pushed through the outside of the building, forcing most of the jet fuel to actually burn outside of the tower, as seen here....

http://www.insearchofpeace.org/World-Trade-Center/wtc-in-fire1.gif

Now, also notice that, by the time the second plane hit, the fire in the first tower had shrunk considerably. This is approximately 15 minutes after the first plane's impact

http://www.insearchofpeace.org/World-Trade-Center/wtc-in-fire3.jpg

So if the majority of the jet fuel had burned within that short of a time span, how exactly would there be a means of keeping the steel frame hot enough to soften and twist over an hour later when the towers "collapsed"?

And if the majority of the jet fuel never went into the second tower at all, how is it even possible that its frame would melt first?

It simply does not add up.

ODShowtime
06-13-2005, 09:09 PM
From the beginning, the Bush administration claimed that burning jet fuel caused the collapse of the towers. Although many independent investigators have disagreed, they have been hard pressed to disprove the government theory since most of the evidence was removed by FEMA prior to independent investigation.

Just the fact that this is the bush administration saying this is enough to believe it's not true. Who believes anything those jokers say anymore? They've been caught lying for profit repeatedly.

Warham
06-13-2005, 09:26 PM
Oh, please!

Everybody knows Satan was behind the attacks...

Warham
06-13-2005, 09:27 PM
...

Warham
06-13-2005, 09:43 PM
...

academic punk
06-13-2005, 10:07 PM
The sad thing is I can't even tell if Warham is being serious or ironic here...

Satan
06-13-2005, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Oh, please!

Everybody knows Satan was behind the attacks...

A ridiculous accusation....

While I certainly am an expert when it comes to fire and destruction, there's just one serious flaw in your theory.

I hate skyscrapers! I can't stand being that high off the ground.

Because it makes me homesick......http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/smiley_evilFrown.gif

Guitar Shark
06-14-2005, 11:26 AM
Hey Satan, quit holding back on us! Next time Dave goes running with you, let us know.

Keeyth
06-14-2005, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by FORD

So if the majority of the jet fuel had burned within that short of a time span, how exactly would there be a means of keeping the steel frame hot enough to soften and twist over an hour later when the towers "collapsed"?

And if the majority of the jet fuel never went into the second tower at all, how is it even possible that its frame would melt first?

It simply does not add up.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by FORD

This is what I have been saying since 9/11. There is no way those two planes could have brought those buildings down.

Think about this: One of the pilots was so confident the buildings would come down, that he chose to hit the building only 25 floors from the top, even though he had a relatively clear shot at hitting the building almost down to the waterline.

Ownership of the WTC changed hands 11 weeks before the attacks, and that's how they were able to put the charges in place necessary to bring the buildings down.

Another telling point is the Israeli company that had offices on the lower floors of the WTC BROKE THEIR LEASE and moved out of the WTC 3 weeks before the attacks, after Israel repeatedly warned the US about the impending attacks.

The whole thing stinks. Bush knew he needed a Pearl Harbor in order for him to gain America's support to go over and finish Daddy's war, and he gave it to us. Worse yet, America fell for it.

Nickdfresh
06-14-2005, 11:54 AM
Those "pilots" never thought they were going to bring the whole building down.

Bin LADEN indicated afterward that they only calculated collapsing the top floors, not the entire building.

Nickdfresh
06-14-2005, 11:54 AM
http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=562091 :D

Keeyth
06-14-2005, 12:10 PM
Bin Laden never indicated anything. Or do you speak Saudi now? I don't buy that crappy back room tape for starters. We are being sold another diversion by Bush in that one.

However, you are right, NO ONE thought those buildings would come down, because those buildings were built specifically to withstand a plane hitting them. After that plane hit the Empire state building way back when, that was a priority when building the tallest (at the time) buildings in the world in '73. In a high wind, those buildings swayed less than three feet at the very top. A bomb went off in the basement in '93 and did NOTHING. You are gullible if you believe the bill of goods Bush sold you on 9-11. period.

scamper
06-14-2005, 12:16 PM
I read that the government planted an infestation of super termites into the jets that were flown into the buildings. After the explosion these little creatures (who thrive on thousand degree temperatures) multiplied and ate their way through the steel beams, bringing down the towers. It was on the internet so it must be true.

Sammy Hata
06-14-2005, 12:25 PM
All it took for the twin towers to collapse is the steels integrety to be compromised on 1 floor. When this happened, the weight of all the other floors above caused a major domino effect. Since all of the floors were designed almost exactly the same from the 2nd floor to the 110th this is why the buildings collapsed quickly and neatly and straight down.

Sammy Hata
06-14-2005, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by Keeyth
Bin Laden never indicated anything. Or do you speak Saudi now? I don't buy that crappy back room tape for starters. We are being sold another diversion by Bush in that one.

However, you are right, NO ONE thought those buildings would come down, because those buildings were built specifically to withstand a plane hitting them. After that plane hit the Empire state building way back when, that was a priority when building the tallest (at the time) buildings in the world in '73. In a high wind, those buildings swayed less than three feet at the very top. A bomb went off in the basement in '93 and did NOTHING. You are gullible if you believe the bill of goods Bush sold you on 9-11. period.


Actually, the bomb desrtroyed 3 stories in the parking structure located in the basement of that building.It killed 6 and injured over 1,000 people with a bad fire.It didn't bring the building down, but it was far from nothing.


http://wwwrobinsdrumworks.com

Keeyth
06-14-2005, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Sammy Hata
Actually, the bomb desrtroyed 3 stories in the parking structure located in the basement of that building.It killed 6 and injured over 1,000 people with a bad fire.It didn't bring the building down, but it was far from nothing.


http://wwwrobinsdrumworks.com


Good point. It TOOK OUT THREE FLOORS and the building didn't come down. Even though it had the wieght of ALL of the rest of the tower on it, Three floors blown out did not make it fall!! Are you hearing yourself make my point for me?? There is NO WAY HAVING A COUPLE OF FLOORS THAT HIGH UP BLOWN OUT WOULD HAVE MADE THE BUILDINGS COLLAPSE.

Keeyth
06-14-2005, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by Sammy Hata
All it took for the twin towers to collapse is the steels integrety to be compromised on 1 floor. When this happened, the weight of all the other floors above caused a major domino effect. Since all of the floors were designed almost exactly the same from the 2nd floor to the 110th this is why the buildings collapsed quickly and neatly and straight down.

Dude, those "other floors" had been holding up the weight of the building for over thirty years. Get a clue, buy a vowel, do something, but stop trying to sell that crap.

Nickdfresh
06-14-2005, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by Keeyth
Bin Laden never indicated anything. Or do you speak Saudi now? I don't buy that crappy back room tape for starters. We are being sold another diversion by Bush in that one.

However, you are right, NO ONE thought those buildings would come down, because those buildings were built specifically to withstand a plane hitting them. After that plane hit the Empire state building way back when, that was a priority when building the tallest (at the time) buildings in the world in '73. In a high wind, those buildings swayed less than three feet at the very top. A bomb went off in the basement in '93 and did NOTHING. You are gullible if you believe the bill of goods Bush sold you on 9-11. period.

Wrong, there was a tape made a few months after the attacks purportedly of BIN LADEN speaking to a SAUDI asshole cleric about how the attacks surpassed every expectation.

Nickdfresh
06-14-2005, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Keeyth
Dude, those "other floors" had been holding up the weight of the building for over thirty years. Get a clue, buy a vowel, do something, but stop trying to sell that crap.

And if you bothered to have read the pbs.org (hardly a BUSH/FOX source), you'd of noticed that the fire caused the steel to buckle as it lost 80% of it's strength at about 1500 degrees F. This then caused a "pancake effect."

Guitar Shark
06-14-2005, 01:39 PM
Not to mention the fact that the first collapse occurred at about 2/3rds of the way up the building -- Keeyth are you suggesting that the floor immediately below the collapse should have been able to support the weight of 1/3 of the building falling onto it? Absurd.

Stop trying to paint us as gullible sheep for believing what science has proven, just because you are looking for some government conspiracy that doesn't exist. I hate Bush too, but I'm still able to maintain a grasp of reality.

Nickdfresh
06-14-2005, 01:50 PM
The truth is, I can in fact be sold that THERE WAS A GOV'T CONSPIRACY, either to allow terrorists 9/11 plans to proceed or to cover up what amounted to blatant institutional incompetence, but don't tell me all these attacks were staged! Too many people would have talked by now! Ever hear of DEEP THROAT?

Keeyth
06-14-2005, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Wrong, there was a tape made a few months after the attacks purportedly of BIN LADEN speaking to a SAUDI asshole cleric about how the attacks surpassed every expectation.


So, you understood that language, huh? You actually know what he was saying? Besides, if we can make Jurrasic Park, we can make that little bin Laden tape too.

BigBadBrian
06-14-2005, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by Keeyth
Dude, those "other floors" had been holding up the weight of the building for over thirty years. Get a clue, buy a vowel, do something, but stop trying to sell that crap.

Keeyth, your logic is absurd.

Look at it this way: If someone kicks out your knees, your ass is gonna hit the ground. :D

:gulp:

Warham
06-14-2005, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Keeyth
So, you understood that language, huh? You actually know what he was saying? Besides, if we can make Jurrasic Park, we can make that little bin Laden tape too.

Why does Nick need to know the language?

That's what translators after for, goof.

:rolleyes:

Warham
06-14-2005, 02:37 PM
Some people will go the brink of insanity to prove that Bush is the most vile person to ever exist.

Nitro Express
06-14-2005, 02:43 PM
I've seen it all now. Are you a member of the Flat Earth Society too? I used to work in demolition and bringing those buildings down using explosives would be impossible to hide. In fact, explosives are not effective until the building is structurally modified. This means removing parts of the building before using the explosives.

The two towers fell straight down because they were based on a "birdcage" type frame. All the fuel from the airliners burning in a tall building created a chimney effect and softened the structural steel. Once the top floors failed they fell on the floors below. The strong structural steel in the outside walls kept the fall controlled. Now if the damage was in the lower floors, those towers would have toppled. No they fell the way they did because the damage and heat was in the top part of the building.

You guys give George W. Bush and his cabinet too much credit. You make him to be like Dr. Evil with all these high tech capabillities like he has a secret island with a huge ray gun that pops out of a volcano or something. Now play the James Bond music.

BigBadBrian
06-14-2005, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Nitro Express


You guys give George W. Bush and his cabinet too much credit. You make him to be like Dr. Evil with all these high tech capabillities like he has a secret island with a huge ray gun that pops out of a volcano or something. Now play the James Bond music.

No shit. On one hand they call him Chimpy and talking about how stupid he is, and on the other they think he's masterminding the fall of all creation. Gimme a break....

FORD
06-14-2005, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by scamper
I read that the government planted an infestation of super termites into the jets that were flown into the buildings. After the explosion these little creatures (who thrive on thousand degree temperatures) multiplied and ate their way through the steel beams, bringing down the towers. It was on the internet so it must be true.

Thanks. Always nice to hear from the DEFENSE CONTRACTORS.

Now you wouldn't be just a little bit biased in favor of the BCE/PNAC agenda, would you?

Keeyth
06-14-2005, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The truth is, I can in fact be sold that THERE WAS A GOV'T CONSPIRACY, either to allow terrorists 9/11 plans to proceed or to cover up what amounted to blatant institutional incompetence, but don't tell me all these attacks were staged! Too many people would have talked by now! Ever hear of DEEP THROAT?

Make another point for me why don't you? They kept Deep Throat's identity hidden for 30 years! Right now, they are keeping Bush's identity as the real terrorist hidden too...

Keeyth
06-14-2005, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Nitro Express
I've seen it all now. Are you a member of the Flat Earth Society too? I used to work in demolition and bringing those buildings down using explosives would be impossible to hide.

You used to work in demolition and you can't even recognize a building going down in a controlled demolition???

Name of the first company on the scene after the towers collapsed :
Controlled Demolition Inc.

Hmmm...

FORD
06-14-2005, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Wrong, there was a tape made a few months after the attacks purportedly of BIN LADEN speaking to a SAUDI asshole cleric about how the attacks surpassed every expectation.

Osama Bin Laden wasn't anywhere near that tape. Nick, you're smarter than the FAUX brain-emptied Busheep....

FORD
06-14-2005, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The truth is, I can in fact be sold that THERE WAS A GOV'T CONSPIRACY, either to allow terrorists 9/11 plans to proceed or to cover up what amounted to blatant institutional incompetence, but don't tell me all these attacks were staged! Too many people would have talked by now! Ever hear of DEEP THROAT?

Fear can be a great motivator to keep silent. Look what they did to Tom Daschle and a few media types with a little baggie of anthrax. If these people are capable of engineering -or even deliberately standing aside and allowing - an attack of this nature, they are capable of just about anything.

Which they continue to prove with each lie that gets Americans and innocent civillians killed.

Warham
06-14-2005, 03:26 PM
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40471000/jpg/_40471533_binladentv203.jpg

Bin Laden spoke directly to camera:

"Oh American people, my talk to you is about the best way to avoid another Manhattan, about the war, its causes, and results.
Security is an important pillar of human life. Free people do not relinquish their security. This is contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.

Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden, for example. It is known that those who hate freedom do not have proud souls, like the souls of the 19 people [killed while perpetrating the 11 September 2001 attacks], may God have mercy on them.

We fought you because we are free and do not accept injustice. We want to restore freedom to our nation. Just as you waste our security, we will waste your security."

FORD
06-14-2005, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
No shit. On one hand they call him Chimpy and talking about how stupid he is, and on the other they think he's masterminding the fall of all creation. Gimme a break....

The Chimp's just the figurehead. Jeb was there when the PNAC plan was written, Junior wasn't. But Jeb had some scandals in his background that wouldn't allow him to run for president, so they needed his dumbass brother as a frontman.

Now that electro-fraud voting has been implemented, it doesn't matter who they run. Jeb, or a psychotic cat murderer from Tennesee, or even shred the Constitution to run yet another B-movie actor from Collieforneea.

FORD
06-14-2005, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Warham
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40471000/jpg/_40471533_binladentv203.jpg

Bin Laden spoke directly to camera:

"Oh American people, my talk to you is about the best way to avoid another Manhattan, about the war, its causes, and results.
Security is an important pillar of human life. Free people do not relinquish their security. This is contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.

Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden, for example. It is known that those who hate freedom do not have proud souls, like the souls of the 19 people [killed while perpetrating the 11 September 2001 attacks], may God have mercy on them.

We fought you because we are free and do not accept injustice. We want to restore freedom to our nation. Just as you waste our security, we will waste your security."

That wasn't Bin Laden either. Though at least their casting director did a better job that time.

How gullible are you to think that Bin Laden is actually going to release a new hit single the weekend before the election?? :rolleyes:

Guitar Shark
06-14-2005, 03:34 PM
FORD did you graduate from college?

Warham
06-14-2005, 03:34 PM
Looks like him to me.

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/docs/osama2.jpg

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Video/041029/nn_pwms_binladen1_041029.275w.jpg

Warham
06-14-2005, 03:37 PM
Just admit it, FORD. You're bordering on insanity.

BigBadBrian
06-14-2005, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Just admit it, FORD. You're bordering on insanity.

I think he's just hot for Osama.

:sex:

Nickdfresh
06-14-2005, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Nitro Express

You guys give George W. Bush and his cabinet too much credit. You make him to be like Dr. Evil with all these high tech capabillities like he has a secret island with a huge ray gun that pops out of a volcano or something. Now play the James Bond music.

An excellent point! Some turn these incompetent dolts into JAMES BOND villians...Well, maybe RUMSFELD and ROVE are on par with DR. NO and GOLDFINGER....

Warham
06-14-2005, 03:49 PM
Here's a tape just in from the Pentagon...

Warham
06-14-2005, 03:49 PM
:D

FORD
06-14-2005, 03:51 PM
If you think that Fake Osama #2 (late October 2004 tape) really looks like him, you aren't looking close enough.

For one thing, the fact that they blurred the tape to make it harder to notice Faux-sama 2's features is suspicious enough.

Osama's a rich man. Raising millions of dollars for an operation has never been a problem for him, even according to BCE accounts. So why can't the guy afford a decent video camera by now?

Even a glance at the tape will show that Fauxsama 2 has a shorter and more triangular face than the real Bin Laden. Also, though you only see Fauxsama 2 from the chest up behind a podium, he does not appear to have the build of a 6'5" man, as the real Bin Laden is. Even the crappy picture quality shows that the fake Osama's shoulders are not as broad as the real Bin Laden's, probably because the impostor is much shorter, which is why he was filmed behind a podium to begin with.

There's several other minor glitches with facial hair, etc. I could point out, but those are the most blatantly obvious differences.

Warham
06-14-2005, 03:53 PM
Yeah, a person's hair is going to look exactly the same every day of their life, especially if they are running from cave to cave on a frequent basis.

Guitar Shark
06-14-2005, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Warham
:D

LOL. The ultimate photoshop job would be to replace Bin Laden's head with Dean's. :D

Guitar Shark
06-14-2005, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Yeah, a person's hair is going to look exactly the same every day of their life, especially if they are running from cave to cave on a frequent basis.

But he's a rich man. Don't you think he'd have a hairdresser on staff daily?

Busheep!

;)

Warham
06-14-2005, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
LOL. The ultimate photoshop job would be to replace Bin Laden's head with Dean's. :D

Stop giving me great ideas, GS!

:D

Guitar Shark
06-14-2005, 03:59 PM
Back on topic... FORD, a couple of years ago weren't you convinced that the WTC towers were struck by missiles? I recall you showing still shots from videotape that (supposedly) showed the planes firing missiles at the buildings just before impact. But now it's a controlled demolition?

Warham
06-14-2005, 04:03 PM
The means of FORD's attack doesn't matter, as long as it gets to the proper endgame in his mind.

BigBadBrian
06-14-2005, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Back on topic... FORD, a couple of years ago weren't you convinced that the WTC towers were struck by missiles? I recall you showing still shots from videotape that (supposedly) showed the planes firing missiles at the buildings just before impact. But now it's a controlled demolition?

Hell yes. We had to endure that theory, and video, until we all got sick of it. That was in the War Zone on the DDLR board.

Also remember the phantom shadowy object passing by over the WTC area at about the same time going real fast? :D

I'll bet Ally_Kat remembers really well...she was a key player in those dialogues.

diamondD
06-15-2005, 07:35 AM
http://disney.go.com/disneypictures/chickenlittle/images/chick_tease_07_02.gif

Phil theStalker
06-15-2005, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
[B]Okay, I'll be a BUSHEEP today.:) As PENN & TELLER would say, BULLSHIT!

Did You Know?

6. It was also designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, though engineers apparently did not take into consideration the plane's fuel load.



Nick,

This is categoricaly false. The engineered design for a Boeing 707 DID give the plane a FULL fuel load, including a fully loaded plane of passengers and freight AND flying a top speed of 600mph and NOT the slower 500mph the actual planes were doing.

This speed is important, because although a Boeing 707 is slightly smaller than the planes used the higher speed makes for MORE kinetic energy through inertia THAN THE PLANES USED. So both WTC buildings were designed for GREATER impacts than they'd received.

Nice try, but the entire piece is filled with bunk like this.

You usually get your facts straight and you are reliable.

Stay that way.

You read some dummy disinfo, propaganda. It's everywhere. Watch out and survive.

It's later than you... it's too late.


=PtS=
:spank:

Nickdfresh
06-15-2005, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by Phil theStalker
Nick,

This is categoricaly false. The engineered design for a Boeing 707 DID give the plane a FULL fuel load, including a fully loaded plane of passengers and freight AND flying a top speed of 600mph and NOT the slower 500mph the actual planes were doing.

This speed is important, because although a Boeing 707 is slightly smaller than the planes used the higher speed makes for MORE kinetic energy through inertia THAN THE PLANES USED. So both WTC buildings were designed for GREATER impacts than they'd received.

Nice try, but the entire piece is filled with bunk like this.

You usually get your facts straight and you are reliable.

Stay that way.

You read some dummy disinfo, propaganda. It's everywhere. Watch out and survive.

It's later than you... it's too late.


=PtS=
:spank:

READ THE ARTICLE AGAIN PHIL! It wasn't the impact that brought down the towers, it was the resulting fire that destablized and weakened the metal superstructure initiating the chain reaction, pancake collapse! Not the 707's, but their jet fuel load, which was nearly full upon impact!

You know, I really don't like to talk about this, but I've seen an actual crash in real life. The BLUE ANGELS, then flying A-4 Skyhawks, crashed at NIAGARA FALLS Airstation around 1986 (I think) at a semi-annual airshow usually held there.

The two show planes collided while doing a pass, the one wing clipped the canopy of the other pilot, and he was decapitated. The two aircraft fell like stones, plummeted with nearly a full tank of gas, and exploded in the distance with a fiery mushroom cloud and a delayed boom.

I watched footage on the local news afterward, and there were just two blackened craters and charred metal left, nothing recognizable as an aircraft.

Incidently, the pilot's head was found in a nearby wood about a week later.

Why people assume that a plane, impacting at several hundred miles an hour, and consumed in a fire upon impact, will leave behind much in the way of recognizable plane parts is beyond me!

Phil theStalker
06-15-2005, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
[B]READ THE ARTICLE AGAIN PHIL! It wasn't the impact that brought down the towers, it was the resulting fire that destablized and weakened the metal superstructure initiating the chain reaction, pancake collapse! Not the 707's, but their jet fuel load, which was nearly full upon impact!
BUNK!

Read the article posted in this forum from the Washington post. There were people standing in the wholes made from the planes and the major fires from the fuel burned for only 16 minutes.

FACT.

I suppose you think there was a WAR at Kent State in 1970. It was a riot. Get your facts straight or admit you've been brainwashed since the last time I've posted here.

I take back my previous endorsement of you.

You are biased and your "facts" are false.

You believe the BIG LIE.

It's too late.


:spank:

knuckleboner
06-15-2005, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh

Why people assume that a plane, impacting at several hundred miles an hour, and consumed in a fire upon impact, will leave behind much in the way of recognizable plane parts is beyond me!

because they're ignorant, man. because they're ignorant.

Nickdfresh
06-15-2005, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by Phil theStalker
BUNK!

Blah blah blah...

I take back my previous endorsement of you.

Oh God no! How will I ever recover from that one?


You are biased and your "facts" are false.

Pot meet tea kettle PHIL...:rolleyes:


You believe the BIG LIE.


You believe in bigger ones. Try to get some sleep PHIL and take care. It's later that you think....

Warham
06-15-2005, 10:44 AM
Phil's delusional.

It's not the end of the world, Phil. Get out of the house and get some fresh air.

Hardrock69
06-15-2005, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
An excellent point! Some turn these incompetent dolts into JAMES BOND villians...Well, maybe RUMSFELD and ROVE are on par with DR. NO and GOLDFINGER....

Simply because these figureheads are incompetent does not mean they cannot accomplish great evil.


As incompetent as Bush is, there is a reason for his CABINET. And there are reasons that CABINET MEMBERS have ADVISORS.

Bascially, the Office OF President Of The United States should be renamed "President Of The Free World".

So you are still saying they have no power to make plans and carry them out?

Give me a break...
:rolleyes:

Nickdfresh
06-15-2005, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by Hardrock69

So you are still saying they have no power to make plans and carry them out?

Give me a break...
:rolleyes:

I'm saying they would have no power to keep them secret indefinitely...

Look up Chaos Theory, and show me a historical parallel we're such an intricate alleged plan could have remained secret? Human beings want to believe that there is some grand order where all evil springs from, but in fact it's quite impossible to keep people quiet. Watergate ring any bells? They could keep people quiet regarding a burglary. Again, this is all based on the speculations of a FRENCH author, with no real evidence to support any of it other than "that didn't look right..."

There was once a plane crash in either the late 80's or early 90's where a passenger airliner crashed into a bog. There was virtually no evidence of an aircraft left, and very few bodies were ever recovered. Did that mean the crash didn't happen?

Nickdfresh
06-15-2005, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
There was once a plane crash in either the late 80's or early 90's where a passenger airliner crashed into a bog. There was virtually no evidence of an aircraft left, and very few bodies were ever recovered. Did that mean the crash didn't happen?

I speak of VALUJET Flight 592. which crashed in the FLORIDIA everglades in 1996.
http://www.flight592.com/slideshow/images/image121.jpg
*"Where's the plane?"*

More. (http://www.flight592.com/slideshow/index.html)

'There's no airplane left'
Divers complete probe
of ValuJet crash crater

May 21, 1996
Web posted at: 8:45 p.m. EDT

DADE COUNTY, Florida (CNN) -- For the first time, divers Tuesday entered the crater in the Florida Everglades created when ValuJet Flight 592 plunged to earth. Afterwards, they said they found little.

"There is no aircraft in the pit, only fragment pieces," said Paul Toy, one of the Metro-Dade Police divers.(123K AIFF sound or 123K WAV sound) He said the largest piece he found was about the size of 3- by 6-foot table. No body parts were discovered in the crater.

Toy used his feet to feel around 4 to 5 feet of silt at the bottom.

Toy said there was a definite impression in the limestone, "like somebody shot a gun into limestone or rock."

The divers entered the murky Everglades water two at a time. They were tethered together and communicated with each other and the dive platform via radio lines. They moved awkwardly in their bulky black rubber suits, designed to protect them from the skin-irritating jet fuel and bacteria from decaying bodies.

The crater is 175 feet long, 60 feet wide, and about 6 feet deep.

Divers have finished their exploration of the crater, and will now work elsewhere. The National Transportation Safety Board will take over investigation of the crater.

Workers on Tuesday also used a high-tech ground penetrating radar to map the crash site and pinpoint buried wreckage. The radar search is focusing on the oxygen-generating canisters the plane was carrying as cargo, and the cockpit voice recorder, which may contain the pilots' conversation in the final minutes before the crash.
diver

The DC-9 plunged into the Everglades on May 11, killing all 110 people on board. Recovery efforts have yielded only human remains and about 10 percent of the plane.

Canisters dispute

A dispute has broken out between ValuJet and SabreTech, the aircraft maintenance company that handled more than 100 oxygen canisters loaded aboard Flight 592. There's speculation the canisters may have contributed to a fire believed to have broken out on the plane before the crash.

Instead of being labeled hazardous, a shipping ticket indicated the canisters were empty of volatile chemicals. After the crash, ValuJet said it would have refused the shipment from SabreTech if the boxes had been accurately labeled as hazardous. The canisters were from some of ValuJet's MD-80 planes being remodeled by SabreTech in Miami.

SabreTech denies any wrongdoing. Kenneth Quinn, an attorney for the company, said Monday that the canisters were ValuJet's property, and SabreTech workers were merely returning them to the airline for disposal. He said it was up to ValuJet to identify the canisters as hazardous.

SabreTech questioned why ValuJet would want the canisters aboard the plane. "The canisters apparently cannot be reused or recharged after their life limit of 12 years," Quinn said.

ValuJet spokeswoman Marcia Scott said it was "clear that ValuJet and SabreTech's Mr. Quinn have significantly different interpretations of what occurred."

Correspondent Susan Candiotti, the Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9605/21/valujet.pm/index.html

Warham
06-15-2005, 01:27 PM
Nick, quit citing valid scientific evidence when argueing your points...

:D

FORD
06-15-2005, 02:23 PM
I don't think a swamp is the best example of planes breaking up in a crash. Half that plane could be at the bottom of the Everglades mud, and you would never know the difference.

Phil theStalker
06-15-2005, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Phil's delusional.

It's not the end of the world, Phil. Get out of the house and get some fresh air.
I didn't say it's the end of the world. But it is the end of the U.S.A., and world government will not come in without a world war.

And your baseless comments, I own a private beach. I'm a beach boy and an outdoorsman. What's your point when your point is based on false evidence in your mind and conclusions drawn from your lies to yourself? huh

You'll need water and I won't.

You'll need food and I won't.

You'll need electricty and I won't.

You'll need gas and I won't.

You'll need guns and ammo for protection and I won't.

You'll need FEMA and I won't.

Nick's right about o1ne thing.

It's too late.

Warham
06-15-2005, 03:40 PM
You were probably one of those people who warned everybody that when the clock hit 12:00 on Jan 1, 2000, that everything as we know it would be changed forever by the Y2K bug. Am I right?

I remember media types saying on the radio and TV that folks should buy plenty of bottled water and plenty of canned food in case of disaster.

Different subject of course, but it's the same silly nonsense.

scamper
06-15-2005, 03:46 PM
still pretty sure it was termites

Phil theStalker
06-15-2005, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by Warham
You were probably one of those people who warned everybody that when the clock hit 12:00 on Jan 1, 2000, that everything as we know it would be changed forever by the Y2K bug. Am I right?

I remember media types saying on the radio and TV that folks should buy plenty of bottled water and plenty of canned food in case of disaster.

Different subject of course, but it's the same silly nonsense.
You NEVER quit with your UNSUBSTANTIATED RUMOR.

I was NOT "one of those people." What PROOF do you have? You are a liar, a slanderer, and a libeler t2o make your unsubstanciated statements.

You lie to yourself so much, and not just with me, with anyo1ne who doesn't agree with your FANTASY world.

Enjoy your fantasy... it's too late.


:spank:

FORD
06-15-2005, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by scamper
still pretty sure it was termites

Who cares what you think? You personally profit from all this killing based on lies, so go fuck yourself.

Phil theStalker
06-15-2005, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Who cares what you think? You personally profit from all this killing based on lies, so go fuck yourself.
Lower your emotions, FORD. Your points are valid and you do not need t2o lower yourself t2o the level which they wish t2o deal with you, because they are ominously and grievacingly wrong.

Their championing of Red Communist China is so big you can drive all the U.S. servicemen's caskets killed fighting the little gooks over there right through it.

And who are the biggest commie gooks?

The Chinese.

So it makes sense to do business with them like Germany does, a head EU member, t2o give political incentives to VW t2o invest there and build them up, because they have cheap, gook, commie Chinese slave labor.

Fight them economically now or you'll be fighting them with guns later.

Oops... it's too late.


:spank:


:spank:

scamper
06-15-2005, 04:52 PM
tracking an IP does not tell you what I do, but hey its your world live in it

Phil theStalker
06-15-2005, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by scamper
tracking an IP does not tell you what I do, but hey its your world live in it
Who's tracking IP's beside Redban? huh


=PtS=
:spank:

Guitar Shark
06-15-2005, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Who cares what you think? You personally profit from all this killing based on lies, so go fuck yourself.

What's all this about?

LoungeMachine
06-15-2005, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by Warham


I remember media types saying on the radio and TV that folks should buy plenty of bottled water and plenty of canned food in case of disaster.

.


Funny, I remember YOUR Homeland Security chief telling the American people to have plenty of Duct Tape and Visqueen on hand for the next attack:rolleyes:

fuck you're a dick.

You didnt just drink the kool-ade, you fucking BATHE in it

Warham
06-15-2005, 08:23 PM
I didn't buy duck tape or visqueen, Lounge. In fact, I was probably less prepared than you were.

How does that grab ya?

What was that about kool-aid?

LoungeMachine
06-15-2005, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by Warham
I didn't buy duck tape or visqueen, Lounge.

Well of course you didn't.

No one with an IQ above room temp did.:D

But that sure didnt stop YOUR HS czar from going on FAUX KNEWS and talking about it.

Kinda goes to show ya what a SHAM this whole "war on terror" is:rolleyes:

Warham
06-15-2005, 09:55 PM
There's a war on terror, but I don't live in fear of being gassed or car bombed by terrorists invading our country.

FORD
06-15-2005, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
What's all this about?

Let's just say it will be a snowy day in Hell before defense contractors are allowed to turn this forum into a spin room for the BCE. It's bad enough we have our resident CIA agent. (Who isn't really all that resident these days)

FORD
06-15-2005, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by Warham
There's a war on terror, but I don't live in fear of being gassed or car bombed by terrorists invading our country.

There is no war on terror, just like there is no war on drugs.

Nobody can declare war on an indefinable abstract, and the BCE definitely cannot claim to be fighting what they have themselves created, which would be BOTH the drug trade AND terrorism in the sense of Bin Laden and his (largely mythological) "organization"

The only way to defend THIS country from terrorism is to concentrate on the borders and the other ports of entry to THIS country.

Harrassing US citizens and stripping them of civil rights will NOT defend this country, it will DESTROY it.

Fighting pointless wars half way around the world in countries that NEVER were a threat to the US has not, and will not do a damn thing to make this country safer. In fact it has done just the opposite, giving millions a valid reason to hate the United States, where they had none before.

Defending corporate profits is not defending America.

Fighting Israel's Zionism battles for them is not defending America.

This bullshit war is a fucking lie, and it has been so from day one.

Cathedral
06-16-2005, 02:06 AM
Originally posted by Keeyth
So, you understood that language, huh? You actually know what he was saying? Besides, if we can make Jurrasic Park, we can make that little bin Laden tape too.


We may not understand the language, but my Muslim brother in law does, and he thinks you're nuts with all this garbage your throwing out.

The towers came down because of physics, not conspiracy my friend.

The Titanic was said to be unsinkable, but what happened to that ship again?
An oversized ice cube took that bitch down, didn't it?

And if 95% of the jet fuel apparently burned "outside" the buildings, explain to me what the huge explosions that shot down the elevator shafts was caused from?

I'm sure some fuel did burn outside the buildings, but not enough if it sent flaming liquid down the elevator shafts.
Besides, do any of you "Conspiracy Buffs" know the consistancy of jet fuel?
It has an oily property to it that allowes it to stick to things, like oil, in order to create an efficient burn, (it burns its own residue).

Once the heat damaged the steel it became weaker, and one thing the article didn't touch on was that as steel cools it gets brittle [after it has exceeded the recommended temperature thresh-hold], that is welding 101 boys and girls.
And the thresh-hold is still way below the melting phase of heat damage.

Steel expands under heat, shrinks when cooled.
The question i didn't see difinatively answered in the article is exactly how HOT the fire was, that is a bit of a mystery and the answer to the riddle as to why they fell, how, and when.

When they fell i was reminded of the day our barn came down.
For 40 years it stood tall and strong, i never feared being in the building.
But one afternoon it just fell down, collapsed on itself about an hour after we put the tractor away, inside it.

It is all in the physics, friends.

I have to say that any of you calling us force fed Busheep for arguing your "theory" need to re-think how you were fed this conspiracy to begin with.
Now i have a great talent in reading peoples faces and on 9-11 when i saw coverage of Bush's reaction to the news....You can't act that good ifn you ain't an actor. the man was visibly pissed and upset, and after all the shit you all call him stupid about, are you now saying he is actually good at something?

I don't understand how rationality allowes any of you to buy into these conspiracies.
And just for the sake of argument, If you are correct and this was all an inside job plotted by our government, why in the hell are you still in this country?
If i thought for one minute that our own government would actually kill 3,000 of it's own people in this fashion, i wouldn't be living in this country today.

Those towers fell because of a group of circumstances that all came together on that particular morning. circumstances that were man made, plotted and executed by people who wanted to hurt us bad, and they weren't Americans.

Oh, and can someone explain to me how we found all these people to board those jets and commit suicide in the name of the Great Satan?

And building #7, How long do you think it takes to plant explosives in a structure sitting in the middle of a field of rubble?

And lastly, whenever there is a high rise building on fire, the first responders does include a "Demolitions Crew" to survey the building and make an on the spot analysis on wheather a building can be re-built or needs immediate demolition.
Hmmmmmm, seems to me they could only do that job on one building, #7 maybe?
#7 was a safety risk and had to come down ASAP.

Nickdfresh
06-16-2005, 07:14 AM
There is in fact a "War on Terror!" But it was hijacked and flown into an IRAQI skyscrapers by fucking idiots, and their kool-aid drinkin' sycophants!:mad:

Phil theStalker
06-16-2005, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
There is in fact a "War on Terror!" But it was hijacked and flown into an IRAQI skyscrapers by fucking idiots, and their kool-aid drinkin' sycophants!:mad:
Nicky, that makes no sense at all.


:spank:

Warham
06-16-2005, 07:47 AM
Cath, the logic of your post is breathtaking.

Nickdfresh
06-16-2005, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by Phil theStalker
Nicky, that makes no sense at all.


:spank:

I'm posting from the sane middle, something makes little sense to many on this board. :smilieci:

scamper
06-16-2005, 09:00 AM
hey ford, show me where I tried to spin anything, I'm just trying to show you how ridiculous you sound

Guitar Shark
06-16-2005, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by FORD
Let's just say it will be a snowy day in Hell before defense contractors are allowed to turn this forum into a spin room for the BCE.

Where has he said that he is a defense contractor? And even if he is, how does this lead to the conclusion that he's spinning things for the so-called "BCE"?

diamondD
06-16-2005, 01:12 PM
Because everyone's BSCE.

I'd still love to hear how Mr. Paranoia came to this conclusion.

BigBadBrian
06-16-2005, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Cathedral


I don't understand how rationality allowes any of you to buy into these conspiracies.
And just for the sake of argument, If you are correct and this was all an inside job plotted by our government, why in the hell are you still in this country?
If i thought for one minute that our own government would actually kill 3,000 of it's own people in this fashion, i wouldn't be living in this country today.



One of the most profound statements around here in awhile.

:gulp:

krcampbell
06-16-2005, 01:48 PM
All of these theories are really interesting, and they reach beyond just the WTC. I read something here about the Pennsylvania crash, and then there's the Pentagon...

http://members.shaw.ca/freedomseven/pentagonlies.swf

Really, check that out. If this doesn't make you question the things that happened on 9-11, then nothing else will.

scamper
06-16-2005, 03:08 PM
Interesting video, but if you do a google search on pentagon 9-11 you'll find plenty of sites that dispute that and all of the other conspiracy theories. It all comes down to believing what you want. It's amusing that people can hate a political party or a president (even if he is a screw-up) so much that they we take any foder thrown to them.

scamper
06-16-2005, 03:09 PM
oops

scamper
06-16-2005, 03:10 PM
and don't bash me I didn't vote for him

Keeyth
06-16-2005, 08:04 PM
I tried to be patriotic.

I tried to believe. I watched those quarter mile high buildings fall
through their jaw-dropping catastrophes over and over again. I
listened to the announcer and the experts explain what had happened.
And I worked at my pitiful lack of faith, pounding my skull with the
remote control and staring on the flickering images on the TV screen.

But poor mental peasant that I am, I could not escape the teachings of
my forefathers. I fear I am trapped in my time, walled off from
further scientific understanding by my inability to abandon the Second
Millennium mindset.

But enough of myself. Let us move on to the Science and Technology of
the 21st Century. Those of you who cannot believe should learn the
official truth by rote and perhaps you will be able to hide your
ignorance.

Here are the bare bones of the WTC incident:
North tower struck 8:45, collapsed 10:29;
South tower struck 9:03, collapsed 9:50;
(See http://www.infoplease.com/spot/sept112001.html)

Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is
also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work,
and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people. Ironworkers
fool with acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, electric arcs from
generators, electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks, but what
did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel, costing maybe 80 cents
a gallon on the open market.

Let us consider: One plane full of jet fuel hit the north tower at
8:45 AM, and the fuel fire burned for a while with bright flames and
black smoke. We can see pictures of the smoke and flames shooting
from the windows.

Then by 9:03 (which time was marked by the second plane's collision
with the south tower), the flame was mostly gone and only black smoke
continued to pour from the building. To my simple mind, that would
indicate that the first fire had died down, but something was still
burning inefficiently, leaving soot (carbon) in the smoke. A fire
with sooty smoke is either low temperature or starved for oxygen -- or
both.
http://www.fosters.com/news2001c/september/11/04758CA1-AC58-4591-9F50-5976D2BE2E04.jpg

But by 10:29 AM, the fire in north tower had accomplished the feat
that I find so amazing: It melted the steel supports in the building,
causing a chain reaction within the structure that brought the
building to the ground.

And with less fuel to feed the fire, the south tower collapsed only 47
minutes after the plane collision, again with complete destruction.
This is only half the time it took to destroy the north tower.

I try not to think about that. I try not to think about a petroleum
fire burning for 104 minutes, just getting hotter and hotter until it
reached 1538 degrees Celsius (2800 Fahrenheit) and melted the steel
(steel is about 99% iron; for melting point of iron, see
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Fe/heat.html). I
try not to wonder how the fire reached temperatures that only bottled
oxygen or forced air can produce.

And I try not to think about all the steel that was in that building
-- 200,000 tons of it (see http://www.infoplease.com/spot/wtc1.html
for stats). I try to forget that heating steel is like pouring syrup
onto a plate: you can't get it to stack up. The heat just flows out
to the colder parts of the steel, cooling off the part you are trying
to warm up. If you pour it on hard enough and fast enough, you can
get the syrup to stack up a little bit. And with very high heat
brought on very fast, you can heat up the one part of the object, but
the heat will quickly spread out and the part will cool off the moment
you stop.

When the heat source warms the last cold part of the object, the heat
stops escaping and the point of attention can be warmed.

If the north tower collapse was due to heated steel, why did it take
104 minutes to reach the critical temperature? (See
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/sept112001.html). Am I to believe that
the fire burned all that time, getting constantly hotter until it
reached melting temperature? Or did it burn hot and steady throughout
until 200,000 tons of steel were heated molten - on one plane load of
jet fuel? (Quantity of steel in WTC:
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/wtc1.html)

Thankfully, I found this note on the BBC web page
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1540000/1540044.stm):
"Fire reaches 800 [degrees] C - hot enough to melt steel floor
supports." That is one of the things I warned you about: In the 20th
Century, steel melted at 1538 degrees Celsius (2800 F, see
http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/fe.html), but in the 21st
Century, it melts at 800 degrees C (1472 F).

This might be explained as a reporter's mistake -- 800 to 900 C is the
temperature for forging wrought iron. As soft as wrought iron is, of
course, it would never be used for structural steel in a landmark
skyscraper. (Descriptions of cast iron, wrought iron, and steel and
relevant temperatures discussed at
http://www.metrum.org/measures/castiron.htm).

But then lower down, the BBC page repeats the 800 C number in bold,
and the article emphasizes that the information comes from Chris Wise,
"Structural Engineer." Would this professional individual permit
himself to be misquoted in a global publication?

I feel it coming on again -- that horrible cynicism that causes me to
doubt the word of the major anchor-persons. Please just think of this
essay as a plea for help, and do NOT let it interfere with your own
righteous faith. The collapse of America's faith in its leaders must
not become another casualty on America's skyline.

In my diseased mind, I think of the floors of each tower like a stack
of LP (33 1/3 RPM) records, only they were square instead of circular.
They were stacked around a central spindle that consisted of multiple
steel columns stationed in a square around the 103 elevator shafts.
(See http://www.skyscraper.org/tallest/t_wtc.htm and
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm)

With this core bearing the weight of the building, the platters were
tied together and stabilized by another set of steel columns at the
outside rim, closely spaced and completely surrounding the structure.
This resulting structure was so stable that the top of the towers
swayed only three feet in a high wind. The architects called it a
"tube-within-a-tube design."

The TV experts told us that the joints between the floors and central
columns melted (or the floor trusses, or the central columns, or the
exterior columns, depending on the expert) and this caused the floor
to collapse and fall onto the one below. This overloaded the joints
for the lower floor, and the two of them fell onto the floor below,
and so on. Like dominos (see
http://news-info.wustl.edu/News/nrindex00/harmon.html).

Back in the early 1970s when the World Trade Towers were built, the
WTC was the tallest building that had ever been built in the history
of the world. If we consider the architectural engineers, suppliers,
builders, and city inspectors in the job, we can imagine they would be
very careful to over-build every aspect of the building. If one bolt
was calculated to serve, you can bet that three or four were used. If
there was any doubt about the quality of a girder or steel beam, you
can be sure it was rejected. After all, any failures would attract
the attention of half the civilized world, and no corporation wants a
reputation for that kind of stupidity -- particularly if there are
casualties.

I do not know the exact specifications for the WTC, but I know in many
trades (and some I've worked), a structural member must be physically
capable of three times the maximum load that will ever be required of
it (BreakingStrength = 3 x WorkingStrength). Given that none of those
floors was holding a grand piano sale or an elephant convention that
day, it is unlikely that any of them were loaded to the maximum.
Thus, any of the floors should have been capable of supporting more
than its own weight plus the two floors above it. I suspect the WTC
was engineered for safer margins than the average railroad bridge, and
the actual load on each floor was less than 1/6 the BreakingStringth.

The platters were constructed of webs of steel trusses. Radial
trusses ran from the perimeter of the floor to the central columns,
and concentric rings of trusses connected the radial trusses, forming
a pattern like a spider web (see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif).

Where the radial trusses connected with the central columns, I imagine
the joints looked like the big bolted flanges where girders meet on a
bridge -- inches thick bolts tying the beams into the columns.

The experts tell us that the heat of the fire melted the steel,
causing the joints to fail. In order to weaken those joints, a fire
would have to heat the bolts or the flanges to the point where the
bolts fell apart or tore through the steel. But here is another thing
that gives me problems -- all the joints between the platter and the
central columns would have to be heated at the same rate in order to
collapse at the same time -- and at the same rate as the joints with
the outer rim columns on all sides -- else one side of the platter
would fall, damaging the floor below and making obvious distortions in
the skin of the building, or throwing the top of tower off balance and
to one side.

But there were no irregularities in the fall of the main structure of
those buildings. They fell almost as perfectly as a deck of cards in
the hands of a magician doing an aerial shuffle.

This is particularly worrisome since the first plane struck one side
of the north tower, causing (you would think) a weakening on that side
where the exterior columns were struck, and a more intense fire on
that side than on the other side. And the second plane struck near
the corner of the south tower at an angle that caused much of the fuel
to spew out the windows on the adjacent side (see
http://www.eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/southtowerpath.jpg).

Yet the south tower also collapsed in perfect symmetry, spewing dust
in all directions like a Fourth of July sparkler burning to the
ground.

Oh, wait. Here is a picture showing the top 25 floors of one tower
(probably south) toppling over sideways
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1535000/images/_1538563_thecollapseap150.jpg).
Why are there no reports of this cube of concrete and steel (measuring
200 ft. wide, 200 ft. deep, and 200 ft high), falling from a 1000 feet
into the street below?

But implosion expert Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition
Inc. in Phoenix, MD is of the opinion that it happened:

Observing the collapses on television news, Loizeaux says the
1,362-ft-tall south tower, which was hit at about the 60th floor,
failed much as one would like (sic) fell a tree
(http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc_enr.htm).

***
I have seen a videotaped rerun of the south tower falling. In that
take, the upper floors descend as a complete unit. All the way, the
upper-floor unit was canted over as shown on the BBC page, sliding
down behind the intervening buildings like a piece of stage scenery.

That scene is the most puzzling of all. Since the upper floors were
not collapsed (the connection between the center columns and the
platters were intact), this assembly would present itself to the lower
floors as a platter WITHOUT a central hole. How then would a platter
without a hole slide down the spindle with the other platters? Where
would the central columns go if they could not penetrate the upp
floors as they fell?

The only model I can find for the situation would be this: If the fire
melted the floor joints so that the collapse began from the 60th floor
downward, the upper floors would be left hanging in the air, supported
only by the central columns. This situation would soon become
unstable and the top 40 floors would topple over (to use Loizeaux's
image) much like felling the top 600 ft. from a 1300 ft. tree.

This model would hold also hold for the north tower. According to
Chris Wise's "domino" doctrine, the collapse began only at the floor
with the fire, not at the penthouse. How was it that the upper floor
simply disappeared instead of crashing to the earth as a block of
thousands of tons of concrete and steel?

The amazing thing is that no one (but Loizeaux) even mentions this
phenomenon, much less describing the seismic event it must have
caused.

Where is the ruin where the 200ft x 200ft x 50 story- object struck?
Foty floors should have caused a ray of devastation 500 ft. into the
surrounding cityscape.

In trying to reconstruct and understand this event, we have to know
whether the scenes we are watching are edited or simply shown raw as
they were recorded.
***

But let us return to the fire. Liquid fuel does not burn hot for
long. Liquid fuel evaporates (or boils) as it burns, and the vapor
burns as it boils off. If the ambient temperature passes the flash
point of the fuel and oxygen is plentiful, the process builds to an
explosion that consumes the fuel.

Jet fuel boils at temperatures above 176 degrees Celsius (350 F) and
the vapor flashes into flame at 250 degrees Celsius (482 F). In an
environment of 1500 degrees, jet fuel spread thinly on walls, floor,
and ceiling would boil off very quickly. And then it would either
burn, or run out of oxygen and smother itself. Or it would simply
disperse out the open windows (some New Yorkers claimed they could
smelled the spilled fuel).

In no case would an office building full of spilled jet fuel sustain a
fire at 815 degrees C (1500 F) for 104 minutes -- unless it was fed
bottled oxygen, forced air, or something else atypical of a fire in a
high-rise office building. Certainly, the carpets, wallpaper,
occasional desks -- nothing else in that office would produce that
temperature. What was burning?

OK, since it was mentioned, I am also upset with the quantity of
concrete dust (see http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm#why). No
concrete that I have ever known pulverizes like that. It is
unnerving. My experience with concrete has shown that it will crumble
under stress, but rarely does it just give up the ghost and turn to
powder. But look at the pictures -- it is truly a fine dust in great
billowing clouds spewing a hundred feet from the collapsing tower.
And the people on the ground see little more than an opaque wall of
dust -- with inches of dust filling the streets and the lungs
afterward. (http://eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/thirdexplosion.jpg)
What has happened here?

I need a faith booster shot here. I would like to find a pictures of
all those platters piled up on each other on the ground, just as they
fell -- has anyone seen a picture like that? I am told it was
cumulative weight of those platters falling on each other that caused
the collapse, but I don't see the platters pilled up liked flapjacks
on the ground floor.

Instead, the satellite pictures show the WTC ruins like an ash pit:
http://eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/numbersixafter_closeup.jpg
http://eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/wtcaerial.jpg

I am told by a friend that a Dr. Robert Schuller was on television
telling about his trip to the ruins. He announced in the interview
that there was not a single block of concrete in that rubble. From
the original 425,000 cubic yards of concrete that went into the
building, all was dust. How did that happen?

I have just one other point I need help with -- the steel columns in
the center. When the platters fell, those quarter-mile high central
steel columns (at least from the ground to the fire) should have
been left standing naked and unsupported in the air, and then they
should have fallen intact or in sections to the ground below,
clobbering buildings hundreds of feet from the WTC site like giant
trees falling in the forest. But I haven't seen any pictures showing
those columns standing, falling, or lying on the ground. Nor have I
heard of damage caused by them.

Now I know those terrorist must have been much better at these things
than I am. I would take one look at their kamikaze plans with
commercial jets and I would reject it as -- spectacular maybe, but not
significantly damaging. The WTC was not even a strategic military
target.

But if I were a kamikaze terrorist, I would try to hit the towers low
in the supports to knock the towers down, maybe trapping the workers
with the fire and burning the towers from the ground up, just as the
people in last 20 stories were trapped. Even the Japanese kamikaze
pilots aimed for the water line.

But you see, those terrorists were so sure the building would
magically collapse that way, the pilot who hit the north tower chose a
spot just 20 floors from the top.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/worldtrade010911.html

And the kamikaze for south tower was only slightly lower -- despite a
relatively open skyline down to 25 or 30 stories.
http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/15m/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/rubble_ny091101.htm

The terrorists apparently predicted the whole scenario -- the fuel
fire, the slow weakening of the structure, and the horrific collapse
of the building - phenomena that the architects and the NY civil
engineering approval committees never dreamed of.

Even as you righteously hate those men, you have to admire them for
their genius.

Few officials or engineers have been surprised by this turn of events
-- apparently everyone certified it for airplane collisions, but
almost no one was surprised when both collisions caused utter
catastrophes in both towers. In fact, their stutters and mumbles and
circumlocutions would make a politician blush:

"Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials
resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage,
would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a
floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal
core, or some combination."
(http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm#why)

In a hundred years of tall city buildings, this kind of collapse has
never happened before. Never. It was not predicted by any of the
experts involved when the WTC towers were built. But now that it has
happened, everybody understands it perfectly and nobody is surprised.

Is this civil engineering in the Third Millennium -- a galloping case
of perfect hindsight?

Only one I have found candidly admitted his surprise:

Observing the collapses on television news, Loizeaux says the
1,362-ft-tall south tower, which was hit at about the 60th floor,
failed much as one would like (sic) fell a tree. That is what was
expected, says Loizeaux. But the 1,368-ft-tall north tower,
similarly hit but at about the 90th floor, "telescoped," says
Loizeaux. It failed vertically, he adds, rather than falling
over. "I don't have a clue," says Loizeaux, regarding the cause of
the telescoping. (http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc_enr.htm)

There was one highly qualified engineer in New Mexico who thought the
collapse could only happen with the help of demolition explosives, and
he was foolish enough to make the statement publicly. But then he
recanted ten days later and admitted the whole thing was perfectly
natural and unsurprising. I wonder what happened in those ten days to
make him so smart on the subject so quickly.

Both articles at the Albuquerque Journal:
http://www.abqjournal.com/news/aqvan09-11-01.htm

And then, as though demonstrating how normal this "building
collapsing" phenomenon is, WTC buildings Six and Seven "collapsed,"
too:

"Other buildings - including the 47-story Salomon Brothers
building [WTC 7] - caved in later, weakened by the earlier
collapses, and more nearby buildings may still fall, say
engineers."
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1540000/1540044.stm
and http://www.eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/numbersixafter.jpg)

It seems no building in the area, regardless of design, is immune to
galloping WTC collapse-itis. It never happened in the 20th Century,
but welcome to the physical universe laws of the Third Millennium.

Pardon me, but this recitation has not given me the relief I hoped
for. I must get back to work.

I believe in the president, the flag, and the Statue of Liberty. I
believe in the honesty of the FBI and the humility of military men. I
believe in the network news anchor-persons, who strive to learn the
truth, to know the truth, and to tell the truth to the audience.

And I believe all of America is so well educated in the basic physics
discussed above, they would rise up in fury if anyone tried to pull a
cheap Hollywood trick on them.

Hand me that remote, will you? I believe clonk. I believe clonk.
I believe ...

---
J. McMichael

(Celsius/Fahrenheit conversion tool at
http://www.vaxxine.com/mgdsite/celcon.htm)

--
Logic is Truth and Truth, Logic
This is all we know on earth
- and all we need to know.

ashstralia
06-17-2005, 06:07 AM
i still think it was those shape-shifting reptilians with their pesky subsonic beams.

Warham
06-17-2005, 07:41 AM
According to David Icke, the Bush family are reptoids in disguise...

Keeyth
06-17-2005, 11:01 AM
I see when hit with the truth, you make lame jokes and avoid the subject... ...hmmm... ...interesting.

FORD
06-17-2005, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by Keeyth
I see when hit with the truth, you make lame jokes and avoid the subject... ...hmmm... ...interesting.

As Jack would put it....
http://people.ucsc.edu/~dramadon/Jack_Nicholson_Photo.jpg
....Busheep can't HANDLE the truth!!!

Guitar Shark
06-17-2005, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by Keeyth
I see when hit with the truth, you make lame jokes and avoid the subject... ...hmmm... ...interesting.

Your version of the truth is ... to put it lightly ... horribly misguided.

Seek psychiatric help now. It's not too late!

Keeyth
06-17-2005, 11:16 AM
Exactly my point. Thank you FORD.

Keeyth
06-17-2005, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Your version of the truth is ... to put it lightly ... horribly misguided.

Seek psychiatric help now. It's not too late!


Really? Is that why you completely avoid all of the valid points made in that essay, and revert to childish insults? To quote W.C. Fields, "Get away boy, ya bother me..."

diamondD
06-17-2005, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by diamondD
Because everyone's BSCE.

I'd still love to hear how Mr. Paranoia came to this conclusion.

Hey Dave, you are saying people can't handle the truth, but you still haven't said why you know this guy is a defense contractor working for the BSCE. Since you are all-knowing, enlighten us.

Guitar Shark
06-20-2005, 10:49 AM
*crickets*

;)

academic punk
06-20-2005, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Warham
There's a war on terror, but I don't live in fear of being gassed or car bombed by terrorists invading our country.

That's 'cause you live in the middle of fuckin' nowhere. :)

Nickdfresh
11-15-2005, 08:27 PM
Bump!:)

ELVIS
11-15-2005, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by Keeyth
Is that why you completely avoid all of the valid points made in that essay, and revert to childish insults?

That "essay" is nothing more than internet trash, and can't hold a candle to the several reports I posted in the thread about the collapse of the WTC...

Cathedral
11-15-2005, 10:10 PM
Give it up, E....There is no point in even arguing the point anymore.

A closed mind is a made up mind.

Keeyth
11-16-2005, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Cathedral
Give it up, E....There is no point in even arguing the point anymore.

A closed mind is a made up mind.

Actually, that's how I feel about you guys. It's an open mind that is able to go against what you are fed in the mainstream media, and be able to think for yourself. If I didn't have an open mind, I would think the same as you.

Keeyth
11-16-2005, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by ELVIS
That "essay" is nothing more than internet trash, and can't hold a candle to the several reports I posted in the thread about the collapse of the WTC...

Actually it dismantles your 'reports' if you can read English...

Warham
11-16-2005, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Keeyth
Actually, that's how I feel about you guys. It's an open mind that is able to go against what you are fed in the mainstream media, and be able to think for yourself. If I didn't have an open mind, I would think the same as you.

You go too far the other way, off the fucking reservation. You don't believe ANYTHING the media tells you, even if it IS true. That's your problem. You'll believe some kook mormon article posted on some fringe site before you believe what Dan Blather on CBS news will tell you, unless it somehow defames Bush, like Rathergate tried to do.

Keeyth
11-16-2005, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Warham
You go too far the other way, off the fucking reservation. You don't believe ANYTHING the media tells you, even if it IS true. That's your problem. You'll believe some kook mormon article posted on some fringe site before you believe what Dan Blather on CBS news will tell you, unless it somehow defames Bush, like Rathergate tried to do.


That's not true at all. I was saying the towers were a controlled demolition since about a month after it happened... ...after the shock of what happened wore off, you could just tell something was fishy about the way it happened.

Nickdfresh
11-16-2005, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Keeyth
That's not true at all. I was saying the towers were a controlled demolition since about a month after it happened... ...after the shock of what happened wore off, you could just tell something was fishy about the way it happened.

I think SHARK asked this question long ago in one of the 50 other damn threads on this subject: If you believe that your gov't and its military services are so Satanically evil as to have actively, and directly, attacked their own nation, "why are you still living here?" I know I'd be Australia, Germany, or France;) by now...

I have left open the possibility that the Federal Gov't was aware of possible terrorist activity, like bombings or hijackings, and looked the other way in order to create a unifying threat and justify more internal security powers, so I think you know I am no BushEEP...

Just asking.

ELVIS
11-16-2005, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Keeyth
I was saying the towers were a controlled demolition since about a month after it happened...

You're such a fucking liar...

No way do I believe that bullshit...

If I had to guess, I'd say you're still a closet drug user...

Keeyth
11-16-2005, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
You're such a fucking liar...

No way do I believe that bullshit...

If I had to guess, I'd say you're still a closet drug user...

Well, you are way off base, and I really don't care what you believe. Been clean since 4-25-03... ...and I don't lie.

Keeyth
11-16-2005, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I think SHARK asked this question long ago in one of the 50 other damn threads on this subject: If you believe that your gov't and its military services are so Satanically evil as to have actively, and directly, attacked their own nation, "why are you still living here?" I know I'd be Australia, Germany, or France;) by now...

I have left open the possibility that the Federal Gov't was aware of possible terrorist activity, like bombings or hijackings, and looked the other way in order to create a unifying threat and justify more internal security powers, so I think you know I am no BushEEP...

Just asking.

You sound just like Tucker Carlsen. So, I'll just paste an email reply I sent to him on the same subject recently:

Mr. Carlsen,

In response to your phony and irresponsible statement:
**********************************
"If you really thought this - or even considered it a possibility - how could you continue to live here? You couldn't. You'd leave the United States on the next available flight and not come back. You'd have no choice. Continuing to pay taxes to a government capable of something so evil would make you complicit in the crime.

So of course most of the people who wrote to say they think the government might have been behind 9-11 don't really think the government might have been behind 9-11. For whatever reason, they just like to say so. Which as far as I'm concerned makes them phony and irresponsible. "
*********************************
...I would just like to say that you are wrong on your seemingly right-wing neo-con assumption. Just because we believe this administration was involved in or behind 9-11 does not mean we would stop living here, nor are we complicit in the crime by paying our taxes. Just because they have been able to gain power in my country for 8 years, does not mean I would abandon the country I love and have called mine for over 38 years. It is still a country of and for the people and I am one of those people. By gaining control of the government, does not take away my right to live in or love my country. In fact, it is all the more reason for me to stay and fight for change. THAT is what freedom is all about.

You should retract your statement I have quoted. It was silly, phony, and irresponsible of YOU to make it.

Best Regards,

Keith

ELVIS
11-16-2005, 03:10 PM
Making bullshit up is the same as lying...

ELVIS
11-16-2005, 03:16 PM
Check out this pic of Keeyth...

http://www.grayskytech.com/afdb/thumbs/dsc01239.th.jpg


:elvis:

Keeyth
11-16-2005, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Making bullshit up is the same as lying...

Whatever dude.:rolleyes: I'm not making bullshit up either.

Just because I made the (admitted) mistake of saying lost transponder contact instead of lost radio contact is trivial. Why don't you focus on the point of the conversation instead of quibbling over semantics?

Keeyth
11-16-2005, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Check out this pic of Keeyth...

http://www.grayskytech.com/afdb/thumbs/dsc01239.th.jpg


:elvis:

Is that a self portrait you just took?

Keeyth
11-16-2005, 03:19 PM
It must be, because you never would have just found that pic. That really IS you isn't it, E?? BWAAHAHahahahaha!

ELVIS
11-16-2005, 03:21 PM
No, I've posted my pic on these boards many times...:rolleyes:

ELVIS
11-16-2005, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Keeyth
It must be, because you never would have just found that pic.

Why not Einfuckinstein ??

I have pic finding down to a science...

ELVIS
11-16-2005, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by Keeyth
Just because I made the (admitted) mistake of saying lost transponder contact instead of lost radio contact is trivial. Why don't you focus on the point of the conversation instead of quibbling over semantics?

Why don't you stop backpeddeling, and admit when you're wrong...

ELVIS
11-16-2005, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS


I have pic finding down to a science...

I still like this one...

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/educational/teachable_moments/images/14516389.gif


:elvis:

Keeyth
11-16-2005, 03:27 PM
That's a total photoshop special.

Keeyth
11-16-2005, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
No, I've posted my pic on these boards many times...:rolleyes:

Well, I haven't seen it so how I was just assuming. Where the hell did you find that pic then?
LOL!

ELVIS
11-16-2005, 03:28 PM
That's a total photoshop special.

No shit, Shirlock...:rolleyes:

Keeyth
11-16-2005, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Why don't you stop backpeddeling, and admit when you're wrong...

Back at ya bro..

ELVIS
11-16-2005, 03:35 PM
I'm not, I'm standing my ground, and I did the research to back it up...

You're an idiot...

Believing the WTC collapse was a controlled demolition is beyond rediculous...

ELVIS
11-16-2005, 03:37 PM
Keeyth at work in the yard...

http://www.grayskytech.com/afdb/thumbs/dsc01245.th.jpg


:elvis:

FORD
11-16-2005, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
I'm not, I'm standing my ground, and I did the research to back it up...

You're an idiot...

Believing the WTC collapse was a controlled demolition is beyond rediculous...

Then what happenned to the outer frame?

ELVIS
11-16-2005, 03:49 PM
What do you mean ??

diamondD
11-16-2005, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Then what happenned to the outer frame?


If it was destroyed by detonation as you are trying to imply, there would have been detonations going off all down the building. It started from the top and pancaked on itself.


Why is this so hard to comprehend?

diamondD
11-16-2005, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Keeyth
Whatever dude.:rolleyes: I'm not making bullshit up either.

Just because I made the (admitted) mistake of saying lost transponder contact instead of lost radio contact is trivial. Why don't you focus on the point of the conversation instead of quibbling over semantics?


It's not quibbling when you are throwing out "facts" that are made up lies and then calling people idiots for not believing your version of the story.

The point that's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt is that you are a lying idiot. There's no conspiracy with that theory.

ELVIS
11-16-2005, 04:01 PM
LMAO!


:D

FORD
11-16-2005, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
What do you mean ??

The WTC concrete floors were supported by two things:

1) The inner steel core

2) The outer steel frame

According to the Official BCE Cover Story© the inner core was melted/twisted/weakened by the jet fuel.

Concrete does not conduct heat very well, so this temperature would not have spread from the inner core to the outer frame even if the story was true.

So, assuming that the building's collapse was a simple matter of a gravity driven chain reaction, with one floor dropping onto another, and the resulting weight taking out each successive floor like a set of downward dominoes, then what happenned to the outer frame?

The bolts holding the concrete floors to the frame likely would have snapped under such pressure, but the frame itself should have fallen outward or twisted in the wreckage. Yet only one significant chunk of the frame survived the demolition. The lower right corner of one of the towers, I believe...

http://www.911exhibit.state.gov/img/h_pic_right.jpg

On the other hand, explosive charges which pulverized the concrete and turned it into dust would have also done the same thing to the metal frame, as the thermite explosives burn hot enough to liquify the steel.

diamondD
11-16-2005, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by FORD

Concrete does not conduct heat very well, so this temperature would not have spread from the inner core to the outer frame even if the story was true.



Do you get your facts from Keeyth?


Concrete does conduct heat. Show me otherwise. I'm not posting all the links that say it does. Show me ONE that doesn't.

ELVIS
11-16-2005, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Concrete does not conduct heat very well, so this temperature would not have spread from the inner core to the outer frame even if the story was true.

Ok, Mr. Expert...

The bolts holding the concrete floors to the frame likely would have snapped under such pressure, but the frame itself should have fallen outward or twisted in the wreckage.

Ok, Mr. Structural engineer...

Yet only one significant chunk of the frame survived the demolition. The lower right corner of one of the towers, I believe...

Actually, small pieces were everywhere at ground zero...

On the other hand, explosive charges which pulverized the concrete and turned it into dust would have also done the same thing to the metal frame, as the thermite explosives burn hot enough to liquify the steel.

Did you read that on some 9-11 conspiracy website ??




:elvis:

Keeyth
11-16-2005, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
I'm not, I'm standing my ground, and I did the research to back it up...

You're an idiot...

Believing the WTC collapse was a controlled demolition is beyond rediculous...

Well, it's not, otherwise there wouldn't be people with physics degrees backing me up.

Keeyth
11-16-2005, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by diamondD
It's not quibbling when you are throwing out "facts" that are made up lies and then calling people idiots for not believing your version of the story.

The point that's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt is that you are a lying idiot. There's no conspiracy with that theory.


Blah, blah, you are a lying idiot, blah, blah , blah..


Dude, you and your arguements are weak...:rolleyes:

Warham
11-16-2005, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by Keeyth
Well, it's not, otherwise there wouldn't be people with physics degrees backing me up.

What about the HUNDREDS, perhaps, THOUSANDS of people with structural engineering degrees who believe 9/11 happened as the official story says it happened? Are they ALL wrong?

Keeyth
11-16-2005, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Warham
What about the HUNDREDS, perhaps, THOUSANDS of people with structural engineering degrees who believe 9/11 happened as the official story says it happened? Are they ALL wrong?

That, or paid off...

MERRYKISSMASS2U
11-16-2005, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
I'm not, I'm standing my ground, and I did the research to back it up...

You're an idiot...

Believing the WTC collapse was a controlled demolition is beyond rediculous...


spoken by a true american. this theory is <H1><b>BULLSHIT</B</H1>

Warham
11-16-2005, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Keeyth
That, or paid off...

Patently absurd. I don't know how you can expect a rational discussion with such sweeping generalizations.

So we have hundreds of men and women paid off and not ONE has ever come forward to say they were paid off? You are treading very close to Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, and Men in Black kooks Keeyth, if not already there.

ELVIS
11-16-2005, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Keeyth
That, or paid off...

http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/3/web/2175000-2175999/2175729_17_full.gif

BITEYOASS
11-16-2005, 06:54 PM
Sounds like some disgruntled employee from the white house. WTF would someone from the Labor Dept. know about national security.

ELVIS
11-16-2005, 06:56 PM
What are you talking about ??

Keeyth
11-16-2005, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Patently absurd. I don't know how you can expect a rational discussion with such sweeping generalizations.

So we have hundreds of men and women paid off and not ONE has ever come forward to say they were paid off? You are treading very close to Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, and Men in Black kooks Keeyth, if not already there.

I haven't seen thousands of educated opinions weigh in on your side of this. Where are these hudreds of thousands of people even weighing in on this in publication?

Keeyth
11-16-2005, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
What are you talking about ??

I don't know, but he makes you sound sane at least. Thank him for that.

Keeyth
11-16-2005, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by BITEYOASS
Sounds like some disgruntled employee from the white house. WTF would someone from the Labor Dept. know about national security.
WTF do you know about this conversation is more like it?

Warham
11-16-2005, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Keeyth
I haven't seen thousands of educated opinions weigh in on your side of this. Where are these hudreds of thousands of people even weighing in on this in publication?

What the hell are you talking about?

I've posted links to NATIONAL publications like Popular Mechanics, where some 300 experts were consulted on that article alone!

I'd like to see you post a link to a NATIONAL publication or magazine where your conspiracy kook theory is suggested in lieu of the official story.

If you want hundreds of articles, bucko, I'll post 'em.

Warham
11-16-2005, 07:34 PM
When 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Go Bad

By David Corn, AlterNet. Posted March 1, 2002.


Theories that the U.S. government aided or engineered the 9/11 attacks aren't just horribly misguided -- they distract from the nefarious deeds our leaders actually do perpetrate.

Please stop sending me those emails. You know who are. And you know what emails I mean ... Okay, I'll spell it out -- those forwarded emails suggesting, or flat-out stating, the CIA and the U.S. government were somehow involved in the horrific September 11 attacks.

There are emails about a fellow imprisoned in Canada who claims to be a former U.S. intelligence office and who supposedly passed advance warning of the attack to jail guards in mid-August. There are emails, citing an Italian newspaper, reporting that last July Osama bin Laden was treated for kidney disease at the American hospital in Dubai and met with a CIA official. There are the emails, referring to a book published in France, that note the attacks came a month after Bush Administration officials, who were negotiating an oil deal with the Taliban, told the Afghans "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs."

Get the hint? Washington either did nothing to stop the September 11 attacks or plotted the assaults so a justifiable war could then be waged against Afghanistan to benefit Big Oil.

One email I keep receiving is a timeline of so-called suspicious events that "establishes CIA foreknowledge of [the September 11 attacks] and strongly suggests that there was criminal complicity on the part of the U.S. government in their execution."

I won't argue that the U.S. government does not engage in brutal, murderous skulduggery from time to time. But the notion that the U.S. government either detected the attacks but allowed them to occur, or, worse, conspired to kill thousands of Americans to launch a war-for-oil in Afghanistan is absurd. Still, each week emails passing on such tripe arrive. This crap is probably not worth a rational rebuttal, but I'm irritated enough to try.

It's a mug's game to refute individual pieces of conspiracy theories. Who can really know if anything that bizarre happened at a Dubai hospital? As for the man jailed in Canada, he was being held on a credit card fraud charge, and the only source for the story about his warning was his own word. The judge in his case said, "There is no independent evidence to support his colossal allegations." But a conspiracy-monges can reply, wouldn't you expect the government and its friends in Canada to say that?

So let's start with a broad question: would U.S. officials be capable of such a foul deed? Capable -- as in able to pull it off and willing to do so. Simply put, the spies and special agents are not good enough, evil enough, or gutsy enough to mount this operation. That conclusion is based partly on, dare I say it, common sense, but also on years spent covering national security matters. (For a book I wrote on the CIA, I interviewed over 100 CIA officials and employees.)

Not good enough: Such a plot -- to execute the simultaneous destruction of the two towers, a piece of the Pentagon, and four airplanes and make it appear as if it all was done by another party -- is far beyond the skill level of U.S. intelligence. It would require dozens (or scores or hundreds) of individuals to attempt such a scheme. They would have to work together, and trust one another not to blow their part or reveal the conspiracy. They would hail from an assortment of agencies (CIA, FBI, INS, Customs, State, FAA, NTSB, DOD, etc.).

Yet anyone with the most basic understanding of how government functions (or does not function) realizes that the various bureaucracies of Washington -- particularly those of the national security "community" -- do not work well together. Even covering up advance knowledge would require an extensive plot. If there truly had been intelligence reports predicting the 9/11 attacks, these reports would have circulated through intelligence and policymaking circles before the folks at the top decided to smother them for geopolitical gain. That would make for a unwieldy conspiracy of silence. And in either scenario -- planning the attacks or permitting them to occur -- everyone who participated in the conspiracy would have to be freakin' sure that all the other plotters would stay quiet.

Not evil enough. This is as foul as it gets -- to kill thousands of Americans, including Pentagon employees, to help out oil companies. (The sacrificial lambs could have included White House staff or members of Congress, had the fourth plane not crashed in Pennsylvania.) This is a Hollywood-level of dastardliness, James Bond (or Dr. Evil) material.

Are there enough people of such a bent in all those agencies? That's doubtful. CIA officers and American officials have been evildoers. They have supported death squads and made use of drug dealers overseas. They have assisted torturers, disseminated assassination manuals, sold weapons to terrorist-friendly governments, undermined democratically-elected governments, and aided dictators who murder and maim. They have covered up reports of massacres and human rights abuses. They have plotted to kill foreign leaders.

These were horrendous activities, but, in most instances, the perps justified these deeds with Cold War imperatives (perverted as they were). And to make the justification easier, the victims were people overseas. Justifying the murder of thousands of Americans to help ExxonMobil would require U.S. officials to engage in a different kind of detachment and an even more profound break with decency and moral norms.

I recall interviewing one former CIA official who helped manage a division that ran the sort of actions listed above, and I asked him whether the CIA had considered "permanently neutralizing" a former CIA man who had revealed operations and the identities of CIA officers. Kill an American citizen? he replied, as if I were crazy to ask. No, no, he added, we could never do that. Yes, in the spy-world some things were beyond the pale. And, he explained, it would be far too perilous, for getting caught in that type of nasty business could threaten your career. Which brings us to....

Not gutsy enough. Think of the danger -- the potential danger to the plotters. What if their plan were uncovered before or, worse, after the fact? Who's going to risk being associated with the most infamous crime in U.S. history? At the start of such a conspiracy, no one could be certain it would work and remain a secret. CIA people -- and those in other government agencies -- do care about their careers.

Would George W. Bush take the chance of being branded the most evil president of all time by countenancing such wrongdoing? Oil may be in his blood, but would he place the oil industry's interests ahead of his own? (He sure said sayonara to Kenneth Lay and Enron pretty darn fast.) And Bush and everyone else in government know that plans leak. Disinformation specialists at the Pentagon could not keep their office off the front page of The New York Times. In the aftermath of September 11, there has been much handwringing over the supposed fact that U.S. intelligence has been too risk-averse. But, thankfully, some inhibitions -- P.R. concerns, career concerns -- do provide brakes on the spy-crowd.

By now, you're probably wondering why I have bothered to go through this exercise. Aren't these conspiracy theories too silly to address? That should be the case. But, sadly, they do attract people.

A fellow named Michael Ruppert, who compiled that timeline mentioned above, has drawn large crowds to his lectures. He has offered $1000 to anyone who can "disprove the authenticity of any of his source material." Well, his timeline includes that Canadian prisoner's claim and cites the Toronto Star as the source. But Ruppert fails to note that the Star did not confirm the man's account, that the paper reported some observers "wonder if it isn't just the ravings of a lunatic," and that the Star subsequently reported the judge said the tale had "no air of reality." Does that disprove anything? Not 100 percent. There's still a chance that man is telling the truth, right? So I'm not expecting a check.

Conspiracy theories may seem more nuisance than problem. But they do compete with reality for attention. There is plenty to be outraged over without becoming obsessed with X Files-like nonsense. Examples? There's the intelligence services's failure to protect Americans and the lack of criticism of the CIA from elected officials. Or, General Tommy Franks, the commander of military operations in Afghanistan, declaring the commando mis-assault at Hazar Qadam, which resulted in the deaths of fifteen to twenty local Afghans loyal to the pro-U.S. government, was not an intelligence failure. (How can U.S. Special Forces fire at targets they wrongly believe to be Taliban or al Qaeda fighters, end up killing people they did not intend to kill, and the operation not be considered an intelligence failure?) More outrage material? A few months ago, forensic researchers found the remains of people tortured and killed at a base the CIA had established in the 1980s as a training center for the contras. The U.S. ambassador to Honduras at the time is now the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte.

There are always national security misdeeds to be mad about. They may not be as cinematic in nature as a plot in which shady, unidentified U.S. officials scheme to blow up the World Trade Towers to gain control of an oil pipeline in Central Asia. But dozens of dead Hondurans or twenty or so Afghans wrongly killed ought to provoke anger and protest. In fact, out-there conspiracy theorizing serves the interests of the powers-that-be by making their real transgressions seem tame in comparison. (What's a few dead in Central America, compared to thousands in New York City? Why worry about Negroponte, when unidentified U.S. officials are slaughtering American civilians to trigger war?)

Perhaps there's a Pentagon or CIA office that churns out this material. Its mission: distract people from the real wrongdoing. Now there's a conspiracy theory worth exploring. Doesn't it make sense? Doesn't it all fit together? I challenge anyone to disprove it.

David Corn is the Washington editor of The Nation.

ELVIS
11-16-2005, 07:45 PM
Haha...

Interesting...

FORD
11-16-2005, 08:00 PM
I wonder if David Corn would stick by that article today, now that we all know what lies the BCE is capable of?

See, the thing is.... nobody WANTS to believe the United States government (legally elected or not) is capable of doing something like 9-11 to their own citizens.

Even I don't WANT to believe that. Though I have known the BCE is corrupt since they rigged the outcome of the Iranian hostage crisis 25 years ago. Though we have the JFK, RFK, and MLK assassinations. Possibly Malcolm X as well. Though we have verified documentation of scenarios such as Operation Northwoods, which has a scenario not that far removed from what happenned on 9-11-01. And even though we have past history of our own government and other governments manipulating us into wars that serve agendas other than the security of THIS country.

Even though we KNOW all of these things, it was still a huge leap in March 2002 for most people to look at BCE complicity at any level since 9-11-01.

Since then, the facts have been clarified considerably. And a lot of people who bought the story then aren't buying it now.

Nickdfresh
11-16-2005, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by FORD
I wonder if David Corn would stick by that article today, now that we all know what lies the BCE is capable of?

...


You mean like being incompetent dick heads that fuck things up, and get caught?

ELVIS
11-16-2005, 09:27 PM
Yeah...

And we're also supposed believe that an incompetent "idiot son of an asshole" is also part of this mastermind plot...

Give us all a fucking break...

Cathedral
11-16-2005, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by diamondD
If it was destroyed by detonation as you are trying to imply, there would have been detonations going off all down the building. It started from the top and pancaked on itself.


Why is this so hard to comprehend?

(D) <--- nuff said?

Cathedral
11-16-2005, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by FORD
The WTC concrete floors were supported by two things:

1) The inner steel core

2) The outer steel frame

According to the Official BCE Cover Story© the inner core was melted/twisted/weakened by the jet fuel.

Concrete does not conduct heat very well, so this temperature would not have spread from the inner core to the outer frame even if the story was true.

So, assuming that the building's collapse was a simple matter of a gravity driven chain reaction, with one floor dropping onto another, and the resulting weight taking out each successive floor like a set of downward dominoes, then what happenned to the outer frame?

The bolts holding the concrete floors to the frame likely would have snapped under such pressure, but the frame itself should have fallen outward or twisted in the wreckage. Yet only one significant chunk of the frame survived the demolition. The lower right corner of one of the towers, I believe...

http://www.911exhibit.state.gov/img/h_pic_right.jpg

On the other hand, explosive charges which pulverized the concrete and turned it into dust would have also done the same thing to the metal frame, as the thermite explosives burn hot enough to liquify the steel.

Those damned gremlins and their block buster bombs...ya know, they don't go off unless you hit them juuuuuuust right.

diamondD
11-17-2005, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by Keeyth
Blah, blah, you are a lying idiot, blah, blah , blah..


Dude, you and your arguements are weak...:rolleyes:

LOL My arguments that prove you make up lies are weak? That's the best you can do?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA


What's the weak part? The facts?

:rolleyes:

diamondD
11-17-2005, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by Warham
What the hell are you talking about?

I've posted links to NATIONAL publications like Popular Mechanics, where some 300 experts were consulted on that article alone!

I'd like to see you post a link to a NATIONAL publication or magazine where your conspiracy kook theory is suggested in lieu of the official story.

If you want hundreds of articles, bucko, I'll post 'em.


You could post 1000s, Keeyth would make up one and say it's all he needs to prove you wrong.

Satan
11-17-2005, 03:05 AM
Originally posted by diamondD
If it was destroyed by detonation as you are trying to imply, there would have been detonations going off all down the building. It started from the top and pancaked on itself.


Why is this so hard to comprehend?

It's not hard to comprehend at all. Because that is precisely what did happen.

But don't take my word for it. Listen to the New York Firefighters who were on the scene. (http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg)

ashstralia
11-17-2005, 07:08 AM
geez... if the fucking things keeled over,

we'd be arguing about the bce's deliberate

weakening of some foyer wall. (evident in this top secret architectural archive!!)

FULLY FUEL LADEN (pardon the pun) FUCKING PLANES
HIT THE FUCKING BUILDINGS.

THIS CAUSED MASSIVE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE.
WHEN THE BUILDINGS COULD STAND NO MORE,
THEY COLLAPSED.

THEY TOOK THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE,
STRAIGHT FUCKING DOWN.

seriously folks, you don't have to be a genius to look at
how those buildings were constructed and then visualise
the damage a 1000kilo bomb would do, on an optimum floor.

but a 6oo mph big plane with thousands of gallons of fuel?

when you see that second hit from behind, the sheer momentum,
then the explosion obliterates a good 75% of 3 or 4 floors.
i'm surprised the wtc's stayed standing as long as they did.

diamondD
11-17-2005, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by Satan
It's not hard to comprehend at all. Because that is precisely what did happen.

But don't take my word for it. Listen to the New York Firefighters who were on the scene. (http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg)


If it's true they pulled it, why didn't they at least tell their own people to get out?

You think NYFD is gonna deliberately kill a bunch of their fellow firefighters to enable the BSCE agenda? I guarantee you wouldn't walk up to one in NYC and float that theory. Not without getting knocked on your ass.

diamondD
11-17-2005, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by ashstralia

seriously folks, you don't have to be a genius to look at
how those buildings were constructed and then visualise
the damage a 1000kilo bomb would do, on an optimum floor.

but a 6oo mph big plane with thousands of gallons of fuel?

when you see that second hit from behind, the sheer momentum,
then the explosion obliterates a good 75% of 3 or 4 floors.
i'm surprised the wtc's stayed standing as long as they did.


You forget that you are arguing with the TFBE. Reality be damned.

Keeyth
11-17-2005, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by ashstralia
geez... if the fucking things keeled over,

we'd be arguing about the bce's deliberate

weakening of some foyer wall. (evident in this top secret architectural archive!!)

FULLY FUEL LADEN (pardon the pun) FUCKING PLANES
HIT THE FUCKING BUILDINGS.

THIS CAUSED MASSIVE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE.
WHEN THE BUILDINGS COULD STAND NO MORE,
THEY COLLAPSED.

THEY TOOK THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE,
STRAIGHT FUCKING DOWN.

seriously folks, you don't have to be a genius to look at
how those buildings were constructed and then visualise
the damage a 1000kilo bomb would do, on an optimum floor.

but a 6oo mph big plane with thousands of gallons of fuel?

when you see that second hit from behind, the sheer momentum,
then the explosion obliterates a good 75% of 3 or 4 floors.
i'm surprised the wtc's stayed standing as long as they did.


We have covered and killed your explanation ten times over in this thread. JET FUEL WILL NOT BURN HOT ENOUGH OR LONG ENOUGH TO MELT STEEL WITH OUT AIR PRESSURE TO HELP CONCENTRATION IN ONE SPOT.
Also, ALMOST NO JET FUEL ENTERED TOWER NUMBER TWO. It all went out into the air and burned up immediately.

ashstralia
11-17-2005, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Keeyth
We have covered and killed your explanation ten times over in this thread. JET FUEL WILL NOT BURN HOT ENOUGH OR LONG ENOUGH TO MELT STEEL WITH OUT AIR PRESSURE TO HELP CONCENTRATION IN ONE SPOT.
Also, ALMOST NO JET FUEL ENTERED TOWER NUMBER TWO. It all went out into the air and burned up immediately.

bullshit. you are deluded.

Keeyth
11-17-2005, 07:38 PM
Gimme a break. You are obviously clueless.

diamondD
11-17-2005, 08:19 PM
I just watched the documentary 9/11 again for the first time since the original airing on CBS. The camera is aimed right at the burning section on the 2nd tower when it collapses. You can see it buckle and there's nothing resembling an explosion. You can hear the sound from the ground perspective and all you can hear is the rumble when it starts to come down.

There are no other sounds resembling explosions like you would hear in a controlled demolition. Especially the type needed to bring down one of the world's largest buildings.

You people need to wake the hell up. It's right in front of your face if you can look at it with an open mind. You just want it so bad you can't let it go...

FORD
11-17-2005, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by diamondD
If it's true they pulled it, why didn't they at least tell their own people to get out?

You think NYFD is gonna deliberately kill a bunch of their fellow firefighters to enable the BSCE agenda? I guarantee you wouldn't walk up to one in NYC and float that theory. Not without getting knocked on your ass.

All it would take would be one really dirty cop on the inside.

Perhaps the very same dirty cop who happenned to be working for the BCE in Iraq when a lot of "terraist" explosions happenned there.

And who just happenned to be in London last summer when the Subways got hit.

And guess where he was recently when some shit went down in Jordan?

I give you the world's dirtiest, filthiest piece of shit cop.......

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/bush_Bernard_Kerik.jpg

......Bernie "the hit man" Kerik

diamondD
11-17-2005, 09:56 PM
No, it would take a lot more than "one dirty cop". LOL Ths is a new one. :D


Like I said, you just walk up to someone in real life, a NYFD member, and tell him this crap. Could you?


And isn't it spelled "happened"? ;)

diamondD
11-17-2005, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by FORD
The WTC concrete floors were supported by two things:

1) The inner steel core

2) The outer steel frame

According to the Official BCE Cover Story© the inner core was melted/twisted/weakened by the jet fuel.

Concrete does not conduct heat very well, so this temperature would not have spread from the inner core to the outer frame even if the story was true.

So, assuming that the building's collapse was a simple matter of a gravity driven chain reaction, with one floor dropping onto another, and the resulting weight taking out each successive floor like a set of downward dominoes, then what happenned to the outer frame?

The bolts holding the concrete floors to the frame likely would have snapped under such pressure, but the frame itself should have fallen outward or twisted in the wreckage. Yet only one significant chunk of the frame survived the demolition. The lower right corner of one of the towers, I believe...

http://www.911exhibit.state.gov/img/h_pic_right.jpg

On the other hand, explosive charges which pulverized the concrete and turned it into dust would have also done the same thing to the metal frame, as the thermite explosives burn hot enough to liquify the steel.

That picture is one of many pieces of the frame that were still standing. It's just one of the more famous. Go rewatch that 9/11 documentary and you'll see where all of the outer frame is.It's all piled up on top of itself. There was a lot of empty space underneath the towers for subway rails. It was several stories deep.


But be sure to take off that TFB when you are watching it tho. ;)

Keeyth
11-18-2005, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by diamondD
I just watched the documentary 9/11 again for the first time since the original airing on CBS. The camera is aimed right at the burning section on the 2nd tower when it collapses. You can see it buckle and there's nothing resembling an explosion. You can hear the sound from the ground perspective and all you can hear is the rumble when it starts to come down.

There are no other sounds resembling explosions like you would hear in a controlled demolition. Especially the type needed to bring down one of the world's largest buildings.

You people need to wake the hell up. It's right in front of your face if you can look at it with an open mind. You just want it so bad you can't let it go...


Dude, how many controlled demolitions have you seen?? Many times there is no outside indication at all that explosives are going off inside, and the building just collapses in on itself as if it were melting.

ELVIS
11-18-2005, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by Keeyth
Dude, how many controlled demolitions have you seen?? Many times there is no outside indication at all that explosives are going off inside, and the building just collapses in on itself as if it were melting.

Making shit up again ??

Idiot...:rolleyes:

Keeyth
11-18-2005, 04:52 PM
Whatever, dude. You can look up some on the 'net and see that I'm right, or if it's more your speed, go watch an episode of Maximum Exposure and see it.

ELVIS
11-18-2005, 05:52 PM
That's the problem with you...

You actually believe the bullshit conspiracies you find on the net, and the stuff you see on maxium Exposure...


What a freakin' idiot...


:elvis:

Keeyth
11-18-2005, 06:01 PM
What's your fuckin problem Elvis? Are you saying you have never seen footage of a building being demolished that didn't show outward signs of explosives??

They're all over the place. So either you're the freakin idiot, or else you're just in a sour mood spitting out your venom for no reason. Eat a dick, you moron.