9/11 revisited

[Xenocrates]

No one's made any attempt at explaining the 'interesting' facts here, with the exception of the temperature at which steel weakens. Even then they didn't account for the high thermal conductivity of steel, so it was a half-hearted attempt.

No one's actually disagreed with me here! All people have tried to do is say conspiracies are impossible.

We all agree here that 911 was a conspiracy; the only question is: which conspiracy?

Don't mistake cheap one-liners for debate, leave that to the polititians.

 

[EdwardTking]

No one's made any attempt at explaining the 'interesting' facts here, with the exception of the temperature at which steel weakens. Even then they didn't account for the high thermal conductivity of steel, so it was a half-hearted attempt.

No one's actually disagreed with me here! All people have tried to do is say conspiracies are impossible.

We all agree here that 911 was a conspiracy; the only question is: which conspiracy?

Don't mistake cheap one-liners for debate, leave that to the polititians.

There are other factors, such as the differential thermal expansion of different steel components could result in the steel components separating.

Most mathematical analysis assumes a single chain of causuality and
a degree of symmetry; but if there are several contributing physical factors: shock, softening, thermal expansion, slight varying of initial strengths of joints etc etc all applied assymetrically the problem becomes almost insoluable.

 

[Bugfatty300]

No one's made any attempt at explaining the 'interesting' facts here

I may have to do with the way you present your claims, which makes it impossible to disprove or really argue against them. You can't prove a negative.

Its impossible to disprove that US helicopters are not shuttling OBL between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Just like its impossible to prove that Hitler did not escape on a UFO in April 1945.

People can only doubt and attempt to dicredit claims like those as being false and utter BS but they can never prove otherwise. Unfortunately such tactics make it easier for conspiracy nuts to shout that people who disagree or ignore them are "brainwashed" sheeps who can't think for themselves.

I do not argue with people who come along on forums every often and post random articals from bad sources about phantom planes, explosive charges, dancing jews, or what have you. Mainly because from my experiance, I can tell that most of these people are going to believe what they want to believe no matter how hard other and I attempt to discredit or disprove their claims.

Though it doesn't surprise me that there are all these crazy theories over 9/11. If you look back on nearly every major event in history, there are a bunch of nutty theories surrounding each of them. From the Pyramids and Stonehenge to Pearl Harbor and Roswell. People even have even blaimed the 2004 tsunami on the US.

 

[Xenocrates]

I do not argue with people who come along on forums every often and post random articals from bad sources

What are the facts?

Which evidence fits the facts?

Which sources of information are reliable?

These are the foundations of a debate.

I have proposed several hypotheses that I believe fit what I believe are the facts. Which are:

The twin Towers collapsed in the manner of a demolition.
No attempt was made to act of intelligence warnings.
Two major wars have happened as a result.
No proper investigation has been carried out into either 911 or the anthrax attack.
Historical precedents for self harm exist.
Statements by prominant US polititians indicate irrationality and ruthlessness.

As I said before: We all believe that there was a conspiracy, the only question is which one? So who's the conspiracy nut since we both postulate that 9/11 was the result of a conspiracy?

The 'official explanation' explains what I see as the facts as well as genesis accounts for speciation.

 

[Padma]

Many of us who "believe the government" are quite open-minded. For myself, as I sifted through the theories and explanations in the days and weeks following 9/11, I used Occam's Razor quite often. (The simplest explanation is likely the correct one.) Also another aphorism that I have found holds a great deal of truth: "Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by human stupidity."

So while there are many "questions" remaining, I feel that human error is behind much of it. For instance, the hasty removal and destruction of steel support members is very easily explained by assuming people wanted the debris cleaned up. No need to posit evil forces in Washington (or wherever) telling them to "get rid of the evidence".

 

[Xenocrates]

I used Occam's Razor quite often. (The simplest explanation is likely the correct one.)

How do you measure simplicity?

 

[Padma]

How do you measure simplicity?

It's difficult when discussing humans, but you can get a feel by how many assumptions one has to make.

For instance, we can start with known facts: UBL + Al Qaeda declared war/jihad on the USA (1989?) They carried ot attacks (numerous times, e.g., the USS Cole bombing, the 94 attempt on the WTC, etc.). Four aircraft are hijacked by "Arabs", two attack the WTC, one the Pentagon, and the fourth is crashed before it can attain its objective, the White House. UBL + Al Qaeda take credit for the attack. No assumptions need to be made.

OTOH, to accept some of these conspiracy theories, one has to assume that the President knew about it, that he approved of it, that he was able to order many government agencies to go along with it, or at least "turn a blind eye to it", etc., etc. And the biggest assumption of all, that everybody involved in any way will keep his/her mouth shut about it for any length of time!

 

[Irish Caesar]

Just to set the record straight, the World Trade Center was bombed on February 26, 1993. Only saying that because I see it as '94 in pretty much every post. Not that it make a whole lot of difference...

And while we're dealing with conspiracy theories, here's one that ties the 1993 bombing to Iraq, not al-Qaeda.

 

[JohnRM]

And as a matter of fact, the pilot "missed". He pancaked on a low knoll just in front of the building.

Yet somehow, all of the pictures show an absolutely perfect grass yard after the impact. Hmm...

 

[JohnRM]

erhm, has it by now reached your neocortex that the Twin Towers were not constructed in the usual way? That the fire was much hotter than average house fires?

You are correct. It was constructed, however, to withstand the same kinds of forces that any other building is susceptible to. Thats why we have a building code.

First, the deluded fisherman or carpenter with the fake birthplace doesn't enter here at all.
Second, as opposed to your 'honest' mistake (what BS), I happened to have read something about the event. Yes, I mixed one WWII bomber up with another, you totally got the freaking size and timeline wrong. Oops, hu?

Not really, I just typed the numbers wrong. Big deal.

And, the 'blantantly' in yoru quote shows you're thinking someone here is making stuff up - maybe because you sense that you are called on LOADS of BS? Why else become so aggressive?

I am not implying that you are making stuff up, only that you are not checking your facts.

Ah, so a few minutes of jet fuel fire are not enough to weaken the beams? Or do you want to insinuate that a weakened beam must snap apart ASAP or stay stable forever?

Jet fuel is kerosene, and no, a few minutes of burning kerosene does not substantially weaken this kind of steel. It does not even substantially weaken aluminum. How do I know this? Cause I burn sensitive documents in an aluminum bucket with partial cover for periods of sometimes more than an hour and though it gets extremely hot, it does not suffer any kind of failure in the integrity of the container. You are not going to get me to believe that an oxygen-starved fire such as the one at the twin towers, for ten minutes, was enough to substantially weaken steel.

Furthermore, until we have the steel tested to see just what is likely to have occured...wait...WE CANT...they removed it without investigation!

Hm, a shocked and near-dead person says he or she heard something right before a building collapsed almost on top of him/her. How believable is that?
Please, can you bring some photographs of that supposed 'unexplained damage'? No?

Um, well, they got from the eighth floor down and out of the building, so I guess they didn't hear something just before they died from the collapse. They must have made it out to tell someone. Eh?

Dude, I am not doing the research for you. The photos are available all over the place.

Maybe in horsehockey little western town motels, but not with serious business AC - they are, you know, a bit larger than in 2-room shacks.
Indeed, but did I ever say that the sound must have traveled inside the cool-air tract?

Buildings like this don't have seperate ducts for heating and air-conditioning, so whatever you choose, its the same situation.

If you run, say, 10 8-story units in an 80-story building, will the space they are installed in not quite likely be in vertical association? Would it not be smart to have them on top of each other, statics wise? You ever think of that? Or would you spread them tot he corners of the buildings, rather, spreading bending moments all around the place?

Typically, you want the central unit to be placed in the near center of the area whose environment you wish to control. These units are almost always placed in the same approximate area of a high-rise building. I never stated that it would be any other way.

And would not these flights of 'rooms' make a much better sound conductor than office rooms with carpets etc?

No. These rooms would be among the most solid structural part of that particular floor in which they inhabit, and likely be fireproofed.

So, Mr. Condescending, maybe you ought to stpe off your high horse and admit you are advancing a highly stupid conspiracy theory here.

(btw: ever thought of elevator shafts as sound conductors?)

Added to the fact that the elevators did not run top to bottom, the elevator shafts were hermatically sealed, which means they were air-tight. Sound will still get through a seal, but not through dozens of them; not enough to make someone think it came from the lower floors.

Who cares? YOU make the odd claim, YOU will need to convince others that you have a claim. But that is a principle that eluded you on other topics already....

Actually, the topic post asks if these theories are discussed in Europe and the USA. I am attesting to the fact that I have my doubts and cannot be sure exactly what the truth is. And that should be an important note. I DO NOT know what happened and why it happened. I just have some serious questions that need to be answered before I believe the government/media line.

 

[JohnRM]

At very best, the U.S. Gov't is utterly incompetent or simply does not care. At worst, we have a Reichstag fire. I am praying for incompetence.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Just like its impossible to prove that Hitler did not escape on a UFO in April 1945.

After the collapse of the the Soviet Union. They carried out DNA test to confirm the corpse was Hitlers (Skull with bullet throught it)

 

[FriendlyFire]

Jet fuel is kerosene, and no, a few minutes of burning kerosene does not substantially weaken this kind of steel. It does not even substantially weaken aluminum. How do I know this? Cause I burn sensitive documents in an aluminum bucket with partial cover for periods of sometimes more than an hour and though it gets extremely hot, it does not suffer any kind of failure in the integrity of the container. You are not going to get me to believe that an oxygen-starved fire such as the one at the twin towers, for ten minutes, was enough to substantially weaken steel.

Dont forget to FACTOR in the fact that each foor was designed to support cement structure which weights 90Tons (?) with 140ton (?) maxium

Also several steet strunt appear to be smashed for the point of impact.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Yet somehow, all of the pictures show an absolutely perfect grass yard after the impact. Hmm...

Actually IIRC the plane hit the ground just infront infront of the pentagon and between the helipad and slid. I can find no picture that shows perfect field of grass in that area.

There are also eyewitnesses and security camera footage that confirms this.

http://www.vfp80.org/images/pentagon3.jpg

 

[Bugfatty300]

After the collapse of the the Soviet Union. They carried out DNA test to confirm the corpse was Hitlers (Skull with bullet throught it)

Prove to me that the people doing the test weren't paid off by the Russian or US government who are trying to keep Hitler's UFO escape underraps.

Hard evidence such as DNA will hardly ever influences a die hard conspiracy theorists. Just take a look at the Moon Landing theorists who ignore little facts like moon rocks and lasers.

 

[Xenocrates]

It's difficult when discussing humans, but you can get a feel by how many assumptions one has to make.

For instance, we can start with known facts: UBL + Al Qaeda declared war/jihad on the USA (1989?) They carried ot attacks (numerous times, e.g., the USS Cole bombing, the 94 attempt on the WTC, etc.). Four aircraft are hijacked by "Arabs", two attack the WTC, one the Pentagon, and the fourth is crashed before it can attain its objective, the White House. UBL + Al Qaeda take credit for the attack. No assumptions need to be made.

OTOH, to accept some of these conspiracy theories, one has to assume that the President knew about it, that he approved of it, that he was able to order many government agencies to go along with it, or at least "turn a blind eye to it", etc., etc. And the biggest assumption of all, that everybody involved in any way will keep his/her mouth shut about it for any length of time!

LOL as you might expect I can see several assumptions in there, namely:

Who/what is Al Quaeda?
That the objective of the 4th plane was the white house.
That bin Laden's credit-taking for the attack means that the twin towers were brought down by the planes alone and that this implies no US foreknowledge - this itself implies that the foreign intelligence warnings were simply ignored.
That the US itself did not possess additional intelligence information that we don't know about.
That bin Laden's credit-taking was legitimate.
That bin Laden was no longer working for the CIA when the attacks were committed.
That the President has access to the power, information and IQ necessary to enable/prevent the attacks.
That one day the knowledgeable few might not speak out.
That the president and his staff weren't blinded by the opportunities that appeared to present themselves after 9/11 to the extent that they didn't actually care what happened.
That the anthrax attack is a genuinely impossible case to solve.

Occams' razor can't apply here since we can both argue that we possess the more parsimonious theory!


There are many more assumptions required by the official standpoint that weren't in your post or mine. Of course some of these assumptions may be correct, but for the standard school-book explanation to be correct, they must all hold. That, in my view is unlikely.

I keep reminding everyone that the official line is itself a conspiracy theory.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Actually IIRC the plane hit the ground just infront infront of the pentagon and between the helipad and slid. I can find no picture that shows perfect field of grass in that area.

There are also eyewitnesses and security camera footage that confirms this.

http://www.vfp80.org/images/pentagon3.jpg

Oh look the plane is flying in LEVEL.
Now that is some crazyass FLYING

 

[FriendlyFire]

Heres the FOOTAGE:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/videos/fiveframes.html

 

[Bugfatty300]

Please discard.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Oh look the plane is flying in LEVEL.
Now that is some crazyass FLYING

Ok, you gave me a CG picture of plane and a Pentagon picture with some red sections added on that doesn't even look it coincides with the damage? Exactly what does that prove or how does it discredit eyewitness reports?