Xenocrates
Deity
JerichoHill said:
I'm no stranger to lunacy but I'm not arguning about the plane. I don't doubt for a second that a plane hit the Pentagon.
I'll cherish this rare moment of agreement between us forever
Loose Change
- Thread starter Rik Meleet
- Start date
I'm no stranger to lunacy but I'm not arguning about the plane. I don't doubt for a second that a plane hit the Pentagon.
I'll cherish this rare moment of agreement between us forever
Xenocrates
Deity
willemvanoranje said:
Yes this is my point with the twin towers exactly when I said that the aluminium plane parts weren't stiff enough to damage the core even if they got there.
Xenocrates
Deity
brennan said:
I answered the point about the aluminium plane parts in the above post. The laws of physics weren't different in the pentagon and if the wings didn't cause big damage to the Pentagon wall then they also wouldn't to the WTC core.
I don't think that lateral loads and vertical loads are completely seperate. In order to survive the wind loads the building would need to be stiff and strong horizontally. This means, in turn that the core, which braces as well as holds up the horizontal sections, would also have had to be stiffer and stronger. There's no other way that its possible!
I already posted a link to police reports, eyewitness reports, of unexploded bombs. I don't yield on this: there was enough evidence to justify exploring the possiblility of explosives. That goes for all three of the buildings, in particular building 7.
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
There were no bombs! Geez, any eyewitness reports would have heard explosions mass chaos. Mob mentalities, rumors spread. Relying on what was said by people fleeing for their lives and paniced and not in a rational state doth not the best evidence make.
all from wiki...easy
Conspiracy theorists, however, question the NIST's report and suggest that the towers were brought down in a "controlled demolition". The discussion plays a central, albeit not essential, role in the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11.[37] However, the NIST has explicitly rejected this hypothesis[35] and it has received no credit from structural engineering experts. Van Romero, a demolitions expert in New Mexico, was the first to suggest a demolition in public. On the day of the attacks, he said that the collapses looked "too methodical" to have been brought on by the impacts and subsequent fires and proposed explosives in the building to account for the images he saw on television.[38] He later retracted his suggestion[39] and insisted that he had "only said that that's what it looked like."[40]
The NIST responds that they do not support the Pancake Theory either, although earlier, they did. Rather, they state
"WTC towers collapsed because:
"(1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and
"(2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidenceas well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapsesupport this sequence for each tower." [5]
The NIST also concludes that the momentum of the upper level structures was so large that the lower level structures would offer little resistance and therefore the building would fall at nearly the free fall rate. The building's structure was only designed to support the static load, not the dynamic forces of collapse. [5]
The NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning. Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. According to NIST, the apparent color could have been affected by slag formation on the surface.[5]
In response to NIST, Steven E. Jones says he conducted experiments to test NIST's "orange glow" hypothesis. He says that by using several different approaches to mixing organics into molten aluminum, he found that organic material refused to mix and, instead, floated to the top. He says when the mixture was poured, the molten aluminum remained silvery, not orange (with the exception of rougue embers). He claims the outcome of these experiments directly contradict what he describes as NIST's theory that the molten metal seen pouring from the World Trade Center consisted of aluminum alloys.[16]
Recently, Professor Steven Jones conducted molecular analyses to ascertain the presence of explosive residues on steel samples from Ground Zero and in the released dust[19] and indicates that chemicals consistent with thermate are present. Other environmental studies have been done on the particulate matter and dust released by the collapse (including a study by the DELTA group at UC Davis), and none have indicated the presence of explosive residue.[20][21]
The mainstream of the academic world has yet to be convinced. Massachusetts Institute of Technology has devoted a number of staff members to the analysis of the World Trade Center collapse. The jet crashes and fires have been documented and reviewed within the scientific community.[54] The country's leading structural and civil engineers have examined the attack from the point of impact up through the collapse, concluding that explosives were not necessary to initiate collapse.[55]
The following are a few examples of the structural engineering research done on the collapse:
According to Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction, "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100 °F (593 °C)." Asif Usmani of Edinburgh University concluded that the interconnecting beams of the towers could have expanded by around 9 cm at 930 °F (500 °C), causing the floors above to buckle.
Dr. Thomas Eagar, professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has stated that the building "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." In other words, the structure had no "choice" but to fall straight down.[56][57]
Jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, says Forman Williams, Professor of Engineering at the University of California, San Diego. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting fire was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F (1000°C), high enough to cause structural failure.[58]
Engineers from the firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson said in 1993 the World Trade Center was designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 crash, because they knew a smaller plane had crashed into the Empire State Building. But even then, they warned that it wouldn't be safe from a subsequent fire. "Our analysis indicated that the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel [from the jet] would dump into the building," lead structural engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times in 1993. "There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed."[59]
Although some say that there is a large difference between the Boeing 707, which was popular when the WTC was built, and the Boeing 767s that hit the WTC, others describe the details which show this point to be irrelevant. While the 707 weighs around 330,000 [60] pounds including fuel, the Boeing 767 is about 20 % heavier; however the fuel capacity is about the same for both aircraft. Still, the significant differences in cruise speeds suggests that a 707 in would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.[61]
Leslie Robertson, lead structural engineer for the World Trade Center, commented on this point in Reflections on the World Trade Center.[62] Robertson says, It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. Little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.
Robertson illustrates how the kinetic energy of the 767 impact witnessed on 9-11 was nearly seven times greater than the building's design ever anticipated.[62]
GIVE THIS UP ALREADY! I mean, seriously, you've got the extreme bulk of the academic community against you.
all from wiki...easy
Conspiracy theorists, however, question the NIST's report and suggest that the towers were brought down in a "controlled demolition". The discussion plays a central, albeit not essential, role in the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11.[37] However, the NIST has explicitly rejected this hypothesis[35] and it has received no credit from structural engineering experts. Van Romero, a demolitions expert in New Mexico, was the first to suggest a demolition in public. On the day of the attacks, he said that the collapses looked "too methodical" to have been brought on by the impacts and subsequent fires and proposed explosives in the building to account for the images he saw on television.[38] He later retracted his suggestion[39] and insisted that he had "only said that that's what it looked like."[40]
The NIST responds that they do not support the Pancake Theory either, although earlier, they did. Rather, they state
"WTC towers collapsed because:
"(1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and
"(2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidenceas well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapsesupport this sequence for each tower." [5]
The NIST also concludes that the momentum of the upper level structures was so large that the lower level structures would offer little resistance and therefore the building would fall at nearly the free fall rate. The building's structure was only designed to support the static load, not the dynamic forces of collapse. [5]
The NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning. Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. According to NIST, the apparent color could have been affected by slag formation on the surface.[5]
In response to NIST, Steven E. Jones says he conducted experiments to test NIST's "orange glow" hypothesis. He says that by using several different approaches to mixing organics into molten aluminum, he found that organic material refused to mix and, instead, floated to the top. He says when the mixture was poured, the molten aluminum remained silvery, not orange (with the exception of rougue embers). He claims the outcome of these experiments directly contradict what he describes as NIST's theory that the molten metal seen pouring from the World Trade Center consisted of aluminum alloys.[16]
Recently, Professor Steven Jones conducted molecular analyses to ascertain the presence of explosive residues on steel samples from Ground Zero and in the released dust[19] and indicates that chemicals consistent with thermate are present. Other environmental studies have been done on the particulate matter and dust released by the collapse (including a study by the DELTA group at UC Davis), and none have indicated the presence of explosive residue.[20][21]
The mainstream of the academic world has yet to be convinced. Massachusetts Institute of Technology has devoted a number of staff members to the analysis of the World Trade Center collapse. The jet crashes and fires have been documented and reviewed within the scientific community.[54] The country's leading structural and civil engineers have examined the attack from the point of impact up through the collapse, concluding that explosives were not necessary to initiate collapse.[55]
The following are a few examples of the structural engineering research done on the collapse:
According to Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction, "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100 °F (593 °C)." Asif Usmani of Edinburgh University concluded that the interconnecting beams of the towers could have expanded by around 9 cm at 930 °F (500 °C), causing the floors above to buckle.
Dr. Thomas Eagar, professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has stated that the building "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." In other words, the structure had no "choice" but to fall straight down.[56][57]
Jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, says Forman Williams, Professor of Engineering at the University of California, San Diego. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting fire was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F (1000°C), high enough to cause structural failure.[58]
Engineers from the firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson said in 1993 the World Trade Center was designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 crash, because they knew a smaller plane had crashed into the Empire State Building. But even then, they warned that it wouldn't be safe from a subsequent fire. "Our analysis indicated that the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel [from the jet] would dump into the building," lead structural engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times in 1993. "There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed."[59]
Although some say that there is a large difference between the Boeing 707, which was popular when the WTC was built, and the Boeing 767s that hit the WTC, others describe the details which show this point to be irrelevant. While the 707 weighs around 330,000 [60] pounds including fuel, the Boeing 767 is about 20 % heavier; however the fuel capacity is about the same for both aircraft. Still, the significant differences in cruise speeds suggests that a 707 in would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.[61]
Leslie Robertson, lead structural engineer for the World Trade Center, commented on this point in Reflections on the World Trade Center.[62] Robertson says, It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. Little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.
Robertson illustrates how the kinetic energy of the 767 impact witnessed on 9-11 was nearly seven times greater than the building's design ever anticipated.[62]
GIVE THIS UP ALREADY! I mean, seriously, you've got the extreme bulk of the academic community against you.
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
My last point:
When you are in agreement with Cynthia McKinney, you better double and triple check your argument.
When you are in agreement with Cynthia McKinney, you better double and triple check your argument.
Xenocrates
Deity
Thermite: If there is the possibilty of a thermite-like reaction occuring spontaneously in the building, then wouldn't the building codes need to be addressed? Have the building codes been altered? Has remedial work been done to correct the other buildings where this could occur? Not as far as I know. They did find evidence consistent with thermite in the debris.
Transformers: They could have exploded (after the plane hit), but they didn't know that a plane had hit the building. A short circuit is a short circuit. My computer reacts the same when a plane hits the junction box and when a workman touches two wires together.
Fire spread: Sure it spread quicker because of the jet fuel. No argument about that.
NIST: I have no idea whether the 911 commission was told of the molten metal. You'd think that word would spread around the site and that clean up guys would be informed for safety reasons. In fact that's elementary. It's more likely that they just ignored it like so many other pieces of evidence that didn't fit in with the story. The molten steel link is familiar. And no, re-reading it hasn't made it better! They say that they couldn't prove that the steel had melted prior to collapse and that if there was molten steel in the rubble that it could have been melted afterwards. I've mentioned point 13 before (in the FAQ); does it sound satisfying to you? This logic is that we didn't want to look - so we didn't find - so it can't have been there, and even if it was there it's not important because the buildings were destroyed by an office fire. That kind of prejudges the conclusion to my mind. That half-baked investigation didn't do anyone any favours.
Uncle Ossama: I posted the infamous image before on http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=176440&page=1
If you think this thread is 'alternative' that take a look at that one! It looks nothing like Bil Laden and the video maker tried to mask that with poor quality. Come on, this one's obvious!
Suspects: I haven't time to research the evidence trail more, but the passenger lists came from the airlines as far as I know.
What's a conspiracy? It's merely a group of people getting together in secret to do something. Every company is a conspiracy, every army and every badminton club.
The best model for this is that, as with 7/7 and Northern Irish terrorism, fanatics are being used by others. The groups are infiltrated or set up by agents provocateurs. They then find out what's being planned and make suggestions. Others back home then decide which plots to kill and which to allow. There isn't one big conspiracy but two or more small ones. If the plot goes wrong then who cares - the other group takes the blame not us. If it goes wrong we'll benefit anyway. Look at the 1993 WTC attack. Just google "Emad Salem" and you'll know what I mean. The wikipedia article is fair. He tried to stop the bombing by substituting harmelss powder for the explosives, but the FBI had other ideas....
BTW black helicopters aren't a myth as some people say; I saw one near Winchester three years ago. It came up from behind a hedge when I was on the motorway.
Rodriguez: You're not minded to believe him and I'm not minded to believe NIST. What's the difference? He's been totally consistent about this from the start and if anyone is likely to have seen a hijacker it's the janitor. I have more confidence in him than I have in the US government.
I don't believe that there is a US government really. It's just a group of individuals looking out for themselves and their buddies. Sometimes they're honest and sometimes they're not. Hmm you made me pre-empt my next thread:
A trillion a year! How is it laundered? That's a LOT of Chinese launderies and casinos! I don't accept the choice presented between a US gov't job and Al Qaeda. The beneficiaries of the drugs trade have a lot to hide and a lot of power and determination. Afghanistan is a major opium source and it's inconceivable that the drugs barons didn't know what was going on in Al Qaeda. Indeed the Northern Alliance were a collection of heroin warlords and they were the chosen partner of the US in the war and the main beneficiaries of it. If Bush was involved, you are right it's too grand a plan to work, but I don't believe that anyway.
Transformers: They could have exploded (after the plane hit), but they didn't know that a plane had hit the building. A short circuit is a short circuit. My computer reacts the same when a plane hits the junction box and when a workman touches two wires together.
Fire spread: Sure it spread quicker because of the jet fuel. No argument about that.
NIST: I have no idea whether the 911 commission was told of the molten metal. You'd think that word would spread around the site and that clean up guys would be informed for safety reasons. In fact that's elementary. It's more likely that they just ignored it like so many other pieces of evidence that didn't fit in with the story. The molten steel link is familiar. And no, re-reading it hasn't made it better! They say that they couldn't prove that the steel had melted prior to collapse and that if there was molten steel in the rubble that it could have been melted afterwards. I've mentioned point 13 before (in the FAQ); does it sound satisfying to you? This logic is that we didn't want to look - so we didn't find - so it can't have been there, and even if it was there it's not important because the buildings were destroyed by an office fire. That kind of prejudges the conclusion to my mind. That half-baked investigation didn't do anyone any favours.
Uncle Ossama: I posted the infamous image before on http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=176440&page=1
If you think this thread is 'alternative' that take a look at that one! It looks nothing like Bil Laden and the video maker tried to mask that with poor quality. Come on, this one's obvious!
Suspects: I haven't time to research the evidence trail more, but the passenger lists came from the airlines as far as I know.
What's a conspiracy? It's merely a group of people getting together in secret to do something. Every company is a conspiracy, every army and every badminton club.
The best model for this is that, as with 7/7 and Northern Irish terrorism, fanatics are being used by others. The groups are infiltrated or set up by agents provocateurs. They then find out what's being planned and make suggestions. Others back home then decide which plots to kill and which to allow. There isn't one big conspiracy but two or more small ones. If the plot goes wrong then who cares - the other group takes the blame not us. If it goes wrong we'll benefit anyway. Look at the 1993 WTC attack. Just google "Emad Salem" and you'll know what I mean. The wikipedia article is fair. He tried to stop the bombing by substituting harmelss powder for the explosives, but the FBI had other ideas....
BTW black helicopters aren't a myth as some people say; I saw one near Winchester three years ago. It came up from behind a hedge when I was on the motorway.
Rodriguez: You're not minded to believe him and I'm not minded to believe NIST. What's the difference? He's been totally consistent about this from the start and if anyone is likely to have seen a hijacker it's the janitor. I have more confidence in him than I have in the US government.
I don't believe that there is a US government really. It's just a group of individuals looking out for themselves and their buddies. Sometimes they're honest and sometimes they're not. Hmm you made me pre-empt my next thread:
A trillion a year! How is it laundered? That's a LOT of Chinese launderies and casinos! I don't accept the choice presented between a US gov't job and Al Qaeda. The beneficiaries of the drugs trade have a lot to hide and a lot of power and determination. Afghanistan is a major opium source and it's inconceivable that the drugs barons didn't know what was going on in Al Qaeda. Indeed the Northern Alliance were a collection of heroin warlords and they were the chosen partner of the US in the war and the main beneficiaries of it. If Bush was involved, you are right it's too grand a plan to work, but I don't believe that anyway.
Xenocrates
Deity
I agree that rumours spread; I just think they're different rumours.
There are a couple of points in this article that we've discussed before, namely that the jet fuel was only the ignition. It was the heat released from the burning carpets etc. that brought down the towers. I imagine that the Windsor Hotel or the buildings at Hiroshima had more combustible material that the WTC.
Anyway, it's the fear of being labelled as a 'conspiracy theorist' that has inhibited honest scientific judgement here. It was the same with global warming when proponents were once called alarmists or catastrophists. Now the pendulum has swung.
There are a couple of points in this article that we've discussed before, namely that the jet fuel was only the ignition. It was the heat released from the burning carpets etc. that brought down the towers. I imagine that the Windsor Hotel or the buildings at Hiroshima had more combustible material that the WTC.
Anyway, it's the fear of being labelled as a 'conspiracy theorist' that has inhibited honest scientific judgement here. It was the same with global warming when proponents were once called alarmists or catastrophists. Now the pendulum has swung.
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
No, its just that a 767 jumbo jet with full fuel smashes into a tower, that no one had really planned for such a scenario.
The LOGISTICS of getting explosives on every floor, and keeping everyone quiet about it, and killing countless POWERFUL executives, think about it? There's too many people to keep silent for such a conspiracy to have taken place.
The chance that this was a conspiracy and there were bombs is about .000001%. The chance that this was a group of crazed terrorists enacting jihad with jets against buildings that hadn't been built with such a possibility in mind is 99.999999%
Dude, seriously, come on. Global warming is wholly different. You can test falsifiable theories, there's reams of scientific data.
Nevermind, I give up. Go on believing this and other theories. Fox Mulder you are not.
The LOGISTICS of getting explosives on every floor, and keeping everyone quiet about it, and killing countless POWERFUL executives, think about it? There's too many people to keep silent for such a conspiracy to have taken place.
The chance that this was a conspiracy and there were bombs is about .000001%. The chance that this was a group of crazed terrorists enacting jihad with jets against buildings that hadn't been built with such a possibility in mind is 99.999999%
Dude, seriously, come on. Global warming is wholly different. You can test falsifiable theories, there's reams of scientific data.
Nevermind, I give up. Go on believing this and other theories. Fox Mulder you are not.
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
Have to keep in mind how the WTC was built is different than the pentagon (steel vs. reinforced concrete) but here is the damage to the pentagon:
Thanks to http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html for the picture.
Here is a steel beam from WTC 5 that suffered damage from fire alone:
It isn't our fault if Al-queda uses a different quality video. Al-Queda and other terrorists are infamous for using low-quality video (like the ones they used for all the beheadings). Isn't some of the other videos of him (from before 9/11) from reporters who interviewed him in '98 and '99? (higher quality film). What about the other videos that have been released of bin Laden since the confession tape?
So he did see the hijacker. That solidifies my point that the government wasn't involved. The hijacker wouldn't need to check out the building if the government was helping him. I just think Rodriquez was confused about what he witnessed in the basement (as to what caused the 'exposions' he heard). There are some witnesses in the JFK case who were thoroughly convinced they heard 4, 5 or 6 shots when 90% of the witnesses heard 3 or fewer shots. One person even claimed he heard a dozen shots. Some people like the publicity, which Rodriquez seems to like.
Conspiracy:
The entire field of structural engineers do not believe bombs were used. Whenever one of them does think an explosive was used it is when they are shown one clip from a particular angle and he only says it 'looked like' a CD is because the building comes straight down. He doesn't say it looks that way because of the dust cloud, the 'free fall speed' or anything of that nature, only the fact that it goes straight down. When given all the information needed to make an accurate assessment then he says a CD was not used.
So every structural engineer in the world would need to be in on the conspiracy if none of them think a CD was used.
A history of accusations against the government does not make a case. From what I have briefly researched there isn't proof the FBI substituted the powder for the explosives.
Xenocrates
Deity
Bamspeedy:
The wings not damaging the core significantly isn't really important. I only mentioned it because people were forgetting stiffness, which most of the plane didn't possess. I think your image backs that up, but there's no scale so I can't be sure.
WTC 5 didn't collapse. Yet it was the same material that was burning inside it. I'm taking the jet fuel off the field of play since it couldn't have been responsible for the high temperature fire that caused the collapse (since the collapses happened nearly an hour after the jet fuel had gone).
Bin Laden's dead. The 'conspiracy theorists' may argue that he's in custody and that this will come out when it suits Bush. These 'conspiracy theorists' include Madeleine Albright - http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/12/17/15126.shtml - but I find the dead theory to be better, since Bush has been on the ropes frequently and would have already had reason to publicise the capture. If he's alive, they can keep releasing BS footage and letters from him.
I think the engineering consensus is that explosives/thermite were not necessary to cause the collapses. That under specific conditions (an extremely high temperature fire in the direct vicinity of the core) the buildings could have collapsed without explosives. That's different from saying that there was no thermite there!
The accusation is that the FBI didn't prevent the substitution to powder in the 1993 attacks. This could be for many reasons, but it indicates that the simple story is rarely the reality and that money is as great a motivation as religion, if not greater.
JerichoHill and Bamspeedy:
There is something here that might interest you as an economist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_plot The Nazi coup in the USA in 1934 has largely been forgotten, but the companies behind it are still very much alive. This was a real conspiracy and a very dangerous one. Smedley Butler didn't play ball and it failed, but history could have been so much different if he had. The main difference between then and now is the depression. We're inches away from these circumstances happening again. After the commitee reported that the plot was real, the entire US media went AWOL. It simply wasn't reported and the committee didn't follow it through. Maybe this is a good historial comparison. Maybe not. Who knows?
PS I have no idea who Cynthia McKinney is. Should I be grateful for that? Besides which, I'm not in any particular camp here. I don't know whether explosives were used or not. I don't know who was behind 9/11 and who was behind the anthrax attacks. I do know that the anthrax attacks were not carried out by Islamists (from my thread 'anthrax attax') and I am questioning whether 9/11 happened in the way that the establishment say. Bush etc. have not released any evidence aside from an obviously phoney confession video that implicated Bin laden (at least until the recent video that I haven't examined yet). I think skepticism is justified!
The wings not damaging the core significantly isn't really important. I only mentioned it because people were forgetting stiffness, which most of the plane didn't possess. I think your image backs that up, but there's no scale so I can't be sure.
WTC 5 didn't collapse. Yet it was the same material that was burning inside it. I'm taking the jet fuel off the field of play since it couldn't have been responsible for the high temperature fire that caused the collapse (since the collapses happened nearly an hour after the jet fuel had gone).
Bin Laden's dead. The 'conspiracy theorists' may argue that he's in custody and that this will come out when it suits Bush. These 'conspiracy theorists' include Madeleine Albright - http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/12/17/15126.shtml - but I find the dead theory to be better, since Bush has been on the ropes frequently and would have already had reason to publicise the capture. If he's alive, they can keep releasing BS footage and letters from him.
I think the engineering consensus is that explosives/thermite were not necessary to cause the collapses. That under specific conditions (an extremely high temperature fire in the direct vicinity of the core) the buildings could have collapsed without explosives. That's different from saying that there was no thermite there!
The accusation is that the FBI didn't prevent the substitution to powder in the 1993 attacks. This could be for many reasons, but it indicates that the simple story is rarely the reality and that money is as great a motivation as religion, if not greater.
JerichoHill and Bamspeedy:
There is something here that might interest you as an economist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_plot The Nazi coup in the USA in 1934 has largely been forgotten, but the companies behind it are still very much alive. This was a real conspiracy and a very dangerous one. Smedley Butler didn't play ball and it failed, but history could have been so much different if he had. The main difference between then and now is the depression. We're inches away from these circumstances happening again. After the commitee reported that the plot was real, the entire US media went AWOL. It simply wasn't reported and the committee didn't follow it through. Maybe this is a good historial comparison. Maybe not. Who knows?
PS I have no idea who Cynthia McKinney is. Should I be grateful for that? Besides which, I'm not in any particular camp here. I don't know whether explosives were used or not. I don't know who was behind 9/11 and who was behind the anthrax attacks. I do know that the anthrax attacks were not carried out by Islamists (from my thread 'anthrax attax') and I am questioning whether 9/11 happened in the way that the establishment say. Bush etc. have not released any evidence aside from an obviously phoney confession video that implicated Bin laden (at least until the recent video that I haven't examined yet). I think skepticism is justified!
brennan
Argumentative Brit
I have no idea how you can interpret reality the way you do.
Madeline Allbright suggested that Bin Laden may have been brought out as a pre-election stunt 3 YEARS AGO. He wasn't. Therefore we can safely say that this was just speculation with no basis in fact. In fact it was Saddam who was found shortly afterwards. If Bin Laden were known to be dead or if he had been captured; only lunatic conspiracy theorists can see any reason why the whole world wouldn't know about it.
The confession video: it's him. Watch more than that single frame and it's obvious - again, only loony conspiracy theorists are blind to the truth.
'Evidence' of thermite: presence of traces of sulphur on two of the 500 or so steel beams that were tested by NIST. Is anyone other than loony conspiracy theorists convinced? No.
You admit that the buildings could have been weakened enough by a large fire to collapse, particularly if they were damaged by, say, being hit by an airliner at 500mph. So why don't you go watch a video of what happened, all the parts are there.
You'd have to be a loony conspiracy theorist to think otherwise.
Madeline Allbright suggested that Bin Laden may have been brought out as a pre-election stunt 3 YEARS AGO. He wasn't. Therefore we can safely say that this was just speculation with no basis in fact. In fact it was Saddam who was found shortly afterwards. If Bin Laden were known to be dead or if he had been captured; only lunatic conspiracy theorists can see any reason why the whole world wouldn't know about it.
The confession video: it's him. Watch more than that single frame and it's obvious - again, only loony conspiracy theorists are blind to the truth.
'Evidence' of thermite: presence of traces of sulphur on two of the 500 or so steel beams that were tested by NIST. Is anyone other than loony conspiracy theorists convinced? No.
You admit that the buildings could have been weakened enough by a large fire to collapse, particularly if they were damaged by, say, being hit by an airliner at 500mph. So why don't you go watch a video of what happened, all the parts are there.
You'd have to be a loony conspiracy theorist to think otherwise.
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
Cynthia McKinney was a radical Democrat who was a Representative until this year, when she lost in a primary in her gerrymandered district (in her favor)
She beleives Bush was in on 9/11, aliens, etc. She's a loon.
The overwhelming amount of evidence remains on the side that says there was no CD. You cannot go about saying "Well,it doesn't explain this!" You have to provide a better explanation than that one which nitpicks.
Occam's Razor. Look it up. Use it.
We're inches away from a fascist revolt? HAHAHA, boy you must be crazy. Where's your proof of this? The repubs are losing seats this election, and already public backlash is changing laws hastily put up.
Im done with this thread.
She beleives Bush was in on 9/11, aliens, etc. She's a loon.
The overwhelming amount of evidence remains on the side that says there was no CD. You cannot go about saying "Well,it doesn't explain this!" You have to provide a better explanation than that one which nitpicks.
Occam's Razor. Look it up. Use it.
We're inches away from a fascist revolt? HAHAHA, boy you must be crazy. Where's your proof of this? The repubs are losing seats this election, and already public backlash is changing laws hastily put up.
Im done with this thread.
Xenocrates
Deity
Brennan:
I already mentioned that it was crazy to reject a theory because it was a conspiracy while on the other hand supporting another conspiracy theory. The use of the word 'loony' shows perfectly why few people are prepared to openly question this event.
I didn't support Mad's theory; she's not called mad for nothing you know! She was the architect of the Bosnia war if memory serves me correctly, which says it all.
Tim Ossman/Ossama Bil Laden's death: Musharaff and Hamed Karzai both said he's dead, the FBI said that he's dead, Israeli intelligence said that he's dead and that the recent communications have been fake and the Egyptians published a newspaper article on Dec 26 2001 claiming that he died and was buried in Afghanistan. Even Bush has said that he was dead (through an aide):
You won't get the Tim Ossman reference unless you've done some serious reading about this! So basically the whole world does know about it except us because our press hasn't reported it. I think you are being parochial by neglecting the beliefs of most of the World.
There's more than traces of sulphur, if you read the full report linked a couple of pages back. That's never-seen-before inexplicable phenomena. Someone mentioned Fox Mulder: well you'd have to be him to appreciate the established theory. They also admit elsewhere that the diesel hypothesis (WTC7) has a very low probability.
I have no idea how you can interpret reality the way you do. - because I read a little and I don't watch TV.
I'm not interested in how the twin towers could have collapsed, I'm interested in how they did collapse and the other phenomenon associated with the collapses. You can call it lunacy or you can call it science.
I already mentioned that it was crazy to reject a theory because it was a conspiracy while on the other hand supporting another conspiracy theory. The use of the word 'loony' shows perfectly why few people are prepared to openly question this event.
I didn't support Mad's theory; she's not called mad for nothing you know! She was the architect of the Bosnia war if memory serves me correctly, which says it all.
Tim Ossman/Ossama Bil Laden's death: Musharaff and Hamed Karzai both said he's dead, the FBI said that he's dead, Israeli intelligence said that he's dead and that the recent communications have been fake and the Egyptians published a newspaper article on Dec 26 2001 claiming that he died and was buried in Afghanistan. Even Bush has said that he was dead (through an aide):
You won't get the Tim Ossman reference unless you've done some serious reading about this! So basically the whole world does know about it except us because our press hasn't reported it. I think you are being parochial by neglecting the beliefs of most of the World.
There's more than traces of sulphur, if you read the full report linked a couple of pages back. That's never-seen-before inexplicable phenomena. Someone mentioned Fox Mulder: well you'd have to be him to appreciate the established theory. They also admit elsewhere that the diesel hypothesis (WTC7) has a very low probability.
I have no idea how you can interpret reality the way you do. - because I read a little and I don't watch TV.
I'm not interested in how the twin towers could have collapsed, I'm interested in how they did collapse and the other phenomenon associated with the collapses. You can call it lunacy or you can call it science.
Attachments
Xenocrates
Deity
Jericho:
The conditions for the 1934 coup were depression, the bonus marchers (annoyed veterans) and government policy which encouraged the small guy to invest in stock. We've got the annoyed veterans and more are on the way. We've got the depression on it's way too; at least I think we're past the point of no return. And we've got pensions etc. tied up in stocks. It's those circumstances that we're inches away from, not a fascist revolution.
Did you know of the '34 coup attempt? If not why not?
Cynthia McKinney is wrong; Bush is being mind-controlled by aliens! Or are aliens being mind-controlled by Bush?
There are also convicted rapists and murderers that believe the non-explosives theory of the WTC collapses and there are bank robbers that swear that 1+1 =2. So I don't feel you're being entirely fair here. Do I get a prize for understatement?
Occam's razor say's that when explosives of one kind or another can explain the collapses and every connected phenomena, but the fire theory can't then the explosives theory is more likely. Correct? What we're debating, as well as we can, is whether the impact+ fire theory can account for everything. At least that's what I'm debating.
The conditions for the 1934 coup were depression, the bonus marchers (annoyed veterans) and government policy which encouraged the small guy to invest in stock. We've got the annoyed veterans and more are on the way. We've got the depression on it's way too; at least I think we're past the point of no return. And we've got pensions etc. tied up in stocks. It's those circumstances that we're inches away from, not a fascist revolution.
Did you know of the '34 coup attempt? If not why not?
Cynthia McKinney is wrong; Bush is being mind-controlled by aliens! Or are aliens being mind-controlled by Bush?
There are also convicted rapists and murderers that believe the non-explosives theory of the WTC collapses and there are bank robbers that swear that 1+1 =2. So I don't feel you're being entirely fair here. Do I get a prize for understatement?Occam's razor say's that when explosives of one kind or another can explain the collapses and every connected phenomena, but the fire theory can't then the explosives theory is more likely. Correct? What we're debating, as well as we can, is whether the impact+ fire theory can account for everything. At least that's what I'm debating.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
The FBI think Bin Laden is dead?
Must be why he's still on their Ten Most Wanted list.
Dude get some reality pills, you seem to need them.
Must be why he's still on their Ten Most Wanted list.
Dude get some reality pills, you seem to need them.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Er, no: Occam's razor means that if you see an Airliner smash into a building and watch it burn until it falls down, then going around looking for alternative explanations for which there is no evidence other than hearsay is pointless.Xenocrates said:
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Apart from Newsnight evry day. The News at 10, the Politics Show, Question time, Channel 4 News. Man the whole universe disagrees with you. (Apart from, as pointed out before: the loonies.)Xenocrates[B said:
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
Yeah, we all know he was involved with the CIA, in 1986, well before the 90's when he was no longer on our side. Nobody denies that we supported him against the soviets.
They said he is 'probably' dead, and the taliban 'may have' released the tape to fool us that he didn't die (saying the words "the fact that he died" has to be put in the proper context... they are not saying that he died is a fact, but that maybe he died and the taliban are hiding that, which if they were hiding that THEN it would be a fact).
And many newspapers printed stories about Zarqawi being caught and/or killed several times, and several months, before they finally did kill him. Misinformation.
Yeah, fiction. When the theorists twists the facts and information around so much, it turns from fact to fiction.
