I don't think it's even possible to find someone who dislikes and distrusts authority more than me, yet you won't find me believing this BS.

The "It wasn't planes, it was bombs" scenario

The only problem is that NONE of these guys can explain how you could wire up a building to blow like that without attracting attention. I mean, how exactly do you dig into office walls and plant C4 and detonators (which can all be set off and blown to hell with cell phone frequencies btw) without anyone noticing? You'd need HUGE barrels of explosives hooked up to the superstructure of the building and remote devices that could send and recieve signals at that height. Then there's the whole point that PLANES CRASHED INTO THE FLOORS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE WIRED... Oh yeah, that'll be good for you "controlled demolition" project. Focus on the word "controlled" here.

It's just stupid. I thought these guys were supposed to be smart.

Is the government a bunch of lying, deceitful, conniving a-holes who almost gleefully used the deaths for their own gains? Yes. Did they cause them? No.

By focusing on these stupid theories, they take the heat away from the very people that they're trying to attack. It's easy to deny something blatantly false like this. Not so easy to deny that they took advantage of a tragedy to further their own ends and that they ignored warning after warning that something big was happening.

Who knows? Maybe the real conspiracy is that the conspiracists are hired by the government as a smokescreen for their own incompetence.

I can't wait for the whole "White people blew up the levy's to kill black people in New Orleans" thing to start. Let's not focus on the incomptence of FEMA or the ill preparedness for an emergency that the government has. Instead let's waste our time with evil plots that don't exist and let more people die the next time because we're too goddamn dumb to accept that stupidity and incompetence is the true demon behind the curtain.

how much do you know about demolition? You do not need huge barrels of explosives, you need cutting charges, they look like heavy wire or rope. There was no security in that complexe for the 2 weeks before the event and no bomb sniffing dogs for longer. The camera were not functioning etc and people were going throught the building doing "repairs" and upgrades without any kind of check. Marvin Bush was in charge of security right up to but not including 9/11. O'Neil was given the duty and his death sentance that very day.

I'm not saying that's exactly what happened, but it was possible given the circumstance.

There are some very curious things. Like molten metal in the basement (where the structure connected to the bedrock). The straight verticle motion of the collapse and the near freefall speed of the collapse. WTC7 is the one to look at for sure. No impact, just fire and collapse.

Check www.wtc7.net for more reasonable, well thought theories.

I want to know why investigators were not allowed on site and why the evidence was sent to salvage before anyone could see it. Small, unlabeled samples were all that investigators were allowed to see. Why?

How did temps approaching 3000degF happen from a hydrocarbon fire? Very odd.

There are questions for sure, but I don't think jumping top conclusions and pointing fingure will answer them. That includes blaming the aircraft collitions without any proof as well.

The pancake theory (presented by the 9/11 commission) doesn't fly because the ignor the central core structure and the verticle reinforments.

Did you know that every floor of the building was strong enough to hold up the entire building? Ya, they like to forget that part too.

PAX

Jeremy: The fact that the security company that was in charge of the complex, and WTC 7 (not actually part of the complex itself) was owned by a member of the bush family, and, that Firefighters (who know the difference between a gas and a high explosive ignition, and also generally know that you don't get a cordite smell from fuel combustion) made mention that there were 8 staccato explosions (meaning not chanced, but staged), as well as the fact that the WTC complex was the very first ever instance of a building failling due to fire...


Put the slices of swiss cheese together, and you get the picture. There are WAY too many loose ends to call it conclusive, ask yourself if you'd accept this many discrepancies in a police investigation or a personal injury lawsuit...

Hell, D-DAY was a group of bigger ruses... Figure it out, things don't work out according to the official versions. It's one of the reasons the 9-11 commision's report is being challenged.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Oh God, not this again! Here's what happened: a group of crazy muslims highjacked three planes and flew two of them into two buildings, the third one crashed in PA because the people on the flight heroically fought back. The crazy muslims highjacked the planes because Osama Bin laden convinced them that we're their enemy and we all deserve to die. I know it's hard to hear, but I'm going to say it anyway, "President Bush and Don Rumsfield had nothing to do with 9/11". Sometimes there isn't a grand conspiracy, bad things just happen sometimes.

Steve Irwin knew the truth, and you see what happened to him. Keep this up and you'll see...BAM! Sting ray while you sleep!

duaLife and RatZero warned me, and now I'm warning you.






09:f9:11:02:9d:74:e3:5b:d8:41:56:c5:63

Pshht.

That stingray knew about the Stone Cutters.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

JimmyZ wrote:Steve Irwin knew the truth, and you see what happened to him. Keep this up and you'll see...BAM! Sting ray while you sleep!

duaLife and RatZero warned me, and now I'm warning you.

I don't believe that charges were hidden in the wtc weeks before and planes flown by amateurs were able to hit that exact spot, especially given the speed and lack of ability for those planes to turn quickly.

The one theory that does make sense is that there was no way to fight the fires in the buildings, and in their crippled state they were at risk of the top sections falling off, so they were demo'ed in a controlled manner. There's enough evidence of unusual explosives and eye witnesses who got out of the towers saying they saw non-emergency people running UP the stairs to convince me this may have happened.

It sure beats the "government was behind it" theories.

.




John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

zero wrote:Oh God, not this again! Here's what happened: a group of crazy muslims highjacked three planes and flew two of them into two buildings, the third one crashed in PA because the people on the flight heroically fought back. The crazy muslims highjacked the planes because Osama Bin laden convinced them that we're their enemy and we all deserve to die. I know it's hard to hear, but I'm going to say it anyway, "President Bush and Don Rumsfield had nothing to do with 9/11". Sometimes there isn't a grand conspiracy, bad things just happen sometimes.

Yes if you want a simple answer and are content to ignore massive amounts of evidence to the contrary - then yes, that is your explanation. You know there are people who go around and discover a magicians tricks - they know that magicians keep your eyes where they want them, and away from what is really going on. Once upon a time, people would have thought the magic was real, many probably still do... So if you want to believe in magic, then you can believe in the official cover story too. Santa Clause is real, but the tooth fairy is on strike currently.

I'll admit that something semi-close to the official story is ALMOST possible - while still being very unlikely. The official story however, defies physics in so many ways its not funny. Plus I need to see a real good reason why there was no bomb sniffing dogs, no security, etc - conveniently right before it all happened. All that doesn't prove anything, but it can't be ignored. No detective worth a grain of salt would write that off in a simple homicide investigation - especially when those in charge had alot to gain from this. But of course investigators never got a chance... which is another funny "coincidence."

Also funny that the Pentagon part that was hit was abandoned. While perfectly possible and even fairly probable on its own, it is ANOTHER coincidence, which when combined with all the others, becomes even fishier.

All that and of course the fact that seasoned fire-fighters suddenly "don't know what they are talking about" - in regards to the the intensity of fires, and to the smell of cordite being majorly different to that of any carbon -based fuel, that highly trained air traffic controllers suddenly can't do their jobs, nor can fighter pilots do their routine job of quickly intercepting a plane that has veered of course(which IIRC they did this about 1 1/2 times weekly pre-9/11 and it takes minutes with their jets which are always prepared in some locations).

Personally I don't think Bush & Co. attacked the WTC with planes. I think they knew about the terrorist plans - more specifically than was admitted - and let it happen. After all it did benefit them greatly, so why stop a good thing? I think they also knew that the planes couldn't take down the buildings, and that the casualties and collateral damage had to be high enough to incite sufficient enough outrage to be useful, so they gave it some "help". After all you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

I think they where counting on an attack on WTC7 too, which for some reason(maybe someone stopped them?) - didn't happen. Well the @!#$ would have hit he fan real hard if the building was still standing and someone found cordite or thermite etc, wouldn't it? I mean if you think that at fire described by [seasoned fire fighters as "small and easily containable" - that that fire would have compromised the steel(steel certified to take 3000 degrees F for seven hours straight without compromising) of WTC 7, then I have a house in Antarctica to sell you. Keep in mind that WTC7 was hit by no planes, and therefore had little(more likely none) of that amazing, physics defying, jet fuel in it. I believe some have said that debris did it. LOL. What sufficient amount of debris could have possibly hit it when the towers fell entirely on their own footprints?! Most professional demolition crews would be lucky to have buildings so tall collapse so neatly. Scratch fire and debris, so how/why did WTC 7 collapse?

And what of the other towers? They have said the floor-clips where the weak-point, and the fuel magically heated them beyond what is possible, therefore weakening them enough that they give out - ok lets buy that for now. Well then as the floors collapsed, why where there not gigantic vertical steel main beams sticking out of the ground. The official story is that the clips (connecting these massive beams to the floors themselves) broke, ok so how does that take the beam out when a floor breaks free off the beam(via the connecting clip failure)? It wouldn't. They very well may fall down after the fact(assuming their anchors still held them - although once the building hits bottom, it could very well break the connection), but they would fall horizontally onto some other buildings. They wouldn't/couldn't fall straight down.

Do you know how demolition workers take down a building while getting it to fall on itself? They wrap these same vertical beams in thermite etc, which melts them instantly, floor by floor - just like we saw in the WTC collapse. Also there was MOLTEN STEEL in the WTC wreckage(although no one was allowed to thoroughly examine the remains(fancy that a cover-up doesn't allow a prompt investigation - or any outside investigation at all). While thermite etc would obviously have caused this - officially it was jet fuel (that couldn't burn hot enough to even compromise the strength of that steel - Ask UL aka-Underwriters Laboratories) - and it SURE AS HELL COULD NEVER EVER make that steel molten - not even if it burned for 1500 years straight - jet fuel, nor anything that building contained could not do that - ever. Even though the jet fuel could never have done this - apparently it did - if you buy the official story that is.

As for the pentagon - I really don't know what happened there. A plane may have hit it, but I'm sure there is more too it than what the official story tells us. Doesn't surprise me though - when has our government's official story ever been the complete and absolute truth? Way before my lifetime for sure - if ever...

Quite frankly, the only way that those buildings fell by terrorist hands alone - is if they where right and "Allah was on their side" - because if the terrorist worked alone and where armed only with only those planes - the buildings could only have been torn down by the direct hand of God.




I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?

That is quite a dissertation BastardKing, so let's take a look at the resons for collapse, primarily the heat of the fire. There are quite a few people, that are a hell of a lot smarter than any of us here, that have offered VERY in-depth explanations as to the burning fuel, the cause of the collapse and how it is all interrelated. For example:

• Thomas W. Eagar, the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems, and Christopher Musso, graduate research student, MIT
• Steven Ashley, Scientific American
• Timothy Wilson, University of Sydney Dept. Of Civil Engineering

That list can go on and on, and unfortunately for every highly educated expert in the field who presents complete, conclusive and provable facts you also have some conspiracy theorist who will take a skewed view of those facts and distort them to fit the conspiracy of the day.

First, let's take a look at your contention that failure of connecting clips would have no effect whatsoever on the floors below by allowing the beams to fall. You (or the website you copied that information from, seem to have forgotten that there was a lot more to the floor structures of that building than just steel beams. The beams were the supporting members of the floor, and then were covered with corrugated steel plating, which was then covered with athick layer of concrete to form the floor. Each story's floor structure weighed well over 3 MILLION pounds.

Next, the assumption that the structural design of the building should have been able to hold the weight of the floors above it. I can offer a very simple real life example. Let's say you can bench press 150 pounds for reps. Your max is something like 200. You can hold up 250 but you can't lift it once. So in this case, 250 pounds will be your "design capacity". What we're going to do now is take that 250 pound barbell and drop it on you from 15 feet above. Since it is "within your design capacity" you should be able to support it, correct? Doubtful. The acceleration and inertia of the falling object would MORE than overcome your ability to support it. Is this sounding familiar yet?

Last, as a simple comparison to your "impossible to reach that temperature" argument, I will leave you with one simple question: The flash, or autoignition, temperature of unleaded gasoline is 495F. If this is the case, how is it possible that exhaust gas temperatures on a typical engine are 1000-1200F degrees or even higher? By your theory, and that of most of the conspiracy theorists, it is impossible under any circumstances for the combustion temperature, or the temperature of any of it's byproducts, to be any higher than 495F.

For the record, I know the answer. I'd like to hear your theories though, since you so eloquently explained structural engineering and the principles of hydrocarbon ignition and oxidation.






09:f9:11:02:9d:74:e3:5b:d8:41:56:c5:63

Well I don't know about all of that, bomb, plane, hard to say, but one thing I know has never been
verified, is if the pentagon actually exists. I mean, I've been in DC a few times, and never seen it.
You'd think a building that big, if it infact was there, would be visible to the naked eye. All those
people in DC - yet who's actually seen the alleged pentagon?

Makes you wonder what really happened.

Jimmy: Your engine supposition is interesting, but off the mark: flash temps versus sustained burn.

The thing that astounds me is that while heat might have been a factor, the fires were either coming under control or were under control. The thing that's interesting is that the WTC was not the only building built with it's specs, that's been hit with a fully loaded aircraft (IIRC, there was a building in Brazil built to the same spec (different structure) that had a 757 strike it broadside, and the fuel fire burned at the same temps, for a LOT longer (28 hours vs. less than 2)). Why did "WTC 7" go down? It was across the street and had next to no damage, yet it was so badly damaged it was condemned? How does that shake out?

The SEA of NY's report stands with remarks that it was unable to complete all pertinent tests because much of the collision site steel had been shipped out for recycling before they could remove the coupons of material they wanted for study. They also had to rely on ATF preliminary testing (again, not completed because the FBI overtook judisdiction on the investigation), and then THEY handed over their information (also incomplete) after a Presidential Directive created the HSA, and HSA lists the investigation as "Active." Because of the Millenium bombing plots, HSA has information from the RCMP, and apparently, they list the RCMP's investigations as active if you ask about them, but, I know for a fact that 4 of the 5 that they list internally as active are in fact closed, and have been for over 2 years. Open investigations aren't discussed. Wanna lay money on how long the investigation will stay open?

The point about some of these experts: I'm not challenging their credentials, I'm challenging their scope. All the minutiae more or less agree with possible situations and their own pet theories, but they don't quite mesh together with other information... much less, a few other instances of the same thing happening and unfolding much differently.

There are about 150 points that the 9-11 commission put forth, and they're challenged by as qualified members of their respective professions.





Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Why did "WTC 7" go down? It was across the street and had next to no damage, yet it was so badly damaged it was condemned? How does that shake out?

Whether you could see the damage or not, I can pretty much guarantee it was there, paricularly in the structures below grade. Damage in the substructures and subway system extended as far as FIVE BLOCKS from the towers, so a building across the street (especially one sharing some below grade structures, foundations, stations, etc) would have taken quite a large portion of that hit.

In September 2001, I was working for Verizon. They have an office building on West Street in South Manhattan, around 2 blocks from the site of the towers. The West Street building was damaged to the point of being nearly condemned, and even in Verizon internal memos was said to be near partial collapse.

The building was uninhabitable while it underwent reconstruction and renovation for nearly a year after the attacks. Technicians were allowed in specific portions of the building, under strict supervision from structural engineers, as necessary to get vital circuits reconnected...often by running cables out windows and down to the street level and on the street for blocks at a time where they could then drop them into an undamaged manhole or cable vault. Nearly half of the central office equipment in the building was destroyed and had to be replaced or supplemented, and also needed considerable upgrades to handle extra traffic, since there were 2 central offices housed within the WTC towers whose traffic, lines, circuits and SS7 switching now had to be diverted. I had volunteered to be on one of the crews to go to West Street but never made it past "standby" status. I saw pictures from the inside and outside of the building and I was amazed it was still standing.

There was considerably less distance between the towers and WTC7 than there was to Verizon's West Street building. Catastrophic damage for a building that close is not only believable, but I'd say it would be expected, considering the level of damage sustained on West Street..






09:f9:11:02:9d:74:e3:5b:d8:41:56:c5:63

This is easy. please provide any concrete proof of these wild conspiracy theories. Real tangible hard hold up in court type evidence that explosives were used. Not bits and pieces of excerpts of a demolitions expert saying he thinks it could have been but rather anything thats real.

You can't so please until you can stop arguing over such ridiculous drivel!

You want to challenge conventional wisdom? Great wheres your proof? I don't want to hear crap like "steel melts at blah blah blah" cause your forgetting to take into account the extra weight, the damage of the planes impact, and the fact that perhaps the floors couldn't handle the heat the way the supporting beams could.

Tell you what... you, and by you I mean any of you who believe we blew ourselves up, produce any real hard evidence to prove your case that this is a grand govt conspiracy and you should go to the news networks and show the world. Till that day comes, and I doubt it every will, then all this is is nothing more then a delusion and a fantasy best left to the likes of fairy tails because it has about as much proof as they do.






Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

So if hidden damage took down WTC7 why did trhe bank building that is closer, old, and had a corner knocked out, stay up?

The structural engineers that designed WTC1 and 2 said that EACH FLOOR COULD SUPPORT THE WEIGHT OF THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE, upper floors were no different than lower floors.

One of Jimmy's "experts" is a student another a columnist with Scientific American and then they had to all the way to Australia to find a third person that would agree..

Uninhabitable is not the same as collapsing in under 5 seconds.

Sorry GAM, not 2 hours 56 minutes!. The tower in Madrid burned for something like 18 hours and the fire consumed the entire building.

NYCFD said there were two small fires in WTC2 that would be easily contained, they wanted only two lines.

Hard proof is not available, it was destroyed remember? How about that, if you want to support the official story then what on Earth is the justification for ensuring that no proper investigation could be done. What were they hiding from the experts? Why were investigators not allowed on site? Why was all the structural steel loaded onto barges and shipped out as fast as possible and without examination? Why would the clean up crews (and the satelite data) lie about the heat below grade and the molten steel (still flowing 2 weeks later)? How did a hydrocarbon fire get anywhere near hot enough to even deform steel? Why when "conspiracy theorists" point out the lies in the pancake theory do the others react with new and improved ways to ignore the central structure.

The central core was more than elevators and wires you know.. There was a massive support column that occupies about 1/3 of the floor space. How is it the all of the "official versions" ignore the load capasity there?

Ever done any engineering? Apparently not, or like the others you have a selective memory. If GAM can hold 250lbs, then what is his load capasity again? Sorry, wrong, 125lbs, not 250. Conventional engineering practice dictates that structures be twice as strong as rated, that allows for toreances, and vibration etc.. Random things that can affect loading. You never build anything to spec, that's suicide.

I'd be willing to bet that Jack would be willing to look if it happened in a country other than the USA. Don't be blinded by pride. Take an objective look.. Seriously.. If you love your country than you should want to know if it's being taken over by bad guys... Wouldn't you?

PAX

The cliff notes for "Loose Change"

A long read...which no conspiracy theorist will ever undertake...but very much worth it.






09:f9:11:02:9d:74:e3:5b:d8:41:56:c5:63

Nope no real proof. If it were enough then the officail story would no longer be the same.

You have a better chance at finding Atlantis then prooving we blew ourselves up.
Now should you find Atlantis that'd be awesome! But you still wouldn't have proved we blew ourselves up.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that you blew yourselves up.. At least, I'm not suggesting that. I am saying that there was more going on than met the eye and many questions remain unanswered while the answers that have been provided don't make sense.

IF, just IF the aircraft collisions did cause the colapses (even in WTC7) then we still need to know why because it wasn't the fires.. Even IF the fires did cause structural failure that doesn't explain why the bulding fell straight down and very quickly, nor why when the top began to tumble on the one tower it did not continue, but then fell straight down with the rest of the building.

Engineers need to know if there was a design flaw.. What was different (aside from height) about these buildings? Others just like them have burned for hours on end without collapse.. What went wrong? Why was the evidence destroyed?

Why did Bush leave and O'Neil replace him?

What were those helocopters doing? They could have saved a few people off the roof. They didn't. There wasn't enough of that tell-tale black smoke to stop them.

If the fires were so hot, 4 times as hot (if they deformed the steel) as normal hydrocarbon fire, why was the smoke black (a dead givaway the the combusion is incomplete)?

Why did the Discovery channel air a show talking about the collapse that completely ignored the internal core structure of the building. They even described the buildings as tubes with floors suspended at the edges only. That is a complete lie. The buildings had an internal support core that was about 30% of the floor area. No small utility core, a proper load bearing structural supporting core. If you reflect on it a bit you'll understand that no building of that size could possibly be built without an internal support structure. The Discovery Channel's discussion of the building design was completely wrong. Why did they do that? It had to be purposeful. There are lots of pictures of the construction that show the structual supports plain as day. They likely had access to design drawings for the show. What gives there? Bad journalism? I don't think so. They didn't show one single photo of the construction either. If you were making a show about a building and it's collapse wouldn't photos of the construction process make for a better show?

Who else is lying?

PAX

click this to see apicture.

Tell me how 78 floors (the intact, below impact point) of that fell in under 10 seconds.

PAX

I also saw the special on the Discovery channel. The building fell from a chain reaction from the weight of the top floors suddenly falling and crushing the floor below, adding more falling weight which crushed the next floor and so on.... That's their theory.

I have to interject something here, just for giggles... One thing everyone is accepting is the structural quality of the materials used to make these buildings. What if there were shortcuts taken to cut costs and the metal wasn't as high of a rockwell number as the engineers ordered? It would clear up why the heat was high enough to melt the girders enough to fail, or even if it was just sub-standard rivots, they'd fail and the structure would fall.

Anyone here ever worked for a company that cut corners after under-bidding a job?


.




John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

I tell you this... I call it Karma for this administration into using the tragedy of 9/11 to get into Iraq and after seeing the results today in Iraq.
And if you believe 100.1% what government tells you, I'm sorry for you. At that rate, might as well kneel down, lower your head and take whip hits as they come... so to speak.



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

JimmyZ wrote:That is quite a dissertation BastardKing, so let's take a look at the resons for collapse, primarily the heat of the fire. There are quite a few people, that are a hell of a lot smarter than any of us here, that have offered VERY in-depth explanations as to the burning fuel, the cause of the collapse and how it is all interrelated. For example:

• Thomas W. Eagar, the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems, and Christopher Musso, graduate research student, MIT
• Steven Ashley, Scientific American
• Timothy Wilson, University of Sydney Dept. Of Civil Engineering

That list can go on and on, and unfortunately for every highly educated expert in the field who presents complete, conclusive and provable facts you also have some conspiracy theorist who will take a skewed view of those facts and distort them to fit the conspiracy of the day.

First, let's take a look at your contention that failure of connecting clips would have no effect whatsoever on the floors below by allowing the beams to fall. You (or the website you copied that information from, seem to have forgotten that there was a lot more to the floor structures of that building than just steel beams. The beams were the supporting members of the floor, and then were covered with corrugated steel plating, which was then covered with athick layer of concrete to form the floor. Each story's floor structure weighed well over 3 MILLION pounds.

Next, the assumption that the structural design of the building should have been able to hold the weight of the floors above it. I can offer a very simple real life example. Let's say you can bench press 150 pounds for reps. Your max is something like 200. You can hold up 250 but you can't lift it once. So in this case, 250 pounds will be your "design capacity". What we're going to do now is take that 250 pound barbell and drop it on you from 15 feet above. Since it is "within your design capacity" you should be able to support it, correct? Doubtful. The acceleration and inertia of the falling object would MORE than overcome your ability to support it. Is this sounding familiar yet?

Last, as a simple comparison to your "impossible to reach that temperature" argument, I will leave you with one simple question: The flash, or autoignition, temperature of unleaded gasoline is 495F. If this is the case, how is it possible that exhaust gas temperatures on a typical engine are 1000-1200F degrees or even higher? By your theory, and that of most of the conspiracy theorists, it is impossible under any circumstances for the combustion temperature, or the temperature of any of it's byproducts, to be any higher than 495F.

For the record, I know the answer. I'd like to hear your theories though, since you so eloquently explained structural engineering and the principles of hydrocarbon ignition and oxidation.

First, the clips where officially what failed, and are therefore what allowed the floors to collapse in exactly the manor you desribed, and while I think that in itself is a bit of a stretch, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and accept it as a slight possibility - however my question was - while these clips failed and the floor collapsed - namely the floors broke free of the beams one after another, well what the hell happened to these beams that the floors broke free of? Why wheren't they still standing after the floor fell?

Or if you like, picture this...

You plant several steel fence post close together, with buried concrete anchors. Then attach pieces of steel to these posts from one to another, connecting them only with small tac welds(only one per connection). Now take a sledgehammer and smash down on one of those pieces of steel running between posts. No doubt it will break free easily, and no doubt the tiny tac welds are where it wil break free. Also no doubt that the fence posts are all still standing too. See what I mean?

Consider this - if all you needed to do to get a clean demolition(clean as a building like that can be) was just to collapse the top floors on a building like that, why would a demolition crew do anything to the bottom floors at all? Well they do, and there is a reason.

Also another one of my questions - so they say that the heat was enough to weaken the structural integrity of the steel involved - which besides being a major stretch of what is possible - for the sake of arguement I'll accept that theory. But there is a BIG stretch between heating metal enough to weaken its integrity, and heating metal enough so that there is alot of @!#$ MOLTEN METAL - especially weeks later!! There is impossible, and then there is that - which makes impossible look like a sure thing. If that isn't already far enough from impossible for you yet, consider that those steel beams have a HUGE heat sink - namely the rest of them thoughout the building. Basically that means that beams no where near any fire would be pulling heat off of the beams that are being heated by jet fuel(which doesn't contain the thermal energy to heat it sufficiently enough to matter anyways).

Jackalope wrote:This is easy. please provide any concrete proof of these wild conspiracy theories. Real tangible hard hold up in court type evidence that explosives were used. Not bits and pieces of excerpts of a demolitions expert saying he thinks it could have been but rather anything thats real.

You can't so please until you can stop arguing over such ridiculous drivel!

You want to challenge conventional wisdom? Great wheres your proof? I don't want to hear crap like "steel melts at blah blah blah" cause your forgetting to take into account the extra weight, the damage of the planes impact, and the fact that perhaps the floors couldn't handle the heat the way the supporting beams could.

Tell you what... you, and by you I mean any of you who believe we blew ourselves up, produce any real hard evidence to prove your case that this is a grand govt conspiracy and you should go to the news networks and show the world. Till that day comes, and I doubt it every will, then all this is is nothing more then a delusion and a fantasy best left to the likes of fairy tails because it has about as much proof as they do.

Jackalope - there is no conventional wisdom - or any wisdom - in blindly accepting the first thing you hear from the mouths of authority. I though you worked for the armed forces - is the official story always exactly what happened on your missions? It may seem like your looking at conventional wisdom in thinking that is what happened and there is nothing more to it that that - but that is because you are only looking at what is directly in front of you - what you where meant to see. As I said - any street magician knows how to keep your eye on exactly what they want you to see, and away from what they are doing and generally away from what is really going on. As the saying goes - there is always more than meets the eye.

You want proof?! Well the people in charge hold all the cards - they hold all the proof and where quite prompt at having the proof disposed of. However I have yet to see any proof of the official story. Where is my proof? And why do you buy their story without proof? You don't have to buy any conspiracies to know better than to buy what they are selling. I'm not saying any of what I think is fact, it is of course just theory - which may or may not be true. But they are passing their story off as fact rather than theory - yet having no proof and alot less evidence than mine or a thousand other alternate theories do.

Extra weight? As I have explained in another thread a long time ago - the weight of the plane is NOTHING compared to the building, in fact NOTHING compared to the weight of any one of the floors. IIRC I did look up weight figures for everything involved. It's like adding a paperclip into your combat gear. It is the straw that broke the camels back - only that piece of straw is the only thing the camel is carrying!!

And as for the force of impact - again nothing at all to scale. Those towers where intentionally designed to take plane hits without batting an eyelash. IIRC they are designed to take a SUSTAINED force approximately 5 times stronger than the impact generaled by any of those planes. They where designed to handle HEAVY hurricane force winds - which are much stronger further off the ground - and of course that is realy stressful for the base to have the top being pushed around. They where designed very redundantly in anyway you can imagine.

As I said above, if the only human-caused damage was those planes, then it was the hand of God that knocked those buildings down. Somehow I doubt God actually had anything to do with it though.

Quote:

any of you who believe we blew ourselves up

I believe nothing of the sort. I think you and I have a different definition of "we." We didn't hurt ourselves. But the people who own this nation may have killed a insignifigant number of commoners - a perfectly acceptable price for "progress" aka furthering their agenda(which "random act of terrorism" or not - it certainly has done). You can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs. You and I are a disposible commodity and nothing more. This was true back when they called themselves nobility and called us inferior commoner trash - to our faces, still true during Vietnam, and still true today. Classism is even older than racism - as old as man(Although it is less openly advertised because that would contradict the illusion that the common people own America.) Its not going away anytime soon either. Money=status=your worth as a person. Rich people have always been "better" than poor people. I don't mean people who EARNED their money, because they are inferior too - "new money" have no "class" because it is something your are born into.

One other thing - I do believe I've seen you say that you believe that their was a conspiracy behind JFK's assasination. Well as you have noted about 9/11 conspiracies - there is no proof. And of course there is good reason for that - ESPECIALLY if there was a conspiracy. I'd say that there is a good chance of a conspiracy to kill JFK, but although unlikely its also perfectly possible that is was a lone nut job too. There will never be proof of this either - and no proof... well it proves(/disproves) nothing. When you are talking about people who will kill to get what they want - you just have to wonder - how far would they go? People in power - people who want more power(money=power) - have shown themselves perfectly willing to do far, far worse things than anything that happened on 9/11. You may want to think that an American would never do such a thing - think again. These are people who have power, and whom only want more power. Power corrupts, and you are just collateral damage.

I don't doubt that our leaders are capable of this for one second. I am sure of one thing - if those who really run this nation had nothing at all to do with 9/11 - it is solely because they never knew about it and more importantly - they never thought of it first.




I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?

its good to have jackalope back again (where you been at?)

guys, i must admit

i planned the sept 11 attacks, gosh

it was all me

i am an expert at collapsing buildings

i knew how and when to fly the planes into the building, and exactly when and how to set off particuar explosives on each floor to make the building fall in 10 seconds, yes, it was me.





doesn't that sound a little ludacris?
yea, thats because it is
this argument has been on before, and its probably been on every other forum and site known to the E-net, and if you want to believe some crazy conspiracy theorist who heres one witness say "it sounded like a bomb" and blow it way outta proportion, then go ahead, believe your stories about how it was all planned



.

So, one more who hasn't looked at the situation critically.

This is not based on someone saying it sounded like a bomb. This is plain old physics.

Of course there is the question of why all the marble blew off the walls on the ground floor and why firemen said they heard 8 bombs and also said the fires were small, contained and would be extinguished easily. But I'm not even looking at that. I want to know why the stories being told ignore the real structure of the building. How steel that requirs 3000Deg.F to melt go hot enough to do so and why the evidence was destroyed.

In a sense though, you are admitting that it took an expert to bring those building down.. We can agree on that.

PAX

T2 wrote:its good to have jackalope back again (where you been at?)

guys, i must admit

i planned the sept 11 attacks, gosh

it was all me

i am an expert at collapsing buildings

i knew how and when to fly the planes into the building, and exactly when and how to set off particuar explosives on each floor to make the building fall in 10 seconds, yes, it was me.





doesn't that sound a little ludacris?
yea, thats because it is
this argument has been on before, and its probably been on every other forum and site known to the E-net, and if you want to believe some crazy conspiracy theorist who heres one witness say "it sounded like a bomb" and blow it way outta proportion, then go ahead, believe your stories about how it was all planned



.

Do you know what sounds ludicrous - the 100% official story, that is what. While I understand that the official story makes perfect sense so long as you put no thought behind it at all, and have no desire to do anything but see things at face value - But I'm afraid that for people that don't accept everything told to them by the authorities(or anyone for that matter) and/or for people who actually uses their brain on a daily basis and whom like the things told to him/her to make basic logical sense before accepting them, well that theory is garbage.

I mean if you don't really know how the world works, and really don't care - then that is your theory. To each their own I guess...

also the title of "crazy conspiracy theorist" is a great way to kill any object thinking for many people. Instead of picking apart a particular subject based on merit, or just plain old facts - it is destroyed with a blanket label without having any real chance. Its the same concept as labeling something(ANYTHING really) "liberal" - most heavy conservatives will reject "it" without actually knowing what "it" is - they just know it carries a label they don't like - and that is enough. Vice-versa for Liberals and when something is labeled "Conservative." Labelings something crazy is extra effective because it crosses political lines, and more importantly because it doesn't have to attack the message since it attacks the people who believe it. It attacks our greatest weakness - pride.

Sadly, simple name calling and labeling are actually more effective at persuading the masses than factual arguments ever will be. I'm not asking anyone to think what I think. I'm just asking you to actually give it serious thought, stop thinking you know everything/enough already and take the time to learn the facts, and to not instantly write it off as "another conspiracy wackjob theory." Look at the facts and come to your own conclusion - not what the government/media tells you to think, not what your buddies tell you to think, not what I tell you to think - I mean YOUR own conclusion.

In relation to the link at the start of the thread - I must laugh at the "9/11 Scholars for Truth" trying to ask Congress to reopen the investigation. That is like asking oil companies to investigate potential oil price fixing - lol. No matter if they are guilty or innocent(yeah right), you already know they are going to find nothing incriminating or suspicious at all. While I can't say for certain what the truth about 9/11 is since that would be pretty arrogant of me if I did... I can tell you that the truth about 9/11 sure as hell is not in the "9/11 Commission Report."




I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?