|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists - 8/5/2007 4:46:14 PM
|
|
|
RedStone
Posts: 178
Joined: 6/11/2007
Status: offline
|
There is a very interesting presumption (unintentional?) in the arguments of these last couple of posts-- Somehow, it is possible for me to have false or misdirected motives for why I believe a certain way...but it isn't possible for you guys to have such a problem? Maybe I could theorize you don't accept the possibility of "9/11 was an inside job" because you're quagmired in a kind of 'kneejerk' nationalism and a "Bush cult of personality". Isn't that a possibility? Sure it is...unless you're claiming to be above human frailty, or something.
I gravitated towards "9/11 truth" when I finally took a long look at the collapsing WTC7. I concluded I was looking at nothing other than a controlled demolition. It's common sense to me. Buildings never have and never will collapse in such a fashion...unless by controlled demolition.
It's befuddling to hear someone argue this is about wanting to stay in a "comfort zone". It's the exact opposite...when one is forced to entertain the possibility of "evil from within". One of the most famous lines from a scary Hollywood movie from some years ago-- "The call is coming from inside the house." The fright factor in the movie took a quantum leap...as the movie viewers realized the bad guy was somewhere "inside".
The implications of "inside job" are monstrous. "Truthers" perceive our nation and freedoms under direct and immediate threat. We have the concern that we are approaching the end of the US and the world...as we know it. Of course, the Bible prophesies that such a scenario is going to take place. To us, it looks like this may it. Bin Laden hiding in a cave with a cell phone is peanuts, comparatively.
So in the end, how can we sort out this "impugning each other's motives" contest? WE don't. Impugning motives is a waste of time. It's...psychobabble. I gravitate to discussion of specific facts. Some here seem to be gravitating in...other directions.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists - 8/5/2007 7:07:27 PM
|
|
|
stamper_ben
Posts: 10781
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lone Star State
Status: offline
|
quote:
So in the end, how can we sort out this "impugning each other's motives" contest? WE don't. Impugning motives is a waste of time. It's...psychobabble. I gravitate to discussion of specific facts. Some here seem to be gravitating in...other directions. It's such a "waste of time" that it is even suggested that those who disagree are "above human frailty, or something." 
Some see the truth in one manner and give their reasons, others see it a different way. Facts are interpreted based on ones overall outlook, their biases. I guess it is the nature of a fallen sinful man.
_____________________________
We will be known as His by the love we show one another.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists - 8/5/2007 7:42:55 PM
|
|
|
Dancre
Posts: 1336
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rnershigh
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dancre
If you look at the root and the source of these 9/11 conspiracies, you'll find someone who hates Bush, period. Remember when CLinton was in office and the terrorists first attacked the Towers years ago? It was the terrorists who attacked, not Clinton. Now that Bush is in office, and the terrorists attacked again, it's Bush who took down the towers, not the terrorists. That doesn't make any sense why one time it was the terrorists, then years later, it was Bush. 
I also think a big thing is fear of not being in control. It's safer to think that it's the U.S. government behind 9/11 than to some faceless enemy (hey, a terrorist that hates you and wants to kill you and doesn't see reason or understanding could be that doctor or that student walking by you, your neighbor, etc). See? How scary and out of control is that? To know that there are people walking among us even now that hate us and the way we live so much that they are willing to kill themselves and the rest of us? That no amount of letting them see how we live and the freedoms we enjoy will sway their minds cuz it won't.
It's scary to know and feel so helpless, that no amount of reasoning or talking peacefully will change the terrorists' mind about us and the way we live. That mantra of, "if we give them economic or social opportunities to better their life" is false as we saw with the UK arrests of the middle/upper middle class doctors and students. And those London bombings 2 years ago? All middle/upper class students (one was even an engineering major I think?). None were being oppressed. All had the opportunities to live in a country that afforded them freedoms they would never see in countries such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, and yet these people still decided to commit terroist acts and get invovled in terrorist organizations to destroy the very country that afforded them these freedoms and rights.
To me that is mind-boggling and stunning and I just don't get it. No one wants to get it because why would someone hate us that much, even after living among us and seeing we're not bad people, that they'd want to be a terrorist and kill? It doesn't make sense to our minds, our perspectives are totally different from the terrorist mind-set, from the environment that harbors terrorists. It doesn't make sense and so we think maybe it's something we did, maybe if we tried harder they'd eventually see reason and live in harmony with us.
This denial of the truth that these people, these radical islamic terrorists would gladly bring about another 9/11 is what causes, I think the conspiracy theories that Bush and the U.S. government set up 9/11. It is so much more simple and easy and within the confines of our rational mind to say the government did it. It's not as frightening. So I think that's why you have certain people that will never believe it was terrorists that caused 9/11. It is why you'll have people that speak out and say that Bush is embellishing the terrorists in our midst, the "War on Terror" is just an excuse for him to erode our civil liberties and so forth. It's easier to blame Bush and the government than some faceless enemy. It's easier to quantify and target. It makes those people who don't want to see the truth safer in their homes. That it's just business as usual, nothing has really changed. That 9/11 shouldn't send alarm bells because it's only the government trying to becoming big brother and enroach upon our lives, not some terrorist organization that is methodical, patient, and very deadly.
Could be. I find it interesting that they just ignore what the professionals say, turn a blind eye to misquotes, follow after those who have no idea what they are talking about. whatever. You might be right, it could be a fear of the unknown. I think explaining what the professionals say about 9/11 to a dog would get better results then trying to show these folks what really happened. It's not just worth it. Despite the misquotes, the pictures, the professionals, they'll still believe Bush killed all those folks. It's just so silly. I'm sure Bin Laden's getting a chuckle from it all. Whatever. And don't they see the misquotes???? Don't they see the holes in the conspiracy??? Geesh. But instead, they just ignore it all. Whatever.
kim
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists - 8/5/2007 9:06:22 PM
|
|
|
RedStone
Posts: 178
Joined: 6/11/2007
Status: offline
|
And you just ignored everything I said in my post addressing those issues, Dancre.
You keep talking about experts. Here are a few of the experts on 9/11---
Richard Gage, AIA, Architect – Member, American Institute of Architects. A practicing Architect for 20 years who has worked on most types of building construction including numerous fire-proofed steel-framed buildings.
His quote: "Another 2006 poll by Scripps Howard, Ohio University, which found that a shocking 16% believe that the World Trade Center's Twin Towers were brought down by explosives. Unfortunately, my research has also concluded that this is true...all three World Trade Center high-rise buildings, the Twin Towers and Building 7 were destroyed not by fire as our government has told us, but by controlled demolition with explosives."
----
H. Theodore Elden, Jr., B.Arch – Practicing registered architect in West Virginia for over 25 years. Now retired. Graduate of Carnegie Mellon University. Member, American Institute of Architects, West Virginia Chapter. Appointed Member of West Virginia State Board of Architects. Former Member, National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB), and Member, National Committee, Intern Development Program for Architects (IDP).
Quote: "...clearly...the World Trade Towers were destroyed by internal explosives and not "fires from the airlines". ..."
---
Jack Keller, PhD, PE – Professor Emeritus, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University. Member, National Academy of Engineering. Selected by Scientific American magazine as one of the world's 50 leading contributors to science and technology benefiting society (2004).
Quote: "Research proves the current administration has been dishonest about what happened in New York and Washington, D.C. The World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government's official story about the attack on the Pentagon."
---
William Rice, PE – Registered Professional Civil Engineer who worked on structural steel and concrete buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. Former Professor at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses.
Quote: "The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases."
"Even if Newton’s Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting structural-steel framework underneath didn't exist."
----
Hugo Bachmann, PhD – Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Author and co-author of Erdbebenbemessung von Stahlbetonhochbauten (Seismic Analysis of Concrete Reinforced Structures) (1990), Vibration Problems in Structures: Practical Guidelines (1995), Biege- und Schubversuche an teilweise vorgespannten Leichtbetonbalken (Structural Analysis of Linked Concrete Beams) (1998), Hochbau für Ingenieure. Eine Einführung (Structural Construction for Engineers. An introduction) (2001), Erdbebensicherung von Bauwerken (Earthquake-proofing Buildings) (2002).
Quote: "In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished..."
----
Jörg Schneider, Dr hc – Professor Emeritus, Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Former President, Joint Committee on Structural Safety, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Elected member of the Swiss Academy of Engineering Sciences. Former Vice President and honorary lifetime member of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering.
Quote: "...the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished."
----
David Leifer, BSc, B.Arch, M.Ed, PhD, IEng, ACIBSE – Coordinator, Graduate Programme in Facilities Management, University of Sydney. Formerly taught at University of Auckland (1993 - 2001), University of Queensland (1986 - 1993), Mackintosh School of Architecture (1984 - 1986). Registered Architect. Incorporated Engineer.
Quote: "The fall of the World Trade Center video showed the side of one tower ‘unzipping’ along one side of a damaged floor. My knowledge of structure and dynamics told me that unless the other sides simultaneously ‘unzipped’ there was no way that the tower would have ‘pancaked’ onto it’s own footprint: it should surely have toppled outwards. That both towers did the same was just too improbable to be plausible."
"...the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7."
----
Joseph M. Phelps, MS CE, PE (ret) – Structural Dynamicist, Charter Member, Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Life member, ASCE.
Quote: "The World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions..."
----
Danny Jowenko – Proprietor, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V., a European demolition and construction company, with offices in the Netherlands. Founded 1980, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie is certified and holds permits to comply with the Dutch Explosives for Civil Use Act and the German Explosives Act. Jowenko's explosives engineers also hold the German Certificate of Qualifications and the European Certificate for Shotfiring issued by The European Federation of Explosive Engineers.
Telephone interview with Mr. Jowenko conducted by Jeff Hill 2/22/07:
Jeff Hill: I was just wondering real quickly, I know you had commented on World Trade Center Building 7 before.
Danny Jowenko: Yes, that's right.
Jeff Hill: And I've come to my conclusions, too, that it couldn't have came down by fire.
Danny Jowenko: No, it -- absolutely not.
Jeff Hill: Are you still sticking by your comments where you say it must have been a controlled demolition?
Danny Jowenko: Absolutely.
Jeff Hill: Yes? So, you as being a controlled demolitions expert, you've looked at the building, you've looked at the video and you've determined with your expertise that --
Danny Jowenko: I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn't be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not.
Jeff Hill: OK, 'cause I was reading on the Internet, people were asking about you and they said, I wonder -- I heard something that Danny Jowenko retracted his statement of what he said earlier about World Trade Center 7 now saying that it came down by fire. I said, "There's no way that's true."
Danny Jowenko: No, no, no, absolutely not.
Jeff Hill: 'Cause if anybody was -- Like when I called Controlled Demolition here in North America, they tell me that , "Oh, it's possible it came down from fire" and this and that and stuff like that --.
Danny Jowenko: When the FEMA makes a report that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company and you say, "No, it was a controlled demolition", you're gone. You know?
Jeff Hill: Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?
Danny Jowenko: Of course, of course. That's the end of your -- the end of the story.
Jeff Hill: Yeah, 'cause I was calling demolitions companies just to ask them if they used the term, "Pull it" in demolition terms and even Controlled Demolitions, Incorporated said they did. But the other people wouldn't -- didn't want to talk to me about Building 7 really because obviously 'cause they knew what happened and they didn't want to say it.
Danny Jowenko: Exactly
--------
On and on and on it goes. (On edit-- LINK)
< Message edited by RedStone -- 8/5/2007 9:12:38 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists - 8/7/2007 8:50:41 PM
|
|
|
phosadaud
Posts: 8071
Joined: 9/19/2005
From: Washington State
Status: online
|
Sadly, this is what we get. A few folks who say, well, it must have come down my controlled demolition because I say so. And yet, there is no science to prove why it could only happen that way. Why can't a building collapse without controlled demolition? Where is the scientific evidence that structural collapse can ONLY happen by controlled demolition? What scientific proofs prove that the way most "experts" believe it happened (ie - collapse resulting in structural failure from a result of a combination of factors relating to the planes) could not scienfically result in the loss of structural integrity of the buildings. If the government was so good at this conspiracy, why in the world, would they cause the towers to collapse in a way that could ONLY be done by controlled demolition (or are they simply that obtuse)? How did the US government get Al Qaeda to take credit for the attacks? Who hijacked those planes? Who has been attacking the US and other nations around the world for many years now (USS Cole, embassy attacks, Bali nightclub bombings, commuter trains in Europe, etc)?
_____________________________
~Kristin~
The easily offended...
Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as Gods. Cats have never forgotten this.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists - 8/8/2007 2:26:29 AM
|
|
|
RedStone
Posts: 178
Joined: 6/11/2007
Status: offline
|
Wow. You did it AGAIN, phosadaud. You misrepresent my comments as though I am trying to win the 9/11 argument by simply listing experts. I was only addressing Dancre's erroneous notions that there are no "experts" rejecting the official conspiracy theory. Why do you keep doing that?
(Not to mention...there are some very interesting arguments encapsulated in the above comments...arguments that, by all rights, could lead you down some very interesting paths of investigation, IMO.)
You fire off a series of quick questions. I can certainly fire off some quick answers, if you like.
1) There is plenty of "science" for why buildings remain standing and are prevented from collapsing.
Architects and engineers have been building steel structures for a century. I have previously linked readers here to Corus Construction...which has conducted extensive fire tests which show the steel reaching temperatures only of about 500F-675F. You can barely bake a cake at 500F...much less cause a 110 story steel-structured building to collapse...and even less, to collapse at freefall speed in straight-down precision.
These buildings are engineered with eight- or ten-fold strength redundancy. When the OKC building was blown up, the entire core of the building was scooped out...and yet it remained standing. Many buildings have been subjected to earthquakes so violent, it tore the building from it's foundation and caused it to topple over. But NEVER has there, in any of those instances, been even the vaguest similarity to a CD which reduces these structures to a pile of rubble..just like we saw on 9/11, and just like we've seen a hundred times on the Discovery Channel when they had a program about building demolitions.
2) How could they get the cooperation of "Al Qaida" in taking the blame? First of all, it is unclear what "Al Qaida" is taking credit for. The most recent videotape of Bin Laden was exposed as a 'rerun' from earlier years. The infamous video tape of Bin Laden sitting in room bragging about 9/11 is highly suspicious...the "Bin Laden" in that tape doesn't match up with the "Bin Laden" in other tapes. It's a real mess.
Secondly, the Bin Ladens and the Bush family have had business relations going back to the 80's. Osama's older brother lived in Texas (and died there, in a "Ultralight" crash). To this day, members of the Bush family (principally Bush Sr.) and members of the Bin Laden family are fellow associates in the "Carlyle" business enterprise. How cozy.
We saw the same astonishing "happenstance" when it turned out the Bush family had a longstanding business and social relationship with the Hinckley family...years before the Reagan assassination attempt. Their son, John Hinckley (possibly under some version of the notorious MK-Ultra mind control, which was reported before Congress in the 70's) was the shooter. What are the odds? First the Hinckleys, then the Bin Ladens.
Also, Bush Sr. was actually and literally in a meeting with Bin Laden family members the very morning of 9/11...and then of course, the Bin Ladens were given an utterly unique dispensation from the nationwide "no fly" rule so that they could immediately all jet out of the country.
Who hijacked the planes? Who knows. They have long had the capability to accurately remote control these aircraft. They could shut down the instrument panel and fly these craft with "tomahawk cruise missile" precision, right through the exact WTC window panel of their choice. For all I know.
The US military has, in fact, as of a few weeks ago, deployed their first battalion of robot fighter craft over in Iraq. It is interesting how the media is apparently relegating this "robot fighters" story to the back pages.
Who attacked the USS Cole and the embassies? Could be anybody. Who attacked the Reichstag back in Hitler's day? There is the old question "Cui bono?"...who benefited? The Iraqi people...with about a million dead so far, and all of their oil wealth being ripped off? The entire Middle East which is shivering in it's boots waiting for imminent nuclear holocaust...courtesy of a howling "Amen corner" of bloodthirsty "Bible-believing" TV evangelists? All those (about 35,000?) young American boys who have been physically destroyed or the thousands who have died in Iraq? And their heartbroken and ripped-apart families...little children with no Dads...parents who've lost their son (or daughter)?
Or...the government contractors (Halliburton et al) who have made billions? Or the psychotic warmongers from the Project For a New American Century...whose wildest dreams came true on 9/11. Remember in their official comments..how they longed for a "new Pearl Harbor"...and how they portrayed this new Pearl Harbor as a 'good thing' that would literally help get the world to a better place...faster. The madness. The psychosis.
Just a few quick thoughts.
PS-- I leave the reader tonight to do his/her own googling. All of this material can be found and documented all around the Internet. I'm going to bed.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists - 8/8/2007 12:06:20 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3742
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: RedStone
We saw the same astonishing "happenstance" when it turned out the Bush family had a longstanding business and social relationship with the Hinckley family...years before the Reagan assassination attempt. Their son, John Hinckley (possibly under some version of the notorious MK-Ultra mind control, which was reported before Congress in the 70's) was the shooter. What are the odds? First the Hinckleys, then the Bin Ladens.
ROFLOL. Somebody's seen the Manchurian Candidate too many times. The first version was the better one to watch.
_____________________________
Wenn zuerst Sie nicht gelingen, Versuch, versuch wieder. Geben Sie dann auf. Es gibt keinen punkt, in ein zu sein, verdammt Narren darum. -- W. C. Fields
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists - 8/8/2007 4:04:17 PM
|
|
|
phosadaud
Posts: 8071
Joined: 9/19/2005
From: Washington State
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: RedStone
1) There is plenty of "science" for why buildings remain standing and are prevented from collapsing.
Architects and engineers have been building steel structures for a century. I have previously linked readers here to Corus Construction...which has conducted extensive fire tests which show the steel reaching temperatures only of about 500F-675F. You can barely bake a cake at 500F...much less cause a 110 story steel-structured building to collapse...and even less, to collapse at freefall speed in straight-down precision.
Where in the world did they get the idea that the temps only reached 500-675F degrees? That's makes zero sense.
-A basic house fire can have temperatures in excess of 1100F
-Initial heat from exploding jet fuel generates temps up to 1500F
-Jet fuel would not have been the only "fuel" for a fire, hence, while it may have gotten stuff going, the fires that would have resulted from the impacts & explosions, would have been further fueled by anything flamable in those towers just as any structure fire. Kind of like why if you douse a room with gasoline and throw a lit match at it, the fire doesn't stop when the gas burns up.
-The National Institute of Standards and Technology has estimated that with the additional fuel sources, the temps would have easily reached 1832F. Check here for a summary of what I'm saying here...
-These temps are not enough to melt steel but no one is arguing that's what happened. These temps would have, according to the laws of science, result in the loss of structural integrity. Steel loses 50% of it's strength in temps of just 1100F. When that steel is what's holding up a mighty tower, that's a recipe for disaster.
quote:
These buildings are engineered with eight- or ten-fold strength redundancy. When the OKC building was blown up, the entire core of the building was scooped out...and yet it remained standing. Many buildings have been subjected to earthquakes so violent, it tore the building from it's foundation and caused it to topple over. But NEVER has there, in any of those instances, been even the vaguest similarity to a CD which reduces these structures to a pile of rubble..just like we saw on 9/11, and just like we've seen a hundred times on the Discovery Channel when they had a program about building demolitions.
This is way too big of a leap. You can't compare buildings and structures. Not only are they designed and engineered differently, are built on different geologies, but the circumstances surrounding the damage, the fire, the actual events, etc are completely different. Look at earthquakes - every building in an area is subjected to the identical forces, and yet every single building reacts uniquely to those forces. Some collapse. Some have damage. Some are unscathed. To say that since the OKC federal building didn't collapse in a pile of rubble, that means no building can do that naturally is absurd.
quote:
2) How could they get the cooperation of "Al Qaida" in taking the blame? First of all, it is unclear what "Al Qaida" is taking credit for. The most recent videotape of Bin Laden was exposed as a 'rerun' from earlier years. The infamous video tape of Bin Laden sitting in room bragging about 9/11 is highly suspicious...the "Bin Laden" in that tape doesn't match up with the "Bin Laden" in other tapes. It's a real mess.
Oh boy... So we can't even trust what they say because somehow this vast conspiracy manufactured all their confessions, their videos, etc. Any proof of this? Those guys are just "misunderstood" and aren't really that bad after all. It's all just a big hoax and they are the victims....
quote:
Secondly, the Bin Ladens and the Bush family have had business relations going back to the 80's. Osama's older brother lived in Texas (and died there, in a "Ultralight" crash). To this day, members of the Bush family (principally Bush Sr.) and members of the Bin Laden family are fellow associates in the "Carlyle" business enterprise. How cozy.
Awwwww, yes. Guilt by association. So I guess Kevin Bacon is guilty of every atrocity known to man because we all know the game of showing how he's connected to every one on this planet by 3 degrees...
And what does this mean? I went to help at a camp for foster children last year and 3 of the children were the kids of the man who murdered some dear friends of mine in cold blood. Does that mean I was implicit in the murders? Sorry, but DON'T EVEN GO THERE...
quote:
Who hijacked the planes? Who knows. They have long had the capability to accurately remote control these aircraft. They could shut down the instrument panel and fly these craft with "tomahawk cruise missile" precision, right through the exact WTC window panel of their choice. For all I know.
The US military has, in fact, as of a few weeks ago, deployed their first battalion of robot fighter craft over in Iraq. It is interesting how the media is apparently relegating this "robot fighters" story to the back pages.
So all the people on those planes calling home were lying in their dying moments?
quote:
Who attacked the USS Cole and the embassies? Could be anybody. Who attacked the Reichstag back in Hitler's day? There is the old question "Cui bono?"...who benefited? The Iraqi people...with about a million dead so far, and all of their oil wealth being ripped off? The entire Middle East which is shivering in it's boots waiting for imminent nuclear holocaust...courtesy of a howling "Amen corner" of bloodthirsty "Bible-believing" TV evangelists? All those (about 35,000?) young American boys who have been physically destroyed or the thousands who have died in Iraq? And their heartbroken and ripped-apart families...little children with no Dads...parents who've lost their son (or daughter)?
Or...the government contractors (Halliburton et al) who have made billions? Or the psychotic warmongers from the Project For a New American Century...whose wildest dreams came true on 9/11. Remember in their official comments..how they longed for a "new Pearl Harbor"...and how they portrayed this new Pearl Harbor as a 'good thing' that would literally help get the world to a better place...faster. The madness. The psychosis.
This is just absurd. Why are you so afraid of following the facts and the convictions - accepted the world over - for these attacks by the terrorists?
_____________________________
~Kristin~
The easily offended...
Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as Gods. Cats have never forgotten this.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists - 8/9/2007 12:59:54 AM
|
|
|
RedStone
Posts: 178
Joined: 6/11/2007
Status: offline
|
Where did they get the idea? Well, first of all they are experts in their field so.....let's create at least a little latitude at the outset, no? Secondly, one of the dirty little secrets of the government "experts" (pardon my quotation marks)..is the game they have played with "atmospheric temperature" vs. the actual steel temperature.
The testing method Corus Construction and many other steel companies have utilized (many years before 9/11 by the way) is to stoke up a fire in some available steel structure, get a nice roaring blaze going...then take measurements.
The hottest atmospheric temperatures that can be achieved in a carbon-based fire in open atmosphere (i.e. any building fire) is no higher than the low 1500s Fahrenheit.
As documented evidence of that, there is the well-known (among 9/11 researchers anyway) Windsor building fire in Madrid ( Feb.12, 2005). Precise temperature measurements were taken...the highest atmospheric temp.-- 1470F. And this was an inferno that went on for fourteen hours, straight through the night.
The WTC fires don't come within a country mile of the "inferno" category-- They only burned for about an hour (average) and almost immediately began producing large volumes of rather dark smoke, as opposed to roaring flames...a sure sign of oxygen deficiency (under most circumstances) and thus...temperatures well below the maximum 1500ish.
The temperature of the steel in this situation is a completely different ballgame. One reason-- Steel is a very good heat conductor-- When the atmospheric temp is rising, the steel conducts the heat throughout the beams, quickly spreading and diluting/thinning the heat in the process. The Corus tests and others tests show temps of no higher than 680F.
Kevin Ryan from Underwriters Laboratories estimated 500F or less for the WTC scenario, given the lass than ideal conditions and the short duration of the fires. These numbers from the NIST and other corporate-controlled 'experts' are a huge lie.
Did you read that short interview with the demolition expert from Holland at the end of my previous post? It's certainly clear to him that US-located people are watching their money purse when speaking about 9/11. It's only been the few and the brave (like Kevin Ryan et al) who sacrificed financially to speak the truth.
I don't want to hunt down a lot of links right now. I've already posted the Corus page here a couple times (not sure where just now). I found this link real quick from Jim Hoffman-- It's from the middle of a slide presentation.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/meltdownre.html
If you're really interested with these issues, follow along with the argumentations from Hoffman. He has yet to be refuted, and many have tried. There are other good sources, but he's certainly near the top for me.
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with when I refer to the eight- and ten-fold strength redundancy typically present in modern steel structures-- You kind of 'oversell' my individual points at times. I'm not saying the evidence from OKC is a 'slamdunk' but...it is evidence to add into the mix.
The bigger observation, particularly given your comments about the huge variety of scenarios that might be present in any building collapse scenario....is the fact that NO steel structure has ever collapsed in identical fashion to controlled demolition....unless it was a controlled demolition. That a pretty big chunk of evidence.
And it leaves the hardcore 'government theory' apologists grasping at (IMO)...straws: "Well...but there were planes involved." Yeah, but not at WTC7. "Yeah but...maybe the damage to WTC7 caused the collapse." A straight-down collapse...at just a fraction of a second short of full freefall speed?? Not possible. Never happened in history. It's EXTREMELY anomalous.
And about the impact of the airliners-- Frank A. DeMartini who himself died on 9/11 was an architect and an actual WTC construction manager. His comment about an airliner impact:
"The [Twin Tower] building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door. This intense grid and the jet-plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
The original builders' vouched for the WTC's ability to withstand a direct impact from an airliner travelling at 600mph, and the NIST certified it accordingly. Here is the actual document-- http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/chek_16/WTCAircraftImpactPANYSalientPointsp.jpg
I think with the other "quick" answers I fired off...you may be overlooking the fact that...once I had come to realize there was some sort of criminal element within our own government, these others ideas about Bin Laden being in cahoots and remote control technology etc. are all routinely plausible.
I don't know if they actually used remote control and it doesn't matter much to me. I "know" those buildings didn't collapse in identical fashion to CD...other than that it was CD. It's all down hill from there.
Remember the Operation Northwoods scenario, after all. That alone has demonstrated to me there is no shortage of psychotic thinking in the murky back halls of over-powered and unaccountable government. Power corrupts a person to the point of madness...insanity. I don't know if you stay very strictly within "mainstream" thinking...i.e. only those 'versions' of history that are approved for high school textbooks and segments on "60 Minutes" but...many conservative people I grew up with (in my church circles particularly) were very dubious about, for example...the JFK assassination.
Also many view the official version of Pearl Harbor with disdain. False flag ops ARE a reality in our fallen world...and to inexplicably give American leaders an unlimited pass (for the rest of eternity?) from even the possibility such moral depravity...is certainly befuddling to me.
By the way, here's a story that was (IMO) carefully spun and obscured by the media...regarding an apparent 'false flag' op in Iraq. There has been an unceasing stream of rep[orts in that regard. You might want to take a close look at this story.
< Message edited by RedStone -- 8/9/2007 1:12:44 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists - 8/9/2007 4:00:18 PM
|
|
|
phosadaud
Posts: 8071
Joined: 9/19/2005
From: Washington State
Status: online
|
Unfortunately, I am running out of time on my lunch to address much but I will say two things until I have more time to post:
There has never in history been anything remotely close to what happened on 9/11. To say that no building has collapsed under similar circumstances like the towers did is evidance of controlled demolition is like saying the fact the my friend broke her foot while falling down the stairs is evidence that someone pushed her because she never broken her foot falling down the stairs before (even though she's never fallen down the stair EVER).
As far as the temperatures: I can't even begin to start posting all the firefighters who have seen steel buckle in that fashion due to weakening in a simple structural fire.
The temperatures your experts are giving are absurd - as I stated, even a basic house fire burns at higher temps. This fire was started by jet fuel and didn't just "poof" go out on it's own.
And you cannot gage the temps of a fire by the smoke that poors out the windows. Smoke looks different for a variety of reasons: temps, fuel, etc.
More later...
quote:
ORIGINAL: RedStone
Where did they get the idea? Well, first of all they are experts in their field so.....let's create at least a little latitude at the outset, no? Secondly, one of the dirty little secrets of the government "experts" (pardon my quotation marks)..is the game they have played with "atmospheric temperature" vs. the actual steel temperature.
The testing method Corus Construction and many other steel companies have utilized (many years before 9/11 by the way) is to stoke up a fire in some available steel structure, get a nice roaring blaze going...then take measurements.
The hottest atmospheric temperatures that can be achieved in a carbon-based fire in open atmosphere (i.e. any building fire) is no higher than the low 1500s Fahrenheit.
As documented evidence of that, there is the well-known (among 9/11 researchers anyway) Windsor building fire in Madrid ( Feb.12, 2005). Precise temperature measurements were taken...the highest atmospheric temp.-- 1470F. And this was an inferno that went on for fourteen hours, straight through the night.
The WTC fires don't come within a country mile of the "inferno" category-- They only burned for about an hour (average) and almost immediately began producing large volumes of rather dark smoke, as opposed to roaring flames...a sure sign of oxygen deficiency (under most circumstances) and thus...temperatures well below the maximum 1500ish.
The temperature of the steel in this situation is a completely different ballgame. One reason-- Steel is a very good heat conductor-- When the atmospheric temp is rising, the steel conducts the heat throughout the beams, quickly spreading and diluting/thinning the heat in the process. The Corus tests and others tests show temps of no higher than 680F.
Kevin Ryan from Underwriters Laboratories estimated 500F or less for the WTC scenario, given the lass than ideal conditions and the short duration of the fires. These numbers from the NIST and other corporate-controlled 'experts' are a huge lie.
Did you read that short interview with the demolition expert from Holland at the end of my previous post? It's certainly clear to him that US-located people are watching their money purse when speaking about 9/11. It's only been the few and the brave (like Kevin Ryan et al) who sacrificed financially to speak the truth.
I don't want to hunt down a lot of links right now. I've already posted the Corus page here a couple times (not sure where just now). I found this link real quick from Jim Hoffman-- It's from the middle of a slide presentation.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/meltdownre.html
If you're really interested with these issues, follow along with the argumentations from Hoffman. He has yet to be refuted, and many have tried. There are other good sources, but he's certainly near the top for me.
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with when I refer to the eight- and ten-fold strength redundancy typically present in modern steel structures-- You kind of 'oversell' my individual points at times. I'm not saying the evidence from OKC is a 'slamdunk' but...it is evidence to add into the mix.
The bigger observation, particularly given your comments about the huge variety of scenarios that might be present in any building collapse scenario....is the fact that NO steel structure has ever collapsed in identical fashion to controlled demolition....unless it was a controlled demolition. That a pretty big chunk of evidence.
_____________________________
~Kristin~
The easily offended...
Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as Gods. Cats have never forgotten this.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists - 8/11/2007 6:04:36 AM
|
|
|
RedStone
Posts: 178
Joined: 6/11/2007
Status: offline
|
Phosadaud--
I'm going to leave you to finish this debate with Corus Construction. You're argument is with them, I would say. I'm going to be too busy for at least the next couple of weeks, so here again is the link to their site showing the steel temperatures peaking at 680F during their testing. I had provided you this link before so...this is going around in circles a little bit at this point.
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/fires/car_park_tests.htm
I'm not sure if you're still confused about the fact that atmospheric temperatures are a completely different category than steel temperatures. In a fire, especially of short duration such as the WTC fires, the heat will conduct throughout the network of steel beams, thinning and diluting in the process. Those are precisely the findings of Corus Construction and numerous other companies.
Your staircase analogy does not apply in any way whatsoever. No one would suspect a crime had been committed based only on the evidence of a broken ankle. Who is theorizing in such a ridiculous fashion? Now if somebody was found at the bottom of a flight of stairs with a hundred bullet wounds and they claimed it was caused from the fall...ironically that would be analogous to what the official theory claims:
Never in history has any building collapsed in identical fashion to a CD...unless it was a CD. On 9/11 three buildings collapsed in CD fashion and we're told it wasn't CD.
And Phosadaud, you seem to be trying to advance your arguments behind generalities when you say that 'nothing like 9/11 has ever happened'. What does that mean exactly? If that's a vague reference to the additional factor of the airliners, let's talk about the airliners--
I provided two expert sources on that issue: The original designers along with their NIST document...and comments from the WTC construction manager (Mr. Skilling) who compared an airliner impact to the piercing of a mosquito net.
Once again, I'm going to have to leave you to debate the issue with those guys. For me the 'verdict' is in...on any idea of airliners supposedly being able to cause a replication of a controlled demolition.
And here's another thing that stinks to the high heavens about this:
Since the official experts on the WTC construction...the top experts (Both Mr. Skilling and the original team of engineers who built the WTC) were absolutely emphatic about these buildings' ability to withstand airliner impact...therefore the way in which government authorities made a beeline for their pet theories about airliners and fires, and spent literally not one minute considering the possibility of something other than airliners and fire...is utterly anomalous.
They never spent ten seconds considering so much as the possibility of planted explosives...and could only mumble a few inane comments about that "oversight" in the NIST's FAQ section (regarding the events of 9/11).
While I'm on the subject of the FAQs...I'm not sure why you argue the basic facts of smoke and oxygen deficiency-- Even the NIST FAQs concede this fact...but try to argue around it with a remarkable display of gobbledy-gook doublespeak. I quote the NIST: "dark smoke [is] characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions." LINK
(By the way, here is a question-by-question response to the NIST's FAQs from a leading 9/11 "Truther"/expert.)
Now...the NIST claims the steel lost 90% of it's strength (not the 50% you mentioned) in under an hour, which was the elapsed time till the first building collapsed. And if you'll recall...the first to collapse was the last to be hit by an airliner. How does that work exactly?
Remember how the second airliner, upon impact, dumped 80-90% of it's fuel into open atmosphere which resulted in a spectacular fireball about a half mile in circumference. So where was all this fuel that was supposedly softening the steel inside the building?
That's not to mention-- kerosene-based 'jet fuel' is extremely ill-suited for any sustained, penetrating burn because it is explosively evaporative. Jet fuel is so combustive it'll burn out within minutes, if not sooner...leaving any building fire (such as at the WTC) to feed on more 'pedestrian' fuels...paper, couches etc.
And regardless of all the games the NIST tries to play with the subject of fire temperatures...the facts and the reality indicate otherwise: Building fires cannot achieve atmospheric temps above 1500F. The fourteen hour inferno of the Windsor building in Madrid (which I already mentioned) is more proof of that. A quote from the LA Times, Feb. 14, 2005:
"...temperatures up to nearly 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit prevented firefighters from entering the Windsor building until late Sunday. The fire, which slightly injured seven people, erupted Saturday night. Though badly damaged, the tower didn't collapse."
So once again, I have to leave you (and the NIST) to argue with the Los Angeles Times over these plain facts. These are facts which have been reported all over the world from every building fire in history.
Hey, no hard feelings in all of this discussion. I enjoy a good debate but I do believe there's a lot at stake. If there is a sinister crime element tucked inside the halls of our own government, we're in a world of hurt and probably have little time left. Gotta go for now. God bless.
PS: Anyone reading this-- Check out a new thread I just started which discusses the huge long list of anomalies that all need to be "coincidences" in order to hold up the government's version of 9/11. I can't add any more to it right now but...there it is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists - 8/12/2007 4:52:17 AM
|
|
|
euno17
Posts: 2
Joined: 8/12/2007
Status: offline
|
http://youtube.com/watch?v=L-8U81HBjrg&mode=related&search=
Wtf I hate fools like this crazy guy… I love how everything can be spun way outta control by you conspiracy theorists.
Here is my review of said video – (not to confuse with the current debate you guys are doing lol)
Are you telling me there was NO real reason for the CIA (who was under pressure) to give fake positive identities? In fact - by having either 'fake pass ports' or stolen passports (stolen would seem much more liken given how hard U.S PASSPORTS are to fake. Esp. since how many people would say their 'passport was stolen' as opposed to someone saying they 'just simply lost it?') It would give them (Al-Qaeda) the ultimate cover seeing as how there would be no way to trace his 'handlers' or any other high leaders in the network that played a hand in 9/11. Most of these members the FBI and CIA do not know about.
Also, Bin laden would be a FOOL not to have doubles across the middle east - it gives him much more cover (I personally would 'allow' these doubles to be sighted (Also known as: false-positive identities) in the middle east somewhere to confuse the enemy as to my location - so he used a double actor in the video - I'm not surprised - goes to show he is pretty careful – in fact not many people even realized this during the first few weeks after 9/11. I for one completely over looked this fact as I was so focused on the rescue effort going on with 9/11. Good job to the guy (amongst several others for noticing the double-actor (6 years after the fact).
Next I would like to say...I am sorry, but this isn't about money – this guy is a fool if he believes that is the 'real' truth' behind these terrible acts. For one he only gives apart of the story - just b/c 32 computers had information of illegal activity does not mean people knew about the attacks that were coming (Yea like it helped them as the towers got hit and the towers falling...as they were trying to flee out of the windows) that only proves a lot of people were doing illegal activity that’s it – does he (Or heck even the company for that matter) know who did these transactions? No proof of that hmm? ...Must be all-apart of the conspiracy huh? – Well … how about this…. does he know how long these 'transactions' were going on BEFORE that day (does this German company know?) no…?!? Well to him it would just mean these guys were planning this for a 'long time' and oh…of course it couldn’t be anything simple (like they wanted to have insider secrets) ...right? lol it has to be apart of a huge conspiracy theory in which a few thousand innocent Americans have to die so those few who knew about it could then get rich off of the attacks (its not like any of the attacks before 9/11 that lead up to this could possibly be the reason behind 9/11 – I mean LOL – its not like they were getting bolder and more daring with each attack dating back to the first ‘bomb’ scare for the WTC in 1990) – does he EVEN know if they survived 9/11? (Of course not…how could he be privy to such ‘factual’ information such as – date’s, names… or anything relevant to the case – other then it illegal activity happened on the morning of 9/11 – how refreshing) oh wait so he doesn’t know who they were in the first place - so lest review that bit for a second before moving on…. he has no idea as to how long these activities were taking place, by whom or if they survived.... interesting, he managed to turn a simple case of trading INSIDER information into a 'biblical plot by this government to make money.' congrats lol
Oh and so people were stealing gold bars out from underneath the World Trade Center!! A lot more then just 'those cars and one van' b/c at least from the numbers he provided 75% (or more) was missing...so ergo those in the cars/van was not the ENTIRE amount missing (not even close if what he said is true) you know what THAT means? It means they were stealing the gold WAY BEFORE 9/11 - so why destroy their 'gold' 'mine' by hitting the trade centers at this time? And secondly – if there were security in place for the gold – wouldn’t there be specific information as to who was going down there (I mean come on camera, guards taking names etc) I mean why not wait till they recovered the rest of the 230 million? Better yet if there was ‘something’ to investigate why didn’t the 9/11 commission say anything about said ‘missing’ gold or who was responsible for it? The point is even if someone was to blame within the government – which by now it has already been proven the government is not very good when it comes to giving the truth – it would be foolish (and impossible to connect) to think it had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.
Ok so after the WTC went down and workers spotted the suspicious van/cars the government wanted to make sure no one stole the gold.... and the area be secured…I wonder why they would DO THAT...!!!@!@? (What would he have wanted them to do? show the gold off lol?) 9/11 was not a lie - not some conspiracy by the government to gain money or to gain the power to invade countries.
However - Bush DID seize this opportunity (Its sick I know – but he had the perfect reason that he needed) to go in and invade first Afghanistan (which was a good idea) Iraq (Terrible – foolish idea that has killed thousands of our American soldiers amongst others to take down a president who posed no creditable threat to this country) and do what his father failed to do the first time. Even if bush lied about the WMD's (b/c he wanted to take down the Iraqi President - Mr. Saddam Hussein) you’d think if he had 'planned' on invading Iraq (as he somehow knew or played a 'part' of 9/11) before 9/11 even happened - then why was the plan after entering Iraq so bad and disorganized? Like they (Bush – his advisors amongst the top generals) assumed the insurgents or those loyal to Saddam Hussein would just say ‘oh you out number us so…we give in…btw here Iraq is yours take it’?
It is no secret now Saddam Hussein ever since the first gulf war ended he was planning on the 'after - math' Guerrilla war-fare' as opposed to fighting any foreign nation straight up (his army numbers were far less in 2003 then it was before the first gulf war.) When an army is outnumbered - you use various tactics/strategy's against your foe - To make their numbers no longer an advantage - but the direct opposite.
Sure Bush created the Patriot Act - which was abused by our government several times over - that's WHAT HAPPENS when the government is given such 'powers' to invade our homes and care not for our right to privacy. I know a lot of people were caught and many plots were stopped and America is SAFER b/c of it - however where do we 'draw' the line between our safety and our freedom? Especially if we truly don't know to what degree or how much 'safer' the act provide us from any potential outside threat. The president overstepped his boundaries and having that much power got to him so...the patriot act did what with 9/11 -? I don’t get the connection - so he was able to create it b/c 9/11...? (Again WTH did he want him to do for Americans? NOT CREATE a law to try and HELP make Americans FEEL safer? – Maybe do nothing to protect us from FURTHER attacks? – Or better yet…. Maybe wait till another one comes before he amongst all the conspiracy theorists gives him the green light?)
lol he acted like all of this...well …these random bits of information - 'all' ties in some way - yet at the end of this video he wonders why the media and government alike jump all over theorists such as him for this theory?
No matter how he or others spin the details… these 'indirect' facts - simply does not add up - at least to someone who uses their brain.
Here is what you conspiracy theorists should do…I’ll tell you what…for fun why don't you make a video on the other side of the fence (do as much research and put as much time and effort into this as you did to come up with your ‘theory’) - Compare the two and see which one seems more likely lol - if you still come out a 'theory' like the guy in this video did well then you are completely hopeless and I am done with you.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists - 8/12/2007 5:13:13 AM
|
|
|
euno17
Posts: 2
Joined: 8/12/2007
Status: offline
|
now on to the debate you guys are having
RedStone
All I have to say is - damn you for making me watch that again. I feel disgusted. I don't understand why it is so hard to understand. If a building that large, gets hit that far up - (I watched the top of one of the WTC's BEGIN to collapse on itself) the beams could not handle the force that of which was flowing down all at once. Are beams supposed to be able to hold the weight of a building PLUS the force of which that was coming down? How else is a building supposed to come down if the TOP of the building's beams collapse if not straight down? maybe you need to watch this terrible scene again for you to understand. I need to watch it again how the first one fell but the second tower def. was destoryed by the plane that cuased the heat to melt. There was no CD fasion about it
http://youtube.com/watch?v=y1Dg2eEhB30&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Fpv6pxsrOQ
compare the two - does the Towers look like there is EXPLOSIONS coming from underneath? also, any kind of controlled CD's are given a set amount of explosives to make sure the building collapses right (or so I assume lol) that and even this small building you could hear the loud' booms' I don't know of any controlled CD's for a building like the WTC's. I am sorry but your explosion theory seems to be pretty weak when you watch a vid of a controlled CD and compare it to the WTC's.
(Edit - I just watched it again and IT CLEARLY show's you how the first one falls, the first part of the building collapse's onto itself and the rest of the building falls with it. there is no QUESTION WITHOUT A DOUBT this was b/c of the planes. I don't see your argument here. It really doesn't make any sense what so ever. lol you can argue theories and bring in experts but seriously watching that video - nothing from the bottom of EITHER tower gives away - it starts from the top and falls down. It would take either alot and I mean ALOT of explosives (which you would need the fire etc start at the bottom and then see the towers collapse)
Maybe you need to just stop with what ever you are trying to argue and watch it b/c really you have no case.
< Message edited by euno17 -- 8/12/2007 5:25:35 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists - 8/12/2007 8:28:47 AM
|
|
|
joe777
Posts: 10
Joined: 7/14/2007
Status: offline
|
Another theory could be about the Alluminates. They have and agenda and can cause catastrophic events to happen such as the the stock market crash in the 20's. Take a moment and read about them an those associated with them such as the Freemasons and the Scull and Cross Bones faturnity. The own all the major medias so thats why you never here anything about them. They have all the money and can pay to have anything to happen. We think our President runs this country? Think again. The Rothdhilds. Rockafellows, and ect.... are very powerful people but only in their eyes, because the King of Kings will bring and end to it all. IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists - 8/13/2007 11:01:50 PM
|
|
|
phosadaud
Posts: 8071
Joined: 9/19/2005
From: Washington State
Status: online
|
Redstone: Once again, I am running short on time, but I thought I would give a basic post to point folks to see for themselves what is actually argued, scientifically speaking, as to what happened to the WTC towers. Unlike the arguments I see in cursory scan (again I'm short on time so I don't have time to really read it) the "rebuttal" of NIST report which basically shows why most folks don't buy into the truthers version: basically it's paranoid, speculative, and not based on science but rather circumstantial evidence that would only convince someone who already believes the government is behind 9/11.
So until, I have more time:
Steel structures do collapse from fires. Even fires that are short. Fire from gasoline tanker accident causes steel constructed overpass to collapse. It took 20 minutes.
Fire from gasoline tanker accident
Here is the entire NIST response to all the criticisms you are stating. This is not edited or abbreviated by someone trying to argue conspiracy so people can see the actual facts.
A few important summary notes:
-There has NEVER been a high rise building that faced what the WTC towers faced that day: the massive structural damage from the impacts, the fires, etc. While other towers have faced one factor, there isn’t one single instance that equates to this event (if there is, please give me a specific example). Most structural collapses are not the result of one factor – they result from a combination of factors and there was certainly a combination of factors on 9/11. So again, to claim as "proof" that since this hasn't happened before means it must be controlled demolition is absurd.
-Unprotected steel (as would have been the case in the WTC towers because the fireproofing would have literally been sheered off from the impact of the planes) can and does reach the temps necessary to weaken in the amount of time on 9/11.
The article also explains the black smoke (I ask everyone to actually read what the NIST said in full), the “free-fall” speed of the collapse, and much, much more.
Here is the actual report that more than 200 technical experts (ie – people who study this kind of stuff for a living) as to how the towers collapsed.
And again, what I am looking for is not speculation, but actual SCIENCE that shows what is wrong with the SCIENCE that the NIST (and others) are reporting.
_____________________________
~Kristin~
The easily offended...
Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as Gods. Cats have never forgotten this.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The conspiracy of 9/11 conspiracy theorists - 8/14/2007 11:49:20 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3742
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
