awesome video

[yavoon]

guy named merlin linked it. same merlin?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801

[TheDave]

This should go over well....

[yavoon]

This should go over well....

video's a little long to have seen it already. or are u getting a headstart on looking like a dumbass?

[Rocket 7]

Nothing but propaganda.

[yavoon]

Nothing but propaganda.

watch it first.

[TheDave]

video's a little long to have seen it already. or are u getting a headstart on looking like a dumbass?

God i should follow peoples advice and put you on ignore... I already heard about the "1st edition" and have seen multiple sites discussing it

[yavoon]

God i should follow peoples advice and put you on ignore... I already heard about the "1st edition" and have seen multiple sites discussing it

if u think I'm a horrible person for posting this video then for the love of god block me. if ur only goal is to incessantly chase around threads I'm in and try to ride my ass like I'm ur gay lover for no reason then for ur own childish grasp on sanity plz block me.

[Dagmar]

This thread is gettin' juicy...

[Popps]

Been there, done that.

If you're in the K-8 range, it's fascinating.

[yavoon]

Been there, done that.

If you're in the K-8 range, it's fascinating.

well I'm interested, what are all the obvious/easy refutals?

[TheDave]

if u think I'm a horrible person for posting this video then for the love of god block me. if ur only goal is to incessantly chase around threads I'm in and try to ride my ass like I'm ur gay lover for no reason then for ur own childish grasp on sanity plz block me.

not sure where the tantrum is coming from, all i said was "This should go over well"...

have fun with your conspiracy

[brncs_fan]

Can we send this to the approapriate forum?

[yavoon]

not sure where the tantrum is coming from, all i said was "This should go over well"...

have fun with your conspiracy

thats kind of what I was hoping to have. watch the video.

[yavoon]

Can we send this to the approapriate forum?

what are u talking about? the moon landing was on this forum.

[brncs_fan]

what are u talking about? the moon landing was on this forum.
I think this actually hits two of the three, War, Religion, and Politics

I know it is the offseason, but I really don't want politics at home, school, work, and here.

[Merlin]

Yavoon,

It is a different Merlin. I have not yet had a chance to view it (started the first 6 minutes, but it lasts 1:20) in its entirety, so I will refrain from commenting until then. Thanks for the link.

[yavoon]

I think this actually hits two of the three, War, Religion, and Politics

I know it is the offseason, but I really don't want politics at home, school, work, and here.

well considering very similar threads were allowed to stay I dont see any reason for ur request. sorry:(

[Popps]

well I'm interested, what are all the obvious/easy refutals?

Please... enjoy.

[yavoon]

Please... enjoy.

oh look, silent. who woulda thought.

[brncs_fan]

well considering very similar threads were allowed to stay I dont see any reason for ur request. sorry:(
Problem with your statement is that:

#1 You are not a mod/decision maker on this board

#2 There is a difference between discussion on Apollo 11 and a posting of a propaganda video in the general discussion forum when we have a forum specifically designed for things like this.

[yavoon]

Problem with your statement is that:

#1 You are not a mod/decision maker on this board

#2 There is a difference between discussion on Apollo 11 and a posting of a propaganda video in the general discussion forum when we have a forum specifically designed for things like this.

I dont think this is propaganda in the least. unless u mean that it has a dissenting opinion. if thats propaganda I'd hate to live in ur world. maybe watch video more, excuse as propaganda less.

[brncs_fan]

I dont think this is propaganda in the least. unless u mean that it has a dissenting opinion. if thats propaganda I'd hate to live in ur world. maybe watch video more, excuse as propaganda less.
What does the issue of whether this is propaganda or not have to do with whether it is in the right forum or not?

[yavoon]

What does the issue of whether this is propaganda or not have to do with whether it is in the right forum or not?

"#2 There is a difference between discussion on Apollo 11 and a posting of a propaganda video in the general discussion forum when we have a forum specifically designed for things like this."

seems to me the person who wrote this thinks something.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I've gotten about 40 minutes into that movie, and there are several disjointed conclusions drawn from a questionable premise. I think that it's rather like the rorschach. You take those bits of information and you see what you want to. They arent presenting a very good case for their conspiracy. It's pretty poorly done.

[yavoon]

I've gotten about 40 minutes into that movie, and there are several disjointed conclusions drawn from a questionable premise. I think that it's rather like the rorschach. You take those bits of information and you see what you want to. They arent presenting a very good case for their conspiracy. It's pretty poorly done.

well to blame them for using bits of information is a little preposterous since thats all they have.

on another note what I like about this conspiracy(besides that it seems very thorough) is that there are several places where giant holes could be shot through it w/o that much effort.

like the 757 into the pentagon, why if 4 cameras were going live on it do u only release five frames none of which show the airplane? what is the national security risk of watching a plane crash? and why 5 frames? who the hell decided that all the other frames should be suppressed?

[Taco John]

I see no reason to move this thread at this time...

[ludo21]

I see no reason to move this thread at this time...


The master has spoken.

Yavoon -1, Whiners - 0

:~ohyah!:

[epicSocialism4tw]

I'm watching some of the video right now...they are talking about the building collapse. The narrator minimizes the impact of the jets and the physical structural damage that they could have done in addition to the subsequent fires, which would have no doubt exacerbated the problem in the portion of the structure that was hit and could have caused the building to fold like a pine tree and collapse on itself.

[yavoon]

I'm watching some of the video right now...they are talking about the building collapse. The narrator minimizes the impact of the jets and the physical structural damage that they could have done in addition to the subsequent fires, which would have no doubt exacerbated the problem in the portion of the structure that was hit and could have caused the building to fold like a pine tree and collapse on itself.

get to the part where the b-52 rammed into a building and it didnt collapse?

I think the general theory on why it did collapse has nothing to do w/ the impact. the accepted theory I think is this:

fire weakaned metal which caused the top stories of the building to fall breaking the other stories as they went.

[Tombstone RJ]

Does raise some interesting questions. One thing I could never figure out is how anyone can make a cell phone call from a plane flying 3-4 miles up, and moving at a high rate of speed.

I sure as hell know that my cell would never work. I've always wondered about that...

[Taco John]

I'd like to hear the official explanation on why the government won't allow the public to see the Sheraton video.

[yavoon]

Does raise some interesting questions. One thing I could never figure out is how anyone can make a cell phone call from a plane flying 3-4 miles up, and moving at a high rate of speed.

I sure as hell know that my cell would never work. I've always wondered about that...

yah I have no knowledge of any retort to that that has ever been made.

[epicSocialism4tw]

get to the part where the b-52 rammed into a building and it didnt collapse?

I think the general theory on why it did collapse has nothing to do w/ the impact. the accepted theory I think is this:

fire weakaned metal which caused the top stories of the building to fall breaking the other stories as they went.

Yeah I saw the B-52 stuff...but, if the plane rips into the building with enough force to damage the piers on several floors in a localized area, that area would experience the physical damage from impact, where piers could be bent, broken, jarred, contorted, etc, and then exposed to a concentrated burst of heat and additional explosive force. I'm sure that the designers tried to account for this, but you can't always plan for intentional placement. I do not have the specs on the model aiplane, top speed, angle of entry, fuel type/amt, building structure, etc. that I would need to assemble a more comprehensive analysis, but I can tell you that the planes impacted in a vulnerable spot. They hit the corners of the buildings where the damage would be more "work efficient."

[Taco John]

Man, that whole business about the buildings not collapsing is pretty damned compelling...

[-Slap-]

Yavoon,

It is a different Merlin. I have not yet had a chance to view it (started the first 6 minutes, but it lasts 1:20) in its entirety, so I will refrain from commenting until then. Thanks for the link.
An hour and 20 minutes?

I'm gonna watch Wallace and Gromit.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v603/stephanielind/wallace-gromit.jpg

[yavoon]

Yeah I saw the B-52 stuff...but, if the plane rips into the building with enough force to damage the piers on several floors in a localized area, that area would experience the physical damage from impact, where piers could be bent, broken, jarred, contorted, etc, and then exposed to a concentrated burst of heat and additional explosive force. I'm sure that the designers tried to account for this, but you can't always plan for intentional placement. I do not have the specs on the model aiplane, top speed, angle of entry, fuel type/amt, building structure, etc. that I would need to assemble a more comprehensive analysis, but I can tell you that the planes impacted in a vulnerable spot. They hit the corners of the buildings where the damage would be more "work efficient."

obviously all this talk is somewhat baseless as u'd need a computer program to run simulations. but lets do it anyway.

one I think ur overestimating the force that jet gas can exert, and....what additional explosive force?

and even if u were to remove the top of the building and send it directly into the rest of the building do u think it would fall neatly straight down at nearly a free fall rate? I would tend to think irregularities(like say where the plane hit as opposed to the other side of the building) would cause a toppling of the top of the building.

[Tombstone RJ]

I'd like to hear the official explanation on why the government won't allow the public to see the Sheraton video.

Ok,ok.

I have some questions about the Pentagon crash too. Simple logic dictates that the Pentagon has thousands of camaras in and around the building, the grounds, and the general area due to its high security.

Somewhere, somehow, I just know that is another video showing SOMETHING. That crappy video that the govenment released shows, well, IMO, nothing, but an explosion.

[epicSocialism4tw]

obviously all this talk is somewhat baseless as u'd need a computer program to run simulations. but lets do it anyway.

one I think ur overestimating the force that jet gas can exert, and....what additional explosive force?

and even if u were to remove the top of the building and send it directly into the rest of the building do u think it would fall neatly straight down at nearly a free fall rate? I would tend to think irregularities(like say where the plane hit as opposed to the other side of the building) would cause a toppling of the top of the building.


Sure...we dont really have the information here to compile a cogent look.

I dont think that the explosion itself did the damage, it was the impact of the jet plus the explosion that could have caused the initial damage in a well placed area (where the sides meet-the weakest part). Then, the fires could have exacerbated the problem in that area being compounded by the available combustables in the region. With the placement of the strike, the corners could IMO, be weakened enough to become more and more unstable as the weight of the rest of the building presses down on that corner, which takes on exponentially more and more weight as it is slowly redistributed by the inevitable lean. As the lean continues, piers are again damaged further and fires compound the problem. I am only saying that this seems like a logical possibility and Okham's Razor is cutting my way. Again, I couldnt put together a good physical analysis without a stack of data. I'm too busy for that.

[yavoon]

Sure...we dont really have the information here to compile a cogent look.

I dont think that the explosion itself did the damage, it was the impact of the jet plus the explosion that could have caused the initial damage in a well placed area (where the sides meet-the weakest part). Then, the fires could have exacerbated the problem in that area being compounded by the available combustables in the region. With the placement of the strike, the corners could IMO, be weakened enough to become more and more unstable as the weight of the rest of the building presses down on that corner, which takes on exponentially more and more weight as it is slowly redistributed by the inevitable lean. As the lean continues, piers are again damaged further and fires compound the problem. I am only saying that this seems like a logical possibility and Okham's Razor is cutting my way. Again, I couldnt put together a good physical analysis without a stack of data. I'm too busy for that.

available combustibles in the region? please explain what is blowing up besides jet fuel.

and lean? did u notice a lean?

btw since okham's razor is likely to be used a lot in this thread lets not abuse it too badly. okham's razor sez that in the absence of an ability to otherwise distinguish between two possibilities that the simplest possibility is a rule of thumb. It is not a law of nature, it is born of logic.

[Taco John]

After seeing the demolition videos... I'm very intrigued...

This is a damn good video.

[yavoon]

I'd like to see even the possibility of the top of a building systematically taking down the rest of a building like that. considering by all logic the rest of the building was in perfect working shape.

[epicSocialism4tw]

available combustibles in the region? please explain what is blowing up besides jet fuel.

and lean? did u notice a lean?

btw since okham's razor is likely to be used a lot in this thread lets not abuse it too badly. okham's razor sez that in the absence of an ability to otherwise distinguish between two possibilities that the simplest possibility is a rule of thumb. It is not a law of nature, it is born of logic.


...right, and Okham would cut through the logical possibility of a conspiracy theory in favor of an event born of natural processes. It is necessary to consider the simplest explaination as well as the conspiracy. The conspiracy would account for some expert witness testimony, and other expert testimony would support the natural processes as being attributable to compounded physical events. As a skeptic, I tend to lean away from the conspiracy. This doesnt mean that I dont think that there is a possibility of a conspiracy, but I have seen no evidence to convince me that it is something other than a Bin Laden funded attack.

On the "lean"...I used this term to represent the idea of a redistribution of weight. If the piers in the damaged section were in fact damaged by the impact, then the weight of the steel and concrete of the above floors supported by the damaged region would be redistributed on the piers that surround the damage and would potentially cause more problems by contorting the structure.

[Ratboy]

You sound like a broken record player..

[UltimateHoboW/Shotgun]

It's a good vid.... If your a lib.

[yavoon]

...right, and Okham would cut through the logical possibility of a conspiracy theory in favor of an event born of natural processes. It is necessary to consider the simplest explaination as well as the conspiracy. The conspiracy would account for some expert witness testimony, and other expert testimony would support the natural processes as being attributable to compounded physical events. As a skeptic, I tend to lean away from the conspiracy. This doesnt mean that I dont think that there is a possibility of a conspiracy, but I have seen no evidence to convince me that it is something other than a Bin Laden funded attack.

no because okham bows to evidence until evidence is exhausted. u dont start an investigation invoke okhams razor then end the investigation. okhams razor is what u do once u've failed or are otherwise incapable of determining the answer.

its also good to note that okhams razor gives ZERO guarentee of being right.

I also dont think okhams razor is valid here in as much as I've pointed out earlier there exist(if they haven't been destroyed) several fairly easy ways to gain more evidence that is being denied us. invoking okhams razor when u know that u lack crucial evidence is not wise.

[yavoon]

...right, and Okham would cut through the logical possibility of a conspiracy theory in favor of an event born of natural processes. It is necessary to consider the simplest explaination as well as the conspiracy. The conspiracy would account for some expert witness testimony, and other expert testimony would support the natural processes as being attributable to compounded physical events. As a skeptic, I tend to lean away from the conspiracy. This doesnt mean that I dont think that there is a possibility of a conspiracy, but I have seen no evidence to convince me that it is something other than a Bin Laden funded attack.

On the "lean"...I used this term to represent the idea of a redistribution of weight. If the piers in the damaged section were in fact damaged by the impact, then the weight of the steel and concrete of the above floors supported by the damaged region would be redistributed on the piers that surround the damage and would potentially cause more problems by contorting the structure.

and like i said, did u see any lean?

[Taco John]

It's a good vid.... If your a lib.


...bertarian... Libertarian...

[epicSocialism4tw]

and like i said, did u see any lean?

This wouldnt be something that would be overtly evident on video from the distance that we are seeing, but it only seems natural that the building would have suffered shock from the impact at the vulnerable spot.

On Okham...you "invoke" Okham with the data that you have, and to be honest, I dont think that this video has produced anything of interest in those regards other than unexplained explosions. There are no rules that resign one to choosing the most easily verifiable explaination from circumstances. You use Okham in every bit of logic that you compute. From two variables to a multiplicity of variables. You have no wiser use for Okham than Brittany Spears.

I think that you are looking at an inkblot here, and I think that you see what you want to. If you were to "invoke" Okham, you would resign yourself to the fact that you dont have enough data to begin an irresponsible quest to confirm a possibly unconfirmable cospiracy theory. That's not science, that's disseminating questionable information.

[yavoon]

This wouldnt be something that would be overtly evident on video from the distance that we are seeing, but it only seems natural that the building would have suffered shock from the impact at the vulnerable spot.

On Okham...you "invoke" Okham with the data that you have, and to be honest, I dont think that this video has produced anything of interest in those regards other than unexplained explosions. There are no rules that resign one to choosing the most easily verifiable explaination from circumstances. You use Okham in every bit of logic that you compute. From two variables to a multiplicity of variables. You have no wiser use for Okham than Brittany Spears.

I think that you are looking at an inkblot here, and I think that you see what you want to. If you were to "invoke" Okham, you would resign yourself to the fact that you dont have enough data to begin an irresponsible quest to confirm a possibly unconfirmable cospiracy theory. That's not science, that's disseminating questionable information.

I think the video pulls into light serious questions of the physical possibility of all 3 crashes as well as the factual existance of the pentagon crash as well as mountains of conspiratory evidence.

and like i said, invoking okham here is a mistake. there exists and frankly should exist relatively firm evidence either way, there is no need to throw ur hands up and say "I guess its the simpler one." because thats what okham is, a guess, nothing more. its not even an educated guess its just a last resort that is based upon an old idea. plz stop using okham like it is part of ur evidence, it is not.

[Tombstone RJ]

I was under the impression that the WTCs were built with enough steel (hell, the outside of the buildings were big steel exo-skeletons) to withstand an airplane impact.

Then, it was explained that the terrorists had planes fully laden with jet fuel and that this is what caused the steel to weaken and for the towers to collapse.

However, as the vid. states, all jet fuel would burn off pretty quickly and the high-quality steel in those buildings, along with the steel exo-skeleton type outer wall, should have kept both WTCs building standing.

I remember on 9/11 thinking that there is NO WAY those buildings will collapse. They are/were made for just such an event... then, they collapse. I guess it still makes me wonder.

[Taco John]

Damn... I think I believe that 911 was an inside job now...

That video pulled together a lot of stuff that I hadn't previously considered.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Maybe someone here is involved in demolition? I know that that's a stab in the dark, but Im not educated in that field. Maybe an impartial demolition expert can fill in some gaps for us.

[Tombstone RJ]

I don't know what to think now. I just can't believe that our government is that, well, evil.

But, there are some serious questions that the government is not answering, or does not want to answer.

[Taco John]

Ill tell you what I have comsidered though...

This has always bothered me...

Clearly these are two different men:
http://www.robert-fisk.com/jazbinladen.jpghttp://www.robert-fisk.com/tapebinladen.jpg

Here is the Osama that addressed the American people to give Bush a bump close to election time, juxtaposed with the real Osama:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/fake-to-real.gif


These fake Osamas have bothered me for a long time...

[epicSocialism4tw]

I don't know what to think now. I just can't believe that our government is that, well, evil.

But, there are some serious questions that the government is not answering, or does not want to answer.

There could be legitimate reasons for that as well. People tend to think that the boogeyman is outside of the door, or that the answer is mysterious and dark if it is held from view. In reality the answer could be simpler than you think.

It's amazing to me to think that the same people who dont believe Jesus existed can be the same people that concoct conspiracies like this one.

[yavoon]

There could be legitimate reasons for that as well. People tend to think that the boogeyman is outside of the door, or that the answer is mysterious and dark if it is held from view. In reality the answer could be simpler than you think.

It's amazing to me to think that the same people who dont believe Jesus existed can be the same people that concoct conspiracies like this one.

so ur telling me the bush administration is believable enough that in the face of IMO rather large and disturbing evidence some of which they are willfully withholding(they've never done that before!) that it would be the sane intelligent thing to do to simply trust them.

[Tombstone RJ]

However, there are a few things the vid. could not address, like, where the hell did all the people from flight 93 go?

If they did not die in a Pennsylvania field, where are they? Surely they must be somewhere...

[Taco John]

It's amazing to me to think that the same people who dont believe Jesus existed can be the same people that concoct conspiracies like this one.



I'm a Christian and I don't quite see how the two relate?

[Taco John]

There could be legitimate reasons for that as well. People tend to think that the boogeyman is outside of the door, or that the answer is mysterious and dark if it is held from view. In reality the answer could be simpler than you think.



I would love to know the rationale that could possibly exist for the government not allowing the public to see the Sheraton video.

[yavoon]

However, there are a few things the vid. could not address, like, where the hell did all the people from flight 93 go?

If they did not die in a Pennsylvania field, where are they? Surely they must be somewhere...

how hard is it to hide dead bodies? no idea! but u can't blame them too much, afterall they dont have top security clearance. they can only work w/ publicly known information, the fact that it would be difficult to explain everything is pretty natural:)

[Tombstone RJ]

how hard is it to hide dead bodies? no idea! but u can't blame them too much, afterall they dont have top security clearance. they can only work w/ publicly known information, the fact that it would be difficult to explain everything is pretty natural:)

The vid. claims flight 93 landed in Cleveland and the people on board were taken to a NASA building. OK, fine.

Are you now suggesting that the US government then killed these passengers, and then disposed of their bodies?

I find that difficult to believe.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I would love to know the rationale that could possibly exist for the government not allowing the public to see the Sheraton video.

I would too. This video does raise some interesting questions. I dont think that we will ultimately need Mulder and Scully to answer them though.

[footstepsfrom#27]

I watched the whole thing. Most people are going to form opinions on this based on what they already believe, regardless of what the video shows. Second, how many people have the means, time, or ability to check sources and validate information to see if it's true. Having said that...I've wondered about 911 since the day it happened. Lots of things just don't make sene. If you distrust everyone you can at least avoid being decieved by your own partisanship.

1) Kennedy
2) ML King
3) Gulf of Tonkin
4) Vietnam
5) Watergate
6) Iran Contra
7) Nicaragua
8) 911
9) Katrina

The list goes on...

The real question is not whether we've been told the truth about 911. The real question is...When have we EVER been told the truth?

[Tombstone RJ]

I would love to know the rationale that could possibly exist for the government not allowing the public to see the Sheraton video.

Yep. Why hide something like that? You think they'd be parading the video around for all to see, if indeed there is a 757 on it...

[yavoon]

The vid. claims flight 93 landed in Cleveland and the people on board were taken to a NASA building. OK, fine.

Are you now suggesting that the US government then killed these passengers, and then disposed of their bodies?

I find that difficult to believe.

u mean because thats especially worse than killing the ppl in the towers or killing the fire fighters by collapsing the building on top of them?

[Taco John]

I'm going to mull this over. I'm almost convinced that 911 was an inside job now. Before I was suspicious, but not willing to go out on the limb. But the evidence here is pretty damned compelling. Shocking, really.

[Tombstone RJ]

I watched the whole thing. Most people are going to form opinions on this based on what they already believe, regardless of what the video shows. Second, how many people have the means, time, or ability to check sources and validate information to see if it's true. Having said that...I've wondered about 911 since the day it happened. Lots of things just don't make sene. If you distrust everyone you can at least avoid being decieved by your own partisanship.

1) Kennedy
2) ML King
3) Gulf of Tonkin
4) Vietnam
5) Watergate
6) Iran Contra
7) Nicaragua
8) 911
9) Katrina

The list goes on...

The real question is not whether we've been told the truth about 911. The real question is...When have we EVER been told the truth?


Some conspiracy theroies intrigue me. Some don't. The key for me is to consider all sides of an argument, and then try to draw an educated conclusion/opinion. However, I am not, IMO, a big conspirocy theory believer.

[yavoon]

I'm going to mull this over. I'm almost convinced that 911 was an inside job now. Before I was suspicious, but not willing to go out on the limb. But the evidence here is pretty damned compelling. Shocking, really.

if I had to guess I'd be hard pressed to go all the way to the video's conclusion. Though to some extent I realize they aren't playing w/ all the available weapons(thanks government).

more than anything this puts into sharp focus how dishonest the government has been. especially when u consider how easy some of the things being hidden would be to open up. even if this isnt totally true I think its obvious the government has opportunity, motive, and conviction to lie to the american ppl in a systematic and malevolent way.

[footstepsfrom#27]

I'm always puzzled when people automatically believe the government's explanation and poo-poo the idea of coverups, conspiracies, hidden agendas, etc...does the history of the past 50 years show a consistent pattern of honesty or dishonesty on the part of our government?

Conspiracies and coverups aren't the exception to the rule of honesty and forthrightness...they are the rule.

[Tombstone RJ]

u mean because thats especially worse than killing the ppl in the towers or killing the fire fighters by collapsing the building on top of them?

No, not especially worse, but especially more complicated because the government has to look the people in the eyes/face before they kill them. I don't know how to explain this, but its probably easier to kill someone when they don't expect it, like the other victoms of 911. Its a whole different thing to bring the flight 93 people safely down, and then methodically eliminate them one by one in order to keep them quiet.

[yavoon]

No, not especially worse, but especially more complicated because the government has to look the people in the eyes/face before they kill them. I don't know how to explain this, but its probably easier to kill someone when they don't expect it, like the other victoms of 911. Its a whole different thing to bring the flight 93 people safely down, and then methodically eliminate them one by one in order to keep them quiet.

maybe it didnt happen that way? To just throw out guesses u could breakup the chain of command, there's no reason to think they were simply executed out of hand. maybe they were merely transported somewhere to ppl who would be more willing.

I dont think the point of this video is that everything they say is true, its that lots of things the gov't says is false.

[footstepsfrom#27]

No, not especially worse, but especially more complicated because the government has to look the people in the eyes/face before they kill them. I don't know how to explain this, but its probably easier to kill someone when they don't expect it, like the other victoms of 911. Its a whole different thing to bring the flight 93 people safely down, and then methodically eliminate them one by one in order to keep them quiet.
If you accept the idea that somebody could cooly exterminate 3,000 innocent people, destroy billions in property, launch a military attack on our own Pentagon, bring the US economy to the brink of collapse and scheme to invade the Middle East based on a lie, it seems like a pretty easy jump to picture a few extra victims of collaterol damage being done away with. That part seems like the easiest to believe IMO.

[Taco John]

I'm just dumbfounded... I don't know how anyone could watch that video... see the evidence of other buildings that didn't collapse under similar circumstances... and THEN see the detonations... and not walk away believing that the buildings were rigged.

I'm fairly disturbed.

[Atlas]

That is an amazing, disturbing, perplexing video. Anyone who watches it with an open mind is going to be dumbfounded. Maybe my Dad was right. Maybe Bush is the Anti-Christ.

[UltimateHoboW/Shotgun]

...bertarian... Libertarian...


Why is it when you call a lib a lib they all ways want to be called something else?

[Atlas]

Why is it when you call a lib a lib they all ways want to be called something else?


HUH???

[UltimateHoboW/Shotgun]

HUH???


Sorry, its 1:30 am here and its hard to type correctly. "they always" better. BTW isn't there a no proof reading smack going on.

[Kaylore]

This thread needs to move.

And anyone that believes that movie, which I watched, it an ignorant hate raging turd.

[Taco John]

Why is it when you call a lib a lib they all ways want to be called something else?


I couldn't answer that. I'm not a liberal. I believe in individual liberty, free markets, and local control. I am in favor of abolishing public schools, opening the market to private schools via vouchers, gun rights, and privatized social security... that sort of thing.

I'm merely willing to consider the evidence regarless of politics based on it's own merits...

Truth for its own sake.

[Rock Chalk]

Does raise some interesting questions. One thing I could never figure out is how anyone can make a cell phone call from a plane flying 3-4 miles up, and moving at a high rate of speed.

I sure as hell know that my cell would never work. I've always wondered about that...
****ty service. My cell worked on the airplane.

Im not watching another 9/11 movie conspiracy. The last one about the pentagon plane being a missle was ****ing stupid and was proved stupid by simple observational facts.

[Mile High Shack]

everything is a conspiracy now

it has been since the dawn of time

you still have people that believe there was a second shooter in the Kennedy assination

you have people who believe Clinton had people killed that went against him

it goes on and on and on and on

as long as there are crazy people and the internet, you can edit any footage you want to prove your point

[ant1999e]

Move it before LABF shows up here too!!!!

[watermock]

everything is a conspiracy now

it has been since the dawn of time

you still have people that believe there was a second shooter in the Kennedy assination

you have people who believe Clinton had people killed that went against him

it goes on and on and on and on

as long as there are crazy people and the internet, you can edit any footage you want to prove your point

The "magic bullet" conclusion could only be reasoned by a drunk cop. Everything isn't a conspiracy. Clinton had alot of people die around him...alot...several very dubious.

I'm not going to make this a pissing match, but the fact Kennedy's brains splattered out of the back of his head shows that the shot came from in front of him. The spin doctors that say it would splatter backward are insane and bought. Oswald probably did take shots, but there are so many questions...I'm not sure they even got positive reads from the bullet.

[watermock]

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm

Among the myriad JFK assassination controversies, none more cleanly divides Warren Commission supporter from skeptic than the “Single Bullet Theory.” The brainchild of a former Warren Commission lawyer, Mr. Arlen Specter, now the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, the theory is the sine qua non of the Warren Commission’s case that with but three shots, including one that missed, Lee Harvey Oswald had single handedly altered the course of history. [Fig. 1]

Mr. Specter’s hypothesis was not one that immediately leapt to mind from the original evidence and the circumstances of the shooting. It was, rather, born of necessity, if one sees as a necessity the keeping of Oswald standing alone in the dock. The theory had to contend with the considerable evidence there was suggesting that more than one shooter was involved.

For example, because the two victims in Dealey Plaza, President Kennedy and Governor John Connally, had suffered so many wounds – eight in all, it had originally seemed as if more than two slugs from the supposed “sniper’s nest” would have been necessary to explain all the damage. In addition, a home movie taken by a bystander, Abraham Zapruder, showed that too little time had elapsed between the apparent shots that hit both men in the back for Oswald to have fired, reacquired his target, and fired again. The Single Bullet Theory neatly solved both problems. It posited that a single, nearly whole bullet that was later recovered had caused all seven of the non-fatal wounds sustained by both men.[1]


Figure 1. CE #399. Warren Commission Exhibit #399, said to have caused both of JFK’s non-fatal wounds and all five of the Governor Connally’s wounds, is shown in two views, above left. Arlen Specter theorized the bullet had followed a path much like the one shown at right. (National Archives photo)


But the bullet that was recovered had one strikingly peculiar feature: it had survived all the damage it had apparently caused virtually unscathed itself. The shell’s near-pristine appearance, which prompted some to call it the “magic bullet,” left many skeptics wondering whether the bullet in evidence had really done what the Commission had said it had done. Additional skepticism was generated by the fact the bullet was not found in or around either victim. It was found instead on a stretcher at the hospital where the victims were treated.

Mr. Specter’s idea was that, after passing completely through JFK and Governor Connally, the bullet had fallen out of the Governor’s clothes and onto a stretcher at Parkland Hospital. But it was never unequivocally established that either victim had ever lain on the stretcher where the bullet was discovered.[2] Nevertheless, studies done at the FBI Laboratory seemed to unquestionably link the missile to Oswald’s rifle, and the FBI sent the Warren Commission a memo on July 7, 1964 detailing how it had run down the bullet’s chain of possession, which looked pretty solid. According to the FBI, the two hospital employees who discovered the bullet originally identified it as the same bullet six months later in an FBI interview

That a bullet, fired from Oswald’s weapon and later identified by hospital witnesses, had immediately turned up on a stretcher in the hospital where the victims were treated struck some as perhaps a little too convenient. Suspicions it had been planted ensued. But apart from its peculiar provenance, there was little reason in 1964 to doubt the bullet’s bona fides. But then in 1967, one of the authors reported that one of the two hospital employees who had found the bullet, Parkland personnel director O.P. Wright, had told him that the bullet he saw and held on the day of the assassination did not look like the bullet that later turned up in FBI evidence. That claim was in direct conflict with an FBI memo of July 7, 1964, which said that Wright had told an FBI agent that the bullet did look like the shell he’d held on the day of the murder.

For thirty years, the conflict lay undisturbed and unresolved. Finally, in the mid 1990s, the authors brought this conflict to the attention of the Assassinations Records Review Board, a federal body charged with opening the abundant, still-secret files concerning the Kennedy assassination. A search through newly declassified files led to the discovery of new information on this question. It turns out that the FBI’s own, once-secret files tend to undermine the position the FBI took publicly in its July, 1964 memo to the Warren Commission, and they tend to support co-author Josiah Thompson. Thompson got a further boost when a retired FBI agent, in a recorded telephone interview and in a face-to-face meeting, flatly denied what the FBI had written about him to the Warren Commission in 1964.

A Bullet is Found at Parkland Hospital
The story begins in a ground floor elevator lobby at the Dallas hospital where JFK and John Connelly were taken immediately after being shot. According to the Warren Commission, Parkland Hospital senior engineer, Mr. Darrell C. Tomlinson, was moving some wheeled stretchers when he bumped a stretcher “against the wall and a bullet rolled out.”[3] He called for help and was joined by Mr. O.P. Wright, Parkland’s personnel director. After examining the bullet together, Mr. Wright passed it along to one of the U.S. Secret Service agents who were prowling the hospital, Special Agent Richard Johnsen.[4]

Johnsen then carried the bullet back to Washington, D. C. and handed it to James Rowley, the chief of the Secret Service. Rowley, in turn, gave the bullet to FBI agent Elmer Lee Todd,[5] who carried it to agent Robert Frazier in the FBI’s Crime Lab.[6] Without exploring the fact that the HSCA discovered that there may have been another witness who was apparently with Tomlinson when the bullet was found, what concerns us here is whether the bullet currently in evidence, Commission Exhibit #399, is the same bullet Tomlinson found originally.

The early history of the bullet, Commission Exhibit #399, is laid out in Warren Commission Exhibit #2011. This exhibit consists of a 3-page, July 7, 1964 FBI letterhead memorandum that was written to the Warren Commission in response to a Commission request that the Bureau trace “various items of physical evidence,” among them #399 [Fig. 2]. #2011 relates that, in chasing down the bullet’s chain of possession, FBI agent Bardwell Odum took #399 to Darrell Tomlinson and O.P. Wright on June 12, 1964. The memo asserts that both men told Agent Odum that the bullet “appears to be the same one” they found on the day of the assassination, but that neither could “positively identify” it. [Figs. 2, 3]


Figure 2. C.E. 2011. Chain of possession of #399 (FBI Letterhead Memo Dallas 7/7/64)


Positive identification” of a piece of evidence by a witness means that the witness is certain that an object later presented in evidence is the same one that was originally found. The most common way to establish positive identification is for a witness to place his initials on a piece of evidence upon first finding it. The presence of such initials is of great help later when investigators try to prove a link through an unbroken chain of possession between the object in evidence and a crime.

Understandably, neither Tomlinson nor Wright inscribed his initials on the stretcher bullet. But that both witnesses told FBI Agent Odum, so soon after the murder, that CE 399 looked like the bullet they had found on a stretcher was compelling reason to suppose that it was indeed the same one.

However, CE #2011 included other information that raised questions about the bullet. As first noted by author Ray Marcus,[7] it also states that on June 24, 1964, FBI agent Todd, who received the bullet from Rowley, the head of the Secret Service, returned with presumably the same bullet to get Secret Service agents Johnsen and Rowley to identify it. #2011 reports that both Johnsen and Rowley advised Todd that they “could not identify this bullet as the one” they saw on the day of the assassination. # 2011 contains no comment about the failure being merely one of not “positively identifying” the shell that, otherwise, “appeared to be the same” bullet they had originally handled. [Figs. 2, 3]

Thus, in #2011 the FBI reported that both Tomlinson and Wright said #399 resembled the Parkland bullet, but that neither of the Secret Service Agents could identify it. FBI Agent Todd originally received the bullet from Rowley on 11/22/63 and it was he who then returned on 6/24/64 with supposedly the same bullet for Rowley and Johnsen to identify. Given the importance of this case, one imagines that by the time Todd returned, they would have had at least a passing acquaintance. Had it truly been the same bullet, one might have expected one or both agents to tell Todd it looked like the same bullet, even if neither could “positively identify” it by an inscribed initial. After all, neither Tomlinson nor Wright had inscribed their initials on the bullet, and yet #2011 says that they said they saw a resemblance.


Figure 3. Last two pages of 7/7/64 FBI memo to Warren Commission, as published in C.E. #2011. Note that FBI states that both Dallas witnesses said #399 looked like the bullet they found on 11/22/63.


And there the conflicted story sat, until one of the current authors published a book in 1967.

Two Different Accounts from One Witness
Six Seconds in Dallas reported on an interview with O.P. Wright in November 1966. Before any photos were shown or he was asked for any description of #399, Wright said: “That bullet had a pointed tip.”

“Pointed tip?” Thompson asked.

“Yeah, I’ll show you. It was like this one here,” he said, reaching into his desk and pulling out the .30 caliber bullet pictured in Six Seconds.”[8]

As Thompson described it in 1967, “I then showed him photographs of CE’s 399, 572 (the two ballistics comparison rounds from Oswald’s rifle) (sic), and 606 (revolver bullets) (sic), and he rejected all of these as resembling the bullet Tomlinson found on the stretcher. Half an hour later in the presence of two witnesses, he once again rejected the picture of 399 as resembling the bullet found on the stretcher.”[9]
[Fig. 4]


Figure 4. In an interview in 1966, Parkland Hospital witness O.P. Wright told author Thompson that the bullet he handled on 11/22/63 did not look like C.E. # 399.


Thus in 1964 the Warren Commission, or rather the FBI, claimed that Wright believed the original bullet resembled #399. In 1967, Wright denied there was a resemblance. Recent FBI releases prompted by the JFK Review Board support author Thompson’s 1967 report.

A declassified 6/20/64 FBI AIRTEL memorandum from the FBI office in Dallas (“SAC, Dallas” – i.e., Special Agent in Charge, Gordon Shanklin) to J. Edgar Hoover contains the statement, “For information WFO (FBI Washington Field Office), neither DARRELL C. TOMLINSON [sic], who found bullet at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, nor O. P. WRIGHT, Personnel Officer, Parkland Hospital, who obtained bullet from TOMLINSON and gave to Special Service, at Dallas 11/22/63, can identify bullet … .” [Fig. 5 - Page 1, Page 2]

Whereas the FBI had claimed in CE #2011 that Tomlinson and Wright had told Agent Odum on June 12, 1964 that CE #399 “appears to be the same” bullet they found on the day of the assassination, nowhere in this previously classified memo, which was written before CE #2011, is there any corroboration that either of the Parkland employees saw a resemblance. Nor is FBI agent Odum’s name mentioned anywhere in the once-secret file, whether in connection with #399, or with Tomlinson or with Wright.


Figure 5. Declassified FBI memo reporting neither Tomlinson nor Wright could identify “C1” [#399] as the bullet they handled on 11/22/63.
[Page 1, Page 2]


A declassified record, however, offers some corroboration for what CE 2011 reported about Secret Service Agents Johnsen and Rowley. A memo from the FBI’s Dallas field office dated 6/24/64 reported that, “ON JUNE TWENTYFOUR INSTANT RICHARD E. JOHNSEN, AND JAMES ROWLEY, CHIEF … ADVISED SA ELMER LEE TODD, WFO, THAT THEY WERE UNABLE TO INDENTIFY RIFLE BULLET C ONE (# 399, which, before the Warren Commission had logged in as #399, was called “C ONE”), BY INSPECTION (capitals in original). [Fig. 6]

Convinced that we had overlooked some relevant files, we cast about for additional corroboration of what was in CE # 2011. There should, for example, have been some original “302s ” – the raw FBI field reports from the Agent Odum’s interviews with Tomlinson and Wright on June 12, 1964. There should also have been one from Agent Todd’s interviews with Secret Service Agents Johnsen and Rowley on June 24, 1964. Perhaps somewhere in those, we thought, we would find Agent Odum reporting that Wright had detected a resemblance between the bullets. And perhaps we’d also find out whether Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen or Rowley had supplied the Bureau with any additional descriptive details about the bullet.


Figure 6. Suppressed 1964 FBI report detailing that neither of the Secret Service agents who handled “#399” on 11/22/63 could later identify it.


In early 1998, we asked a research associate, Ms. Cathy Cunningham, to scour the National Archives for any additional files that might shed light on this story. She looked but found none. We contacted the JFK Review Board’s T. Jeremy Gunn for help. [Fig. 7] On May 18, 1998, the Review Board’s Eileen Sullivan, writing on Gunn’s behalf, answered, saying: “[W]e have attempted, unsuccessfully, to find any additional records that would account for the problem you suggest.”[10] [Fig. 8] Undaunted, one of us wrote the FBI directly, and was referred to the National Archives, and so then wrote Mr. Steve Tilley at the National Archives. [Fig. 9]

On Mr. Tilley’s behalf, Mr. Stuart Culy, an archivist at the National Archives, made a search. On July 16, 1999, Mr. Culy wrote that he searched for the FBI records within the HSCA files as well as in the FBI records, all without success. He was able to determine, however, that the serial numbers on the FBI documents ran “concurrently, with no gaps, which indicated that no material is missing from these files.”[11] [Fig. 10] In other words, the earliest and apparently the only FBI report said nothing about either Tomlinson or Wright seeing a similarity between the bullet found at the hospital and the bullet later in evidence, CE #399. Nor did agent Bardwell Odum’s name show up in any of the files.

[watermock]

And other files are still sealed for a reason we can basically assume.

Stop talking out of your ass...there was more than one shooter. All you have to do is see his brains splatter out of the back of his head to know the shot came from in front.

When you shoot a mammal. the blood slpatter is not at the entry point, it's at the exit point. For some spin doctors attempt to pull that off then putty his head is amusing to say the least.

If you shoot a deer in the head, the splatter is at the exit wound. Plain, simple, and totally logical...yet the magical bullet entered from behind bounced around like a crazy frog, hit connally...It's totally absurd.

[Mile High Shack]

case in point...........

[Bronco_Beerslug]

For all you that believe that the towers didn't implode on themselves from the crashes.... forget it.

I've worked industrial construction over 25 years (building power plants and worked on skyscrapers as an Ironhead).
The towers were constructed with columns both externally and internally. When the planes hit they initially took out some of both of the columns which transferred all the weight above to the remaining columns. The remaining columns have now become overburdened because of the added weight.

The fire from the crashes are hot (over 1000 degrees in places) and are being fed by all the combustibles (carpet, furniture, fixtures, etc...) so the heat is remaining constant or even increasing in places. The columns are constructed (like all steel columns) of mild steel, not stainless or some exotic steel.

Mild steel melts at 1550 degrees. Though the fires were not hot enough to actually melt the columns they were hot enough to compromise the integrity of the remaining undamaged columns. Mild steel softens at 400 degrees and losses half it's strength at 650 degrees.

Since the fires from the crashes were not burning at the same temp throughout the impact sites some of the remaining, overburdened columns were compromised more than others which eventually led to them failing and the towers imploding on themselves.

Mathematics and physics prove the towers collapse not some Internet movie.!!!

[Rascal]

i keep getting an error message that the files riff header is corrupt.

[Rascal]

For all you that believe that the towers didn't implode on themselves from the crashes.... forget it.

I've worked industrial construction over 25 years (building power plants and worked on skyscrapers as an Ironhead).
The towers were constructed with columns both externally and internally. When the planes hit they initially took out some of both of the columns which transferred all the weight above to the remaining columns. The remaining columns have now become overburdened because of the added weight.

The fire from the crashes are hot (over 1000 degrees in places) and are being fed by all the combustibles (carpet, furniture, fixtures, etc...) so the heat is remaining constant or even increasing in places. The columns are constructed (like all steel columns) of mild steel, not stainless or some exotic steel.

Mild steel melts at 1550 degrees. Though the fires were not hot enough to actually melt the columns they were hot enough to compromise the integrity of the remaining undamaged columns. Mild steel softens at 400 degrees and losses half it's strength at 650 degrees.

Since the fires from the crashes were not burning at the same temp throughout the impact sites some of the remaining, overburdened columns were compromised more than others which eventually led to them failing and the towers imploding on themselves.

Mathematics and physics prove the towers collapse not some Internet movie.!!!

Quotted for truth.

I'm a mechanical engineer and after this happened 10 of us in my office studied the collapse and came to the same conclusion.

[watermock]

Most amusing is we saw two planes fly right into each tower, but we shot a missle into the Pentagon.

Go riot in Denmark your morons.

[Rascal]

I understand the doubt about the Pentagon thing but I have no doubt whatsoever about the towers.

[watermock]

Also, the fire restrictant wans't as good as asbestos.

I'm done beating down that moron.

They always talk about some meltdown point like there wasn't structual failure.

[Spider]

I watched the video a while back , it does bring up some interesting questions , but I buy BB 's explanation of the towers , and Rascal told me one time about egg cartons , made sence , so I dropped the tower collaspe theory long time ago ......Still alot of unanswered questions for me about this though , I still get pisssed @ Kinda sleezy Rices responce to the Aug 6th memo , but everyone knows how I feel about Bush and his admin , so no need to go there ............

[watermock]

The account of the fate of Flight 77 has been the most questioned by skeptics of the official story. The official investigation ended on November 16, 2001, declaring that 184 of 189 of those killed in the Pentagon attack had been identified. 2

oh jesus

[Spider]

You know whats funny though is I am watching this video , and posting here sitting right next to Neighbors Drilling rig #204 10 miles south east of wamsutter wyoming with a load of drilling pipe ....... Man this isnt your grandads world ;D

[watermock]

This is idiotic...do you hear hundreds of people wondering where their loved ones are? Flight 77 was hijacked by demons from Al Queda and it flew into the Pentagon. Bodies were recovered and it was at the same time that the twin towers were hit...

WTF is wrong with people that can't see the truth in front of them?

It's laughable...oh Lord...recovering the bodies isn't enough, or seening them fly into the twin towers...

"They sent a Missle into the Pentagon"....

[watermock]

You know whats funny though is I am watching this video , and posting here sitting right next to Neighbors Drilling rig #204 10 miles south east of wamsutter wyoming with a load of drilling pipe ....... Man this isnt your grandads world ;D

Well drill a well...there is some oil in Wyoming. hell, put in a diagonal well and steal his oil.

[Kaylore]

Quotted for truth.

I'm a mechanical engineer and after this happened 10 of us in my office studied the collapse and came to the same conclusion.
But, but, but some post modernist, hemp wearing, jobless, move-on nazis made a video so you're wrong!

[Spider]

But, but, but some post modernist, hemp wearing, jobless, move-on nazis made a video so you're wrong!
What does that make me since I agree with alot of the points of this video ?
can I get a Hemp dress in a 2xxl ?

[Taco John]

The video footage starting at 51 minutes and 45 seconds is some of the most compelling evidence I've seen of this being a planned demolition.

[Taco John]

But, but, but some post modernist, hemp wearing, jobless, move-on nazis made a video so you're wrong!



I guess since we're making character judgements out of people examining the evidence, someone needs to pass me an application for MoveOn.org.

There is a lot of compelling EVIDENCE presented in tis video that is hard to just shrug off, unless of course shrugging it off is convenient for my political view point.

Someone please explain away the video footage starting at 51 minutes and 45 seconds.

[Play2win]

I guess since we're making character judgements out of people examining the evidence, someone needs to pass me an application for MoveOn.org.

There is a lot of compelling EVIDENCE presented in tis video that is hard to just shrug off, unless of course shrugging it off is convenient for my political view point.

Someone please explain away the video footage starting at 51 minutes and 45 seconds.
Or, if its true, molten STEEL weeks later...

That just isn't right...

But when you are dealing with science, you just don't know what can really HAPPEN, there are alot of thing we would think completely impossible, that can actually happen and are quite possible. Highly unlikely, but possible...

[Rascal]

The video footage starting at 51 minutes and 45 seconds is some of the most compelling evidence I've seen of this being a planned demolition.

Explain it as I cant get the video to download.

And TJ, you should know yourself not to trust stuff like this. With today's programs even the most inexperienced editor can make some amazing things with videos.

[Taco John]

Whatever you want to believe about this video, tell me these are the same people:

Ill tell you what I have comsidered though...

This has always bothered me...

Clearly these are two different men:
http://www.robert-fisk.com/jazbinladen.jpghttp://www.robert-fisk.com/tapebinladen.jpg

Here is the Osama that addressed the American people to give Bush a bump close to election time, juxtaposed with the real Osama:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/fake-to-real.gif


These fake Osamas have bothered me for a long time...

[Taco John]

With today's programs even the most inexperienced editor can make some amazing things with videos.


That's what I'm so afraid of (see Bin Ladin Videos released at convenient times)

[Taco John]

Explain it as I cant get the video to download.



I can't explain it. You have to watch it. That's the video that finally tipped me over the edge. I don't believe it's doctored video. I believe it's the real thing.

[Mile High Shack]

TJ

they have said the same thing about the OKC bombing, that the government blew up the building to give Clinton a push in his popularity

no matter what happens, you'll have crazies on the net proclaiming that the gov. did it and you'll have people like you, who want to believe so bad, that all it takes is a cleverly edited video to convince you

[Taco John]

TJ

they have said the same thing about the OKC bombing, that the government blew up the building to give Clinton a push in his popularity

no matter what happens, you'll have crazies on the net proclaiming that the gov. did it and you'll have people like you, who want to believe so bad, that all it takes is a cleverly edited video to convince you



You think I *WANT* to believe that our government is behind this?

You're sadly mistaken. I go where the evidence takes me.

I clearly see two different Osamas. One real, one fake. So right there, I already know that there is cleverly edited video in play.

Now I've seen the most compelling video concerning demolition charges in the WTC.

BUT! I'll say this. One video would clear this all up for me. The Sheraton video at the Pentagon. Unfortunately, the Government will not allow you or I to examine this video.

[Mile High Shack]

well I know is

my dad still thinks the government blew up the Murrah building in OKC b/c he hates Clinton so much

you believe what you want to believe I say

[Taco John]

you believe what you want to believe I say


I think you're right, which is why some people will always refuse to consider the evidence regardless of how compelling of clear it is .

I'll keep an open mind. I slept on it a bit, and want to watch that video from 50 minutes to about 55 minutes and see if I still feel the same way about it as I did when I first watched it. Unfortunately, the Google Video service is currently down.

[Old Dude]

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that the government was responsible for the jet airliners crashing into the twin towers.

Drones, kamikaze CIA agents. Whatever. Take your pick.

And that all this was done to start a war or enrage citizens against Muslims, or get Bush re-elected, or whatever...

Why would the government planners of this thing bother planting demolitions in the buildings?

The sheer force of the impact would kill all the passengers on the planes and wipe out a few stories of each building. Hundreds of people must have died instantly.

And you had dozens of people jumping out of windows to their deaths because they were trapped by the fires, well before the buildings collapsed. Presumably, others burned in the fires.

You would also have had millions of dollars in damages to the structures, not to mention the financial hit the airline industry took, etc., etc.

Wouldn't that pretty will piiss off most Americans without ever having to set additional explosions to collapse the remainder of the buildings. Assuming that was your point as a conspirator in the first place?

[Taco John]

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that the government was responsible for the jet airliners crashing into the twin towers.

Drones, kamikaze CIA agents. Whatever. Take your pick.

And that all this was done to start a war or enrage citizens against Muslims, or get Bush re-elected, or whatever...

Why would the government planners of this thing bother planting demolitions in the buildings?

The sheer force of the impact would kill all the passengers on the planes and wipe out a few stories of each building. Hundreds of people must have died instantly.

And you had dozens of people jumping out of windows to their deaths because they were trapped by the fires, well before the buildings collapsed. Presumably, others burned in the fires.

You would also have had millions of dollars in damages to the structures, not to mention the financial hit the airline industry took, etc., etc.

Wouldn't that pretty will piiss off most Americans without ever having to set additional explosions to collapse the remainder of the buildings. Assuming that was your point as a conspirator in the first place?



It's a good question. The video seems to believe that the gold had something to do with it (not to mention the oil) ... but that just leads to more questions.

Another good question is why the SEC hasn't bothered to investigate all of the money that was made off of buying and selling stocks prior to 911...

[freak6]

All I know is the President was warned in the August 6th PDB :

"Nevertheless, Al Qaeda continues to plot attacks against the United States and is currently making preparations for hijacking planes, and is casing out federal buildings in New York"

Bush's response to what he did after being warned Al Qaeda was preparing to hijack planes in our country:

"I wasn't on point, I didn't feel a sense of urgency"

"There are some things I wish we'd have done"

Those are the facts, and anyone that voted for him deserves what they get, to bad us Marines are dieing for your idiotic vote, and that of the corrupt bastards in the "Supreme" Court.

[yavoon]

For all you that believe that the towers didn't implode on themselves from the crashes.... forget it.

I've worked industrial construction over 25 years (building power plants and worked on skyscrapers as an Ironhead).
The towers were constructed with columns both externally and internally. When the planes hit they initially took out some of both of the columns which transferred all the weight above to the remaining columns. The remaining columns have now become overburdened because of the added weight.

The fire from the crashes are hot (over 1000 degrees in places) and are being fed by all the combustibles (carpet, furniture, fixtures, etc...) so the heat is remaining constant or even increasing in places. The columns are constructed (like all steel columns) of mild steel, not stainless or some exotic steel.

Mild steel melts at 1550 degrees. Though the fires were not hot enough to actually melt the columns they were hot enough to compromise the integrity of the remaining undamaged columns. Mild steel softens at 400 degrees and losses half it's strength at 650 degrees.

Since the fires from the crashes were not burning at the same temp throughout the impact sites some of the remaining, overburdened columns were compromised more than others which eventually led to them failing and the towers imploding on themselves.

Mathematics and physics prove the towers collapse not some Internet movie.!!!

why dont ppl atleast watch the videos, the steel wasn't made to melt until 3000+ degrees.

[yavoon]

Quotted for truth.

I'm a mechanical engineer and after this happened 10 of us in my office studied the collapse and came to the same conclusion.

why are they the only 3 buildings ever to collapse like that including buildings that have also been hit by planes?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

why dont ppl atleast watch the videos, the steel wasn't made to melt until 3000+ degrees.
Complete BS! Anyone who believes structural column steel is alloyed to withstand 3000 degree temps is a lunatic.

ALL structural column steel is mild steel.

[yavoon]

Explain it as I cant get the video to download.

And TJ, you should know yourself not to trust stuff like this. With today's programs even the most inexperienced editor can make some amazing things with videos.

yah imagine what the gov't can do...

[yavoon]

TJ

they have said the same thing about the OKC bombing, that the government blew up the building to give Clinton a push in his popularity

no matter what happens, you'll have crazies on the net proclaiming that the gov. did it and you'll have people like you, who want to believe so bad, that all it takes is a cleverly edited video to convince you

I think ur faith in the gov't as the arbitrator of truth is unfounded. the gov'ts role in hiding and obscuring the truth over the past 100 years is nothing short of astonishing.

[yavoon]

Complete BS! Anyone who believes structural column steel is alloyed to withstand 3000 degree temps is a lunatic.

ALL structural column steel is mild steel.

watch video

[Bronco_Beerslug]

watch video
Why? If it says the mild steel columns have a melting point of 3000 degrees it renders the complete video worthless.

[Play2win]

Bush's response...

"There are some things I wish we'd have done"



Yeah, like, pull ALL his STOCK out of AMERICAN AIRLINES...

[yavoon]

Why? If it says the mild steel columns have a melting point of 3000 degrees it renders the complete video worthless.


really 4 seconds of google sez this:

The melting point of mild steel is 1515 ° C.

and they have a very specific name for the steel as well as more evidence, u should watch. I think u r unaware of the fact that they aren't making things up.

[Old Dude]

really 4 seconds of google sez this:

The melting point of mild steel is 1515 ° C.

and they have a very specific name for the steel as well as more evidence, u should watch. I think u r unaware of the fact that they aren't making things up.

I'm not an engineer, but my understanding is that the structural strength of most materials, including steel, can be vastly reduced by heat long before it reaches the "melting" point.

[Taco John]

I'm not an engineer, but my understanding is that the structural strength of most materials, including steel, can be vastly reduced by heat long before it reaches the "melting" point.



This is true...

[yavoon]

I'm not an engineer, but my understanding is that the structural strength of most materials, including steel, can be vastly reduced by heat long before it reaches the "melting" point.

yes but u realize the three buildings collapsed that day are the only buildings ever to go into near free fall as a result of either a fire or an airplane impact.

watch video, it'll make this all a lot easier

[Bronco_Beerslug]

really 4 seconds of google sez this:

The melting point of mild steel is 1515 ° C.

and they have a very specific name for the steel as well as more evidence, u should watch. I think u r unaware of the fact that they aren't making things up.

If you would have read my first post I stated I've been in industrial construction for over 25 years. My apprenticeship involved 4 years of classroom work which consisted of metallurgy, welding and cutting all iron and steels used in industrial construction, rigging, blueprint reading and mathematics.

Once again, the industrial structural steel columns used in the towers and all other skyscrapers, power plants, etc... (structures that must support huge amounts of weight) are mild steel!!!!!!!!

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I'm not an engineer, but my understanding is that the structural strength of most materials, including steel, can be vastly reduced by heat long before it reaches the "melting" point.
As I said, mild steel softens at 400 degrees and loses HALF of it's strength at 650 degrees.

[yavoon]

If you would have read my first post I stated I've been in industrial construction for over 25 years. My apprenticeship involved 4 years of classroom work which consisted of metallurgy, welding and cutting all iron and steels used in industrial construction, rigging, blueprint reading and mathematics.

Once again, the industrial structural steel columns used in the towers and all other skyscrapers, power plants, etc... (structures that must support huge amounts of weight) are mild steel!!!!!!!!

and mild steel melts at 1515 degrees celsius. which is pretty close to 3k farenheit. its also worthy of note that the official explanation does not have the steel melting at all but only weakaning so again if u think it melts so early why does even the gov't think ppl wont believe that?

[yavoon]

As I said, mild steel softens at 400 degrees and loses HALF of it's strength at 650 degrees.

u said no such thing, watch video.

also u realize, again, that the world trade center comprises the only two buildings in history to enter a state of near free fall as the result of a fire. and there have been many more severe fires.

[Play2win]

If you would have read my first post I stated I've been in industrial construction for over 25 years. My apprenticeship involved 4 years of classroom work which consisted of metallurgy, welding and cutting all iron and steels used in industrial construction, rigging, blueprint reading and mathematics.

Once again, the industrial structural steel columns used in the towers and all other skyscrapers, power plants, etc... (structures that must support huge amounts of weight) are mild steel!!!!!!!!
So could the Airplanes and all that jet fuel alone, be responsible for molten steel weeks after the fact?

[Old Dude]

yes but u realize the three buildings collapsed that day are the only buildings ever to go into near free fall as a result of either a fire or an airplane impact.

watch video, it'll make this all a lot easier

I will watch.

But I'm not aware of too many 100+ story buildings (over 1300 ft. high) that have been hit by jumbo jets with full fuel tanks in prep for a transcontinental flight.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

u said no such thing, watch video.

also u realize, again, that the world trade center comprises the only two buildings in history to enter a state of near free fall as the result of a fire. and there have been many more severe fires.

I sure the hell did say "such thing".

So could the Airplanes and all that jet fuel alone, be responsible for molten steel weeks after the fact?
There wasn't any molten steel. The steel columns fatigued because they were overburdened and compromised.

In fact, the only molten steel would be from the Ironheads using oxygen lances to cut apart the columns on the ground looking for survivors.

[yavoon]

I will watch.

But I'm not aware of too many 100+ story buildings (over 1300 ft. high) that have been hit by jumbo jets with full fuel tanks in prep for a transcontinental flight.

not sure the amt of fuel was that important as all the jet fuel would be burned off very quickly in large fireballs, its accomplishment being starting lots of other fires? also a b-52 has hit a building before.

[Play2win]

I will watch.

But I'm not aware of too many 100+ story buildings (over 1300 ft. high) that have been hit by jumbo jets with full fuel tanks in prep for a transcontinental flight.
MYTH BUSTERS to the rescue... ;D

[TheDave]

http://911review.com/pm/markup/

this link gives the points and counter points in regard to a Popular Mechanics article that debunked alot of these 911 conspiracies. below is the excerpt that deals with the structure of the building.


FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800º to 1500ºF, not hot enough to melt steel (2750ºF). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100ºF," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800º it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832ºF.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

[yavoon]

http://911review.com/pm/markup/

this link gives the points and counter points in regard to a Popular Mechanics article that debunked alot of these 911 conspiracies. below is the excerpt that deals with the structure of the building.


FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800º to 1500ºF, not hot enough to melt steel (2750ºF). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100ºF," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800º it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832ºF.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

wasn't much eventually to it, the entire building was on the ground in 10 seconds. which just to be a broken record is the only time that a building has ever collapsed much less enter a state of near free fall due to a fire.

watch video, the firefighters there thought they could put the fire out, doesn't sound like the sort of thing that would lead to this.

[Play2win]

http://911review.com/pm/markup/

this link gives the points and counter points in regard to a Popular Mechanics article that debunked alot of these 911 conspiracies. below is the excerpt that deals with the structure of the building.


FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800º to 1500ºF, not hot enough to melt steel (2750ºF). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100ºF," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800º it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832ºF.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
My Question is: OK, I can see how the integrity of the steel could be greatly compromised near and not so near the point of impact and ignition, but how are the temperatures going to sustain at that level, all the way to the ground. HOW IS THAT GOING TO CAUSE THE TOWERS TO FALL ALL THE WAY TO THE GROUND ?!?

[TheDave]

and after watching the video read the article...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

[Bronco_Beerslug]

wasn't much eventually to it, the entire building was on the ground in 10 seconds. which just to be a broken record is the only time that a building has ever collapsed much less enter a state of near free fall due to a fire.

watch video, the firefighters there thought they could put the fire out, doesn't sound like the sort of thing that would lead to this.

It was on the ground in seconds because it imploded from the structural steel supports giving way. And I misread your post about 3000 degrees melting point ( I thought you were saying 3000C).

[epicSocialism4tw]

I sure the hell did say "such thing".


There wasn't any molten steel. The steel columns fatigued because they were overburdened and compromised.

In fact, the only molten steel would be from the Ironheads using oxygen lances to cut apart the columns on the ground looking for survivors.

As the only guy who remotely knows what he's talking about on this thread, I'll defer to your experience. I said something vague that was along these lines earlier in the thread, but your knowledge should end that part of the discussion here. Case closed. Steel doesnt have to melt to have it's conformation and physical properties altered enough to cause a redistribution of weight on columns in the building. With the plane hitting the corner, it potentially causes more weight distribution by hitting a vulnerable area. The damage continues inward instead of spreading across the face of the building.

Great post, Slug.

[epicSocialism4tw]

My Question is: OK, I can see how the integrity of the steel could be greatly compromised near and not so near the point of impact and ignition, but how are the temperatures going to sustain at that level, all the way to the ground. HOW IS THAT GOING TO CAUSE THE TOWERS TO FALL ALL THE WAY TO THE GROUND ?!?

Simple. Mass x Force > resistance.

[Play2win]

Great post, Slug.
I can count the number of times you've said that on one hand, especially in the War&Politics forum LOL Hilarious!

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Gravity is in the equation for sure :)
The buildings are 90% air so that's why they fell "on themselves" and not over.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I can count the number of times you've said that on one hand, especially in the War&Politics forum LOL Hilarious!

Yeah...we dont agree on alot of things, but I love to see someone who is educated on the topic come in and set the record straight. People get so wrapped up in ideas that they take their rational feet off of the ground chasing fairies.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Gravity is in the equation for sure :)
The buildings are 90% air so that's why they fell "on themselves" and not over.

Arent they also constructed to naturally fall in on themselves to prevent colateral damage?

[yavoon]

Gravity is in the equation for sure :)
The buildings are 90% air so that's why they fell "on themselves" and not over.

I dont know, I disliked my structures class but considering the factors of safety built into these things. and the fact that the fire was by no means epic, and that the building was meant to withstand both large fires and airplane impacts, and that the rest of the building that snapped like a twig was in perfect working condition.

seems strange to me that the 55th floor that lived its whole life w/ exactly the same weight on top of it that as soon as drop the weight 10 feet and remove some of the structure u get instantaneous catastrophic collapse.

[Old Dude]

I'm not really freaked by the speed of the collapse once floors started to fall. The dynamics of that pancake-style collapse would probably have resulted in greater and greater amounts of force as each story gave way... just because you have more weight and momentum on top adding onto the impact. In fact, once you have 10 or 12 stories give way I don't see how anything would stop it.

[Play2win]

I've gotten about 40 minutes into that movie, and there are several disjointed conclusions drawn from a questionable premise. I think that it's rather like the rorschach. You take those bits of information and you see what you want to. They arent presenting a very good case for their conspiracy. It's pretty poorly done.
There are things that don't add up from both sides of this argument. The fact is we are dealing with two unknowns: (1) All the secrecy and impedement of info/facts (2) Science.

To make up for this, lots of people are conjecturing and being creative with their ideas and theories...

Its like you're in court, and there is all this inconclusive, only slightly connecting evidence, and the Prosecution is saying there is too much evidence NOT to IGNOR, and the Defense is saying all the Evidence in world still can't prove my client GUILTY...

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Arent they also constructed to naturally fall in on themselves to prevent colateral damage?

The construction of almost all skyscrapers almost (naturally) assures a vertical collapse instead of a lateral one.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I'm not really freaked by the speed of the collapse once floors started to fall. The dynamics of that pancake-style collapse would probably have resulted in greater and greater amounts of force as each story gave way... just because you have more weight and momentum on top adding onto the impact. In fact, once you have 10 or 12 stories give way I don't see how anything would stop it.

The force was so great that it turned much of the building into dust.

[yavoon]

I'm not really freaked by the speed of the collapse once floors started to fall. The dynamics of that pancake-style collapse would probably have resulted in greater and greater amounts of force as each story gave way... just because you have more weight and momentum on top adding onto the impact. In fact, once you have 10 or 12 stories give way I don't see how anything would stop it.

it is true that the least likely thing for it to do would be to start free fall. but that does not mean that the subsequent things are LIKELY, just that they are more likely than the first.

[Play2win]

Yeah...we dont agree on alot of things, but I love to see someone who is educated on the topic come in and set the record straight. People get so wrapped up in ideas that they take their rational feet off of the ground chasing fairies.
No, I agree. I was taking great stead in his words and my questions were that, questions...

[Play2win]

Yeah...we dont agree on alot of things, but I love to see someone who is educated on the topic come in and set the record straight. People get so wrapped up in ideas that they take their rational feet off of the ground chasing fairies.

Yeah, like the Bush-Ba...

Oh, nevermind...

GO BRONCOS !!!!!!!!!!!

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I dont know, I disliked my structures class but considering the factors of safety built into these things. and the fact that the fire was by no means epic, and that the building was meant to withstand both large fires and airplane impacts, and that the rest of the building that snapped like a twig was in perfect working condition.

seems strange to me that the 55th floor that lived its whole life w/ exactly the same weight on top of it that as soon as drop the weight 10 feet and remove some of the structure u get instantaneous catastrophic collapse.

99% of these modern constructed buildings have tremendous redundancy built in, allowing for certain foreseeable structure failures.

At the time of these buildings were being designed, no one gave any thought to losing a large percentage of both external and internal support at the same time with a huge, hot fire over several floors compromising the the vast majority of the remaining supports.

[yavoon]

99% of these modern constructed buildings have tremendous redundancy built in. Allowing for certain foreseeable structure failures.

At the time of these buildings were being designed, no one gave any thought to losing a large percentage of both external and internal support at the same time with a huge, hot fire over several floors compromising the the vast majority of the remaining supports.

the fire wasn't huge, atleast not in comparison to fires that large buildings have suffered before. are u just not gna watch the video? honestly large building fires aren't that uncommon, it was built to withstand fire many times larger than 2 floors, not to mention designed to handle an airplane impact.

watch video.

[freak6]

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C116766%2C00.html

"I wasn't on point, I didn't feel a sense of urgency. There are some things I wish we'd have done". The Commander in Chief.

Outfkinstanding!!!

Someone explain to me how you could vote for this ______ after he admitted this?

[epicSocialism4tw]

the fire wasn't huge, atleast not in comparison to fires that large buildings have suffered before. are u just not gna watch the video? honestly large building fires aren't that uncommon, it was built to withstand fire many times larger than 2 floors, not to mention designed to handle an airplane impact.

watch video.

You keep pointing to the video, but this guy Slug is experienced in the field. He's not throwing abstractions around. Listen.

[freak6]

Furthermore, I dare you to watch this video.

http://www.thememoryhole.com/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv

[yavoon]

You keep pointing to the video, but this guy Slug is experienced in the field. He's not throwing abstractions around. Listen.

the video has direct quotes from the ppl who supplied the steel saying that it was meant to withstand temperatures up to 2000 degrees for several hours w/o failing.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

the fire wasn't huge, atleast not in comparison to fires that large buildings have suffered before. are u just not gna watch the video? honestly large building fires aren't that uncommon, it was built to withstand fire many times larger than 2 floors, not to mention designed to handle an airplane impact.

watch video.

Large buildings are generally constructed to withstand a large fire for 3 hrs. But these buildings were critically damaged by the impacts.

The south tower gave way first, even though it was hit last, because of the greater amount of mass above the impact area.

[Rascal]

IMO when the plane hit the force knocked off the fire protectant, which was sprayed on and thus not able to withstand it, and the fuel from the plane (which was completely fueled remember) combined with the building materials (obviously not the structure materials but carpet, and such) it raised the temperature such that one end of the garder was experiencing extreme temperatures while the other was not (due to the wind). This caused disproportional expansion across the support structure and increased the stress level. Already being weakened by the plane (I think some conservative estimates state that the towers lost between 30-40% of their strength), the structure only needed one part to fail before the entire tower came down.

The WTC's had two main points of strength. The inner core and the shell. I'm sure you know the difference between their design and the typical egg crate design of other skyscrapers. The shell was severely comprised by the plane and some of the inner core as well (hence the reason why some of the stairwells were blocked in one and all completely blocked in another). Thus the normal forces weren't able to balance out because there was nothing on the other side after the plane hit. And the steel didn't break. The floor joists (beam or whatever you want to call them) did not break. They expanded and weakened. As they were heated they bent in the middle and sagged. By doing so they pulled on the connection points to the shell and inner core and eventually failed. When enough failed on one floor it fell to the other floor, and since the floors were not designed to support the additional weight (unlike the egg crate design) it brought the entire structure down.

[yavoon]

Large buildings are generally constructed to withstand a large fire for 3 hrs. But these buildings were critically damaged by the impacts.

The south tower gave way first, even though it was hit last, because of the greater amount of mass above the impact area.

I'm not going to keep quoting the video, so until u watch it(really its a thread concerning the video not watching it is inane). do homework first.

[yavoon]

IMO when the plane hit the force knocked off the fire protectant, which was sprayed on and thus not able to withstand it, and the fuel from the plane (which was completely fueled remember) combined with the building materials (obviously not the structure materials but carpet, and such) it raised the temperature such that one end of the garder was experiencing extreme temperatures while the other was not (due to the wind). This caused disproportional expansion across the support structure and increased the stress level. Already being weakened by the plane (I think some conservative estimates state that the towers lost between 30-40% of their strength), the structure only needed one part to fail before the entire tower came down.

The WTC's had two main points of strength. The inner core and the shell. I'm sure you know the difference between their design and the typical egg crate design of other skyscrapers. The shell was severely comprised by the plane and some of the inner core as well (hence the reason why some of the stairwells were blocked in one and all completely blocked in another). Thus the normal forces weren't able to balance out because there was nothing on the other side after the plane hit. And the steel didn't break. The floor joists (beam or whatever you want to call them) did not break. They expanded and weakened. As they were heated they bent in the middle and sagged. By doing so they pulled on the connection points to the shell and inner core and eventually failed. When enough failed on one floor it fell to the other floor, and since the floors were not designed to support the additional weight (unlike the egg crate design) it brought the entire structure down.

that would be a pretty big insult to the ppl who designed it to withstand large fires, airplane impacts, hurricane force winds and a 107 year storm(why?!). there are many explanations but I must confess I'm not impressed w/ any of them thus far.

also just to change topic and not let the thread degrade what about the other buildings that collapsed that day...

[Rascal]

What is a big insult?

Regarding the other buildings, the owner of the W-7 admitted in a PBS broadcast that he ordered the building to be demolished after the towers fell that very day.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I'm not going to keep quoting the video, so until u watch it(really its a thread concerning the video not watching it is inane). do homework first.

I have no doubt that a video was put together in some fascinating fashion that would tweak the interest of some people. I'm not going to spend an hour watching it though.

Watching 9-11 actually happen on TV that morning will forever be ingrained in my memory and I knew instantly, as it happened, exactly why those towers fell to the ground.

Talking later that day, with my brother Boilermakers around the country, they did too.

[yavoon]

I have no doubt that a video was put together in some fascinating fashion that would tweak the interest of some people. I'm not going to spend an hour watching it though.

Watching 9-11 actually happen on TV that morning will forever be ingrained in my memory and I knew instantly, as it happened, exactly why those towers fell to the ground.

Talking later that day, with my brother Boilermakers around the country, they did too.

the video does not make things up, it uses real quotes and video and audio. not watching it is doing ur intelligence a disservice and really u should just leave the thread if ur unwilling to watch the video the entire threadis about.

[yavoon]

What is a big insult?

Regarding the other buildings, the owner of the W-7 admitted in a PBS broadcast that he ordered the building to be demolished after the towers fell that very day.

watch video first, its too hard and its pointless if u haven't.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

the video does not make things up, it uses real quotes and video and audio. not watching it is doing ur intelligence a disservice and really u should just leave the thread if ur unwilling to watch the video the entire threadis about.

I have watched dozens of "videos", including TV shows, over the last 4 years on why, what and the result of those scumbags attacking us.

I probably rained on your conspiracy theory so I understand you wanting me to go away.

[epicSocialism4tw]

watch video first, its too hard and its pointless if u haven't.

Did you produce the video or have vested interest in the link? I sense a conspiracy here.

[yavoon]

I have watched dozens of "videos", including TV shows, over the last 4 years on why, what and the result of those scumbags attacking us.

I probably rained on your conspiracy theory so I understand you wanting me to go away.

no I want u back after u've watched the video. if ur unwilling to watch the subject of the thread why stay in the thread?

[yavoon]

Did you produce the video or have vested interest in the link? I sense a conspiracy here.

no, its just the subject of the thread. watch video, discuss video. not dont watch video and yell at ppl who have.

[Rascal]

watch video first, its too hard and its pointless if u haven't.

I can't watch the video like I already said.

I put in countless hours studying the collapse of the towers, so I'm not going to learn anything from some conspiracy theorists crack attempts to justify their own paranoidal tendancies.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

no I want u back after u've watched the video. if ur unwilling to watch the subject of the thread why stay in the thread?

Are there some particular points made in it that you believe to be true that aren't acknowledged?

[Rascal]

the video does not make things up, it uses real quotes and video and audio. not watching it is doing ur intelligence a disservice and really u should just leave the thread if ur unwilling to watch the video the entire threadis about.

Video and audio can be edited.

[yavoon]

Video and audio can be edited.

funny u think that about them and I think that about the gov't.

anyway to reiterate for all the nazi's who refuse to watch the video I'm not even saying I agree w/ the video(I have a prior post on this). but it is a good video and deserves watching.

[yavoon]

Are there some particular points made in it that you believe to be true that aren't acknowledged?

just watch video, its long and its hard to get the totality of the picture across to ppl who haven't watched it.

also its about more than the collapse of the towers, which seems to have hijacked this thread.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

funny u think that about them and I think that about the gov't.

anyway to reiterate for all the nazi's who refuse to watch the video I'm not even saying I agree w/ the video(I have a prior post on this). but it is a good video and deserves watching.
You're a nazi if you don't watch?


Here go to this page and go through the flash animation, only takes a minute and this is why the towers fell down after the terrorist sh*tholes flew airliners into them...

http://tinyurl.com/aga2y




http://img283.imageshack.us/img283/1605/to2kr.png



.

[yavoon]

You're a nazi if you don't watch?


Here go to this page and go through the flash animation, only takes a minute and this is why the towers fell down after the terrorist sh*tholes flew airliners into them...

http://tinyurl.com/aga2y




http://img283.imageshack.us/img283/1605/to2kr.png


.

yes, u r.

[Rascal]

idiot

[Natedogg]

I watched the video. I am not big at all on conspiracy theories at all. This one was pretty well put together though. It definatley got me to ponder some points.

Really, it does make sense to watch the video in the thread titiled "awesome video" before trying to defeat the poster in a debate.

The part about the hijackers turning up after 911 really had me scratching my head.

Again, I'm not saying I believe everything (or for that matter, anything) the video said but I am really thinking about it. For starters I'm gonna try and read the 911 commission report to get the other side of the story.

This video relies mostly on primary sources and (at least to me) based mostly on facts; newspaper reports, footage of the attacks, fox news footage after the attacks, and interviews with firefighters in the trade center.

I think its worth watching even if you have absolutly no doubt that 911 was planned and carried out by osoma and his henchmen.... information is good.

thx yavoon

[Bronco_Beerslug]

yes, u r.

I see after viewing the link and flash presentation you now understand I'm right, good for you!

[yavoon]

I see after viewing the link and flash presentation you now understand I'm right, good for you!

no, that u r a nazi. sorry if u did not understand that.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I see after viewing the link and flash presentation you now understand I'm right, good for you!

Hey...that information was compiled by scientists and structural engineers. What a load of garbage. Anyone can get into MIT.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

no, that u r a nazi. sorry if u did not understand that.
No, I understood it, sorry if you didn't understand my factitious reply.

[yavoon]

No, I understood it, sorry if you didn't understand my factitious reply.

ok well u've hijacked the thread long enough:)

[Rascal]

Never thought I'd see the day when Slug and I would argue on the same side of an issue. LOL

[yavoon]

why is it the most active ppl in this thread spewing the most hate are all the ppl who not only haven't watched the video but REFUSE to watch it? god u fags, just watch it or go away. its a perfectly civil thing to do in a thread made around watching and discussing the video.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

ok well u've hijacked the thread long enough:)
That tends to happen (thread going in a different direction when one party calls others a nazis).

But I'll try and watch the video if I get some time later.

[epicSocialism4tw]

why is it the most active ppl in this thread spewing the most hate are all the ppl who not only haven't watched the video but REFUSE to watch it? god u fags, just watch it or go away. its a perfectly civil thing to do in a thread made around watching and discussing the video.

come on, man...

[Rascal]

yeah we are the ones spewing hate.

Calling people idiots is hatred, but calling them nazi's or fags isn't. With logic like that I can see why the video had an effect on you.

[yavoon]

come on, man...

really? I find it a reasonable request. besides there is a lot more in the video worth discussing than the official report on how the tower collapsed. and because none of these ppl have watched the video we can't discuss things like the seismic evidence surrounding that.

[yavoon]

yeah we are the ones spewing hate.

Calling people idiots is hatred, but calling them nazi's or fags isn't. With logic like that I can see why the video had an effect on you.

well it was u guys who barged in here w/o watching it and proceeded to mock ppl who had. IMO that is being an idiot, a nazi and in a loose colloquial way a fag.

sorry.

[TheDave]

yeah we are the ones spewing hate.

Calling people idiots is hatred, but calling them nazi's or fags isn't. With logic like that I can see why the video had an effect on you.

I do enjoy the irony of the guy calling people fags, nazi, and dumba$$ is now calling for civility :thumbsup:

[yavoon]

I do enjoy the irony of the guy calling people fags, nazi, and dumba$$ is now calling for civility :thumbsup:

u r such a useless poster, u try to mock the beginning of the thread even though the thread goes really well until ppl who REFUSE to watch the video start spamming it.

now u come back? why did u even get up this morning?

[TheDave]

u r such a useless poster, u try to mock the beginning of the thread even though the thread goes really well until ppl who REFUSE to watch the video start spamming it.

now u come back? why did u even get up this morning?

and the irony continues...

Yavoon calling someone a useless poster!

[Old Dude]

I been watching it in pieces. So far, I'm about 15 minutes into it and haven't really seen anything interesting.

I had to chuckle about the guy who bought the WTC and then insured it against terrorist attacks. Like that was some sort of giveaway. It had already been bombed once, back in '93.

[yavoon]

I been watching it in pieces. So far, I'm about 15 minutes into it and haven't really seen anything interesting.

I had to chuckle about the guy who bought the WTC and then insured it against terrorist attacks. Like that was some sort of giveaway. It had already been bombed once, back in '93.

going on that the unclaimed money from the stock market or the lack of any SEC investigation into that. surely insuring it against terror was a good idea, good thing he didnt have to hold it long to collect though!(6weeks)

[yavoon]

also in the conclusion to the report it is said that 200 million dollars in gold was recovered from the wtc and it was all in a truck?!? and they claim(among other quantities) that a total of 160 billion dollars worth of gold should have been in the two towers.

just to u know, go on other stuff.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

going on that the unclaimed money from the stock market or the lack of any SEC investigation into that. surely insuring it against terror was a good idea, good thing he didnt have to hold it long to collect though!(6weeks)

You're not claiming there wasn't any SEC investigations after 9-11 are you?

[Broncoman13]

I have watched dozens of "videos", including TV shows, over the last 4 years on why, what and the result of those scumbags attacking us.

I probably rained on your conspiracy theory so I understand you wanting me to go away.


BB, could you watch the video for me? There are more than a couple compelling arguements and judging by your posts on this thread, I'd trust you to give me a truthful account of what I just watched. PM me or something if you watch it... I'd appreciate it, b/c like Taco, I now have a few "new" questions of my own.

[Broncoman13]

Who here has watched the video?

Who here that has watched the video now has more questions? (I do)

I'm not about to sit here and say that this is a government conspiracy, but it does spark my curiousity.

[ozomulsion]

Who here has watched the video?

Who here that has watched the video now has more questions? (I do)

I'm not about to sit here and say that this is a government conspiracy, but it does spark my curiousity.

I have watched it and it more than sparked some interest. The explosions going off below as the towers collapse was peculiar to say the least.

[Old Dude]

Stiil not finished, but I haven't seen anything that really shook me up yet.

[freak6]

What you should really be outraged about, is that Bush did nothing to stop it after being explicitly warned that it was about to occur. That is the most important part, and the most shocking thing to come out of the 911 commision. Furthermore, Condi LIED point blank about the August 6th PDB.

And then, the President and VP were NOT SWORN in during thier PRIVATE testimony. What a fking joke this country is!!! Why wasn't Alberto Gonzales sworn in when he testified about the wiretapping?

Yet noone bats an eye, the media goes on marching about baby killing husbands, while our freedom is torn away from us.

CIA - "Mr. Presdint, Al Qaeda is preparing to hijack planes, and is casing out federeal buildings in New York"

President - 'Um, Ok"

After 911

President - "I wasn't on point, I didn't feel a sense of urgency. There are some things I wish we'd have done"

American public - "Your doing a good enough job, we RE-ELECT you, after the Iraq mess, the economy sucks, poverty has increased every year you've been president, real take home income is plunging, gas prices skyrocketing, lies about wiretapping us, outsourced torture, etc..."

[GonzoLays]

"The 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 could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

Frank DeMartini, World Trade Center Construction and Project Manager

But hey, what the hell does he know?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

"The 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 could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

Frank DeMartini, World Trade Center Construction and Project Manager

But hey, what the hell does he know?
A pencil puncturing a screen door? C'mon!

I have worked with and under project managers that I swear, their wife's must beat them at night with a stupid stick.

What was DeMartini's educational background (since he died in the collapse of the north tower)?
And since he made this statement before 9-11, if he was still alive you think he might want to revise it?

BB, could you watch the video for me? There are more than a couple compelling arguements and judging by your posts on this thread, I'd trust you to give me a truthful account of what I just watched. PM me or something if you watch it... I'd appreciate it, b/c like Taco, I now have a few "new" questions of my own.

I'm going to try and watch it later. Keep in mind I don't have any engineering degrees. I have doubts that this video or any other will cover any new ground but I'll watch it with as much as an unbiased view as possible.

[GonzoLays]

http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/jpg/Plate21.JPG

[GonzoLays]

http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/jpg/Plate22.JPG

[GonzoLays]

http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/jpg/Plate16.JPG

[Bronco_Beerslug]

A little late to the party Gonzo.

[ozomulsion]

A pencil puncturing a screen door? C'mon!

I have worked with and under project managers that I swear, their wife's must beat them at night with a stupid stick.

What was DeMartini's educational background (since he died in the collapse of the north tower)?
And since he made this statement before 9-11, if he was still alive you think he might want to revise it?



I'm going to try and watch it later. Keep in mind I don't have any engineering degrees. I have doubts that this video or any other will cover any new ground but I'll watch it with as much as an unbiased view as possible.
WOW! You know more about the WTC structure than the actual project manager. Kudos to you and without a degree even. That's just awsome! If you met a few dumb project managers then you've met them all. Wonderful reasoning there. ^5

[Rascal]

I do have an engineering degree and I've already posted my comments.

Oh. and I believe they said the Titanic was unsinkable as well. Was that some gov't conspiracy as well? Since the owner died on it, do you think he would want to revise his statement?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

WOW! You know more about the WTC structure than the actual project manager. Kudos to you and without a degree even. That's just awsome! If you met a few dumb project managers then you've met them all. Wonderful reasoning there. ^5

Where did I say all were "dumb"?

BUT, Judging from his "pencil" statement and the actual damage done by the impacts, would you say this man knew what he was talking about?

And I explained why the towers collapsed earlier in this thread. You can choose to believe any conspiracy theories you want to, that's your choice.

[MplsBronco]

Firm believer here in the fact that we DO NOT know what happened on 9/11. What the gov't tells us is not the truth. Why the obfuscation from the gov't? Look, this topic of an inside job is some heavy stuff. But we should all want to know what truly happened that day. Those that believe the gov't should be demanding more truth and openess. Love your country, question your gov't.

The scale of such a coordinated effort by our gov't is the only sticking point for me. Hard to get everyone involved and subsequently keeping them quiet. However, looking at the actions of our gov't since that day with illegal warfare, voter tampering/fraud/theft and now efforts to implement essentially a police state, it further enforces my suspicion. This is a process for them. How about the 9bil 'lost' from Iraq. Iraq was nothing more than an effort to steal a ton of money and to destabalize the middle East. They don't want democracy there. They want chaos. Because then the people are powerless.

I'm sure you all know about the PNAC mission statement. If not, read it and note the discussion of the need of a New Pearl Harbor in order to enact their plans. The same plans that are being put in place today.

If you aren't questioning what the hell is going on in this country then you just aren't paying attention. It's gonna get a lot worse before it gets any better.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Firm believer here in the fact that we DO NOT know what happened on 9/11. What the gov't tells us is not the truth. Why the obfuscation from the gov't? Look, this topic of an inside job is some heavy stuff. But we should all want to know what truly happened that day. Those that believe the gov't should be demanding more truth and openess. Love your country, question your gov't.

The scale of such a coordinated effort by our gov't is the only sticking point for me. Hard to get everyone involved and subsequently keeping them quiet. However, looking at the actions of our gov't since that day with illegal warfare, voter tampering/fraud/theft and now efforts to implement essentially a police state, it further enforces my suspicion. This is a process for them. How about the 9bil 'lost' from Iraq. Iraq was nothing more than an effort to steal a ton of money and to destabalize the middle East. They don't want democracy there. They want chaos. Because then the people are powerless.

I'm sure you all know about the PNAC mission statement. If not, read it and note the discussion of the need of a New Pearl Harbor in order to enact their plans. The same plans that are being put in place today.

If you aren't questioning what the hell is going on in this country then you just aren't paying attention. It's gonna get a lot worse before it gets any better.


If there is anyone on this board that questions this administration it's me (just do a search in the war room for posts started by me on the Bush administration).

But when it comes to 2 towers falling down after impacted by 767's full of fuel, the reason they imploded is obvious to the overwhelming majority of people with training, education and common sense.

[TheDave]

Alright, I saw it....

Here is the problem with people who push conspiracy theories. They think that the phrase "That doesn't make sense" proves their point. Hell chemistry doesn't make sense to most people, but trust me it does exist. The fact is to prove an alternate theory such as "911 was an inside job" you need to show hard evidence. Where did the the plane go, why won't they release video of it, why has no other building collapsed, etc. are not examples of proof...they are questions. And unfortunately for the conspiracy types here that is all i saw... a very well edited, dramatic, 1 hour and 22 minute collection of questions.

Now did it raise some good questions... Absolutely. One of them i would like to ask now.

How could a group of 100's possibly 1,000's of people spend months planning and eventually carry out a deception of this magnitude without a single person leaking some part of the story... ever? Once that question has been answered then we can consider how and/or why the events this movie brings up are a feasibility.

[Spider]

Who here has watched the video?

Who here that has watched the video now has more questions? (I do)

I'm not about to sit here and say that this is a government conspiracy, but it does spark my curiousity.I am with you on this ............But I dont know shít from shinola about buildings , this is why I drive a truck ..........;D

[Kaylore]

This thread should be in the political forum. I think the only reason it hasn't is because the owner of the forum hates Bush. That's not right but I guess Taco can do what he wants.

[GonzoLays]

This thread should be in the political forum. I think the only reason it hasn't is because the owner of the forum hates Bush. That's not right but I guess Taco can do what he wants.

Why is it that if people question things, you tend to get angry? Earlier you called people "ignorant pieces of turds" for even question the validity of whether the World Trade Centers were a controlled demolision. What makes you so angry about this?

[DomCasual]

Why is it that if people question things, you tend to get angry? Earlier you called people "ignorant pieces of turds" for even question the validity of whether the World Trade Centers were a controlled demolision. What makes you so angry about this?
Kaylore was involved - that's why! That bastage pushed the button - I'll bet you anything.

[yavoon]

so who has a theory on the seismic data?

[yavoon]

This thread should be in the political forum. I think the only reason it hasn't is because the owner of the forum hates Bush. That's not right but I guess Taco can do what he wants.
oh shutup, the moon hoax lasted here just fine.

[Chupacabra]

I am around 25 minutes.. and they used Wikipedia to explain Cordite.. For those of you not familiar, Wikipedia is an online user-submitted encyclopedia that has recieved scrutiny for having bogus literature.
Propaganda.

[yavoon]

I am around 25 minutes.. and they used Wikipedia to explain Cordite.. For those of you not familiar, Wikipedia is an online user-submitted encyclopedia that has recieved scrutiny for having bogus literature.
Propaganda.

wikipedia has been blamed for letting in things it shouldn't like when pedophiles edited it to make themeslves not sound as bad. but hey why not look up cordite independantly and compare it? that seems pretty easy to me.

[Taco John]

This thread should be in the political forum. I think the only reason it hasn't is because the owner of the forum hates Bush. That's not right but I guess Taco can do what he wants.



In the offseason, we've always allowed no more than 3 political threads on the front page. My disdain for Bush has nothing to do with why this remains on the front page. Precedent is the reason.

You were here last offseason. Was this not the case?

Also, I'll add that my disdain for Bush lies in his policies, and has nothing to do with 9/11.

[Chupacabra]

wikipedia has been blamed for letting in things it shouldn't like when pedophiles edited it to make themeslves not sound as bad. but hey why not look up cordite independantly and compare it? that seems pretty easy to me.

It doesn't matter whether wikipedia's definition is correct. These guys are throwing around all kinds of claims without sourcing much of the information. Being a critical thinker, I have to question the sources behind any rhetoric. I found one example of them using a bogus source.

[yavoon]

It doesn't matter whether wikipedia's definition is correct. These guys are throwing around all kinds of claims without sourcing much of the information. Being a critical thinker, I have to question the sources behind any rhetoric. I found one example of them using a bogus source.


really I find that the vast majority of their information is sourced. ppl are quoted, if u look under the articles it almost always says the newspaper and video footage are from news sources. and cordite is also referenced, its from wikipedia. and like I said, because they sourced where they got the cordite info from u can hop on over to wikipedia see what it says and determine whether that information is true.

if u would however like to view what unsourced information looks like perhaps some examples from the bush administration would be better yes?

[Chupacabra]

And that is enough for me. To anyone who hasn't watched the video; take it with a grain of salt. Interesting conspiracy theories.. However, they could make a stronger argument. Lack of source information, moving too quickly, jumping to generalities, leaving some issues open-ended.........Waste of my time.

[yavoon]

And that is enough for me. To anyone who hasn't watched the video; take it with a grain of salt. Interesting conspiracy theories.. However, they could make a stronger argument. Lack of source information, moving too quickly, jumping to generalities, leaving some issues open-ended.........Waste of my time.

they have massive amts of source information. the strength of their argument is somewhat restricted by their lack of top security clearance. they can only work w/ what they got. its obvious u r trying to take one petty objection and run w/ it all the way home. its kinda sad.

[cbs1177]

Okay first of all I love America like no other. I have brought several civics books and also had won my high school civic award. I LOVE AMERICA point blank. I live in the greatest nation on earth. I think second to none except maybe to the height of the Roman empire. Also I live in Arkansas so I have seen tornadoes and my house burnt when I was in seventh grade. Supposedly the smoke line only had to go five more inches and my house would have blown apart and have nothing to savage. But even then the blinds on the windows stood. My living room windows blew but my bedroom windows did not blow even though my room was right next to the attic on fire. Our family piano in the same room where the roof collapse survived, yet melted my mom and dad's bed frames melted. In a tornadoe why does some houses remain intact while another house next door remains in tact. Some things in life remain unexplained. I happen to believe in God and I believe some things only He knows. Lacking common sense like I do I am amazed sometimes I am still alive. But from life experiences I believe stuff sometimes doesn't follow the convectionally paths. Having had my house burnt and seeing tornadoe damages first hand, I believe stuff that should have burned up didn't and other stuff did. Like metal in my parents' bedroom everything should have been melted but didn't yet plastic survived. Some wood and piano strings survived a fire and smoke and water damage. What gives. I just don't think Bush would have allowed a military strike on US soil. First it triggered a meltdown of the airline industry and tourism at a time when the US economy was slowing down. No Presdient in history has purposely wanted a recession on their watch. I believe all of us has had stuff happen to us that can't be explained and I dare say half of us shouldn't be alive today but for some reason we are. Conspiracy or not I just dont' believe any President would allow 9/11 to happen by his own architect. Life is too flurid and these conspiracy thinkers that believe this stuff doesn't believe in free will. All of us know that life doesn't follow a direct path. All of us are where we are b/c of decisions we made in life. Most of us are not where we thought we would be at this point in our lives. Shoot I am 27 I thought I would be married and have a least one kid by now with a b. c. degree. But No I am still going to school and not dating. In essence all of us can come up with believable stories of why life came at us like it did but noting truth is crazy then fiction.

[Deacon Blue]

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

Pretty long read.

A few people have mentioned this so I thought I'ld post it.

Sorry if something similar already has I haven't read much of this thread.

Leaves no doubt in my mind that the Pentagon was hit by a plane.

[Taco John]

http://http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

Pretty long read.

A few people have mentioned this so I thought I'ld post it.

Sorry if something similar already has I haven't read much of this thread.

Leaves no doubt in my mind that the Pentagon was hit by a plane.



No dice on the link, bud...

[Deacon Blue]

No dice on the link, bud...
EDIT: Got it working nevermind, thanks.

[Tombstone RJ]

For all you that believe that the towers didn't implode on themselves from the crashes.... forget it.

I've worked industrial construction over 25 years (building power plants and worked on skyscrapers as an Ironhead).
The towers were constructed with columns both externally and internally. When the planes hit they initially took out some of both of the columns which transferred all the weight above to the remaining columns. The remaining columns have now become overburdened because of the added weight.

The fire from the crashes are hot (over 1000 degrees in places) and are being fed by all the combustibles (carpet, furniture, fixtures, etc...) so the heat is remaining constant or even increasing in places. The columns are constructed (like all steel columns) of mild steel, not stainless or some exotic steel.

Mild steel melts at 1550 degrees. Though the fires were not hot enough to actually melt the columns they were hot enough to compromise the integrity of the remaining undamaged columns. Mild steel softens at 400 degrees and losses half it's strength at 650 degrees.

Since the fires from the crashes were not burning at the same temp throughout the impact sites some of the remaining, overburdened columns were compromised more than others which eventually led to them failing and the towers imploding on themselves.

Mathematics and physics prove the towers collapse not some Internet movie.!!!

I guess you didn't watch the entire vid. There was an expert who, if I remember correctly, worked for the company that made the steel for the WTCs. He said that the steel was a high grade steel that would not melt at 2000 degress +.

Plus, the vid. does the whole math, temp, steel equation and gets the exact opposit conclusion you do. In other words, there is no way the towers should have collapsed.

Plus, the vid. then shows numerous other buildings that burned longer, at hotter temps, over larger areas (more floors) and used equivalent steel, or even lower quality steel and they did not collapse.

Anyhow, its a compelling vid. that doesnt just throw crap out there, it trys to back it up with analysis.

[Tombstone RJ]

Okay first of all I love America like no other. I have brought several civics books and also had won my high school civic award. I LOVE AMERICA point blank. I live in the greatest nation on earth. I think second to none except maybe to the height of the Roman empire. Also I live in Arkansas so I have seen tornadoes and my house burnt when I was in seventh grade. Supposedly the smoke line only had to go five more inches and my house would have blown apart and have nothing to savage. But even then the blinds on the windows stood. My living room windows blew but my bedroom windows did not blow even though my room was right next to the attic on fire. Our family piano in the same room where the roof collapse survived, yet melted my mom and dad's bed frames melted. In a tornadoe why does some houses remain intact while another house next door remains in tact. Some things in life remain unexplained. I happen to believe in God and I believe some things only He knows. Lacking common sense like I do I am amazed sometimes I am still alive. But from life experiences I believe stuff sometimes doesn't follow the convectionally paths. Having had my house burnt and seeing tornadoe damages first hand, I believe stuff that should have burned up didn't and other stuff did. Like metal in my parents' bedroom everything should have been melted but didn't yet plastic survived. Some wood and piano strings survived a fire and smoke and water damage. What gives. I just don't think Bush would have allowed a military strike on US soil. First it triggered a meltdown of the airline industry and tourism at a time when the US economy was slowing down. No Presdient in history has purposely wanted a recession on their watch. I believe all of us has had stuff happen to us that can't be explained and I dare say half of us shouldn't be alive today but for some reason we are. Conspiracy or not I just dont' believe any President would allow 9/11 to happen by his own architect. Life is too flurid and these conspiracy thinkers that believe this stuff doesn't believe in free will. All of us know that life doesn't follow a direct path. All of us are where we are b/c of decisions we made in life. Most of us are not where we thought we would be at this point in our lives. Shoot I am 27 I thought I would be married and have a least one kid by now with a b. c. degree. But No I am still going to school and not dating. In essence all of us can come up with believable stories of why life came at us like it did but noting truth is crazy then fiction.

Nicely spoken.

[Tombstone RJ]

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that the government was responsible for the jet airliners crashing into the twin towers.

Drones, kamikaze CIA agents. Whatever. Take your pick.

And that all this was done to start a war or enrage citizens against Muslims, or get Bush re-elected, or whatever...

Why would the government planners of this thing bother planting demolitions in the buildings?

The sheer force of the impact would kill all the passengers on the planes and wipe out a few stories of each building. Hundreds of people must have died instantly.

And you had dozens of people jumping out of windows to their deaths because they were trapped by the fires, well before the buildings collapsed. Presumably, others burned in the fires.

You would also have had millions of dollars in damages to the structures, not to mention the financial hit the airline industry took, etc., etc.

Wouldn't that pretty will piiss off most Americans without ever having to set additional explosions to collapse the remainder of the buildings. Assuming that was your point as a conspirator in the first place?

Dude, the vid. talks about all this stuff. That is what is so compelling. You are asking why, the vid. gives reasons why.

Hey, it made me think.

For example, you are wondering why the this vid. suggests that bringing down the WTCs was pointless, or not necessary, correct?

The vid. talks about the WTCs having billions of dollars worth of gold stored below them. The vid. talks about stock traders selling of millions of dollars worth of stock for AA days before 911, also, those stock trade reports were stored in computers, in the WTC. The vid. talks about insurance payoffs for the WTCs.

It talks about all that stuff....

[Kaylore]

Why is it that if people question things, you tend to get angry? Earlier you called people "ignorant pieces of turds" for even question the validity of whether the World Trade Centers were a controlled demolision. What makes you so angry about this?
Because it divides the country over something fake. It propogates lies and turns citizens who need to be working with each other on things that work rather than complaining and agrily fighting something that doesn't exist.

[Tombstone RJ]

Because it divides the country over something fake. It propogates lies and turns citizens who need to be working with each other on things that work rather than complaining and agrily fighting something that doesn't exist.

Kaylore, I respect the hell out of you as a poster here on the OM. But to suggest that simply discussing the possibility of a conspiracy is somehow, anti-American is simply not fair.

[yavoon]

Because it divides the country over something fake. It propogates lies and turns citizens who need to be working with each other on things that work rather than complaining and agrily fighting something that doesn't exist.
yah we really need to buckle down and focus on finding those WMD's.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I guess you didn't watch the entire vid. There was an expert who, if I remember correctly, worked for the company that made the steel for the WTCs. He said that the steel was a high grade steel that would not melt at 2000 degress +.

Plus, the vid. does the whole math, temp, steel equation and gets the exact opposit conclusion you do. In other words, there is no way the towers should have collapsed.

Plus, the vid. then shows numerous other buildings that burned longer, at hotter temps, over larger areas (more floors) and used equivalent steel, or even lower quality steel and they did not collapse.

Anyhow, its a compelling vid. that doesnt just throw crap out there, it trys to back it up with analysis.


I haven't watched it yet but I don't have to to know at what point they think steel columns melt. I've been erecting them most of my adult life. For your information, mild steel, chromium alloys and even some stainless alloys have a melting point of around 3000 degreesF (2800 for the steel columns). The columns did not melt. That is not what brought down the towers.

I've explained in the simplest terms I can.

[loborugger]

I guess you didn't watch the entire vid. There was an expert who, if I remember correctly, worked for the company that made the steel for the WTCs. He said that the steel was a high grade steel that would not melt at 2000 degress +.

Plus, the vid. does the whole math, temp, steel equation and gets the exact opposit conclusion you do. In other words, there is no way the towers should have collapsed.

Plus, the vid. then shows numerous other buildings that burned longer, at hotter temps, over larger areas (more floors) and used equivalent steel, or even lower quality steel and they did not collapse.

Anyhow, its a compelling vid. that doesnt just throw crap out there, it trys to back it up with analysis.

I think Beerslug might have actually understated the potential heat up there. I was a wildland firefighter back in the 90s... It seems to me that a fire in timber gets to over 1000 degrees. Green trees dont have nearly the energy potential that airline fuel has... add in all the junk in the building, concentrate the fuel. That is a multi-1000 degree fire, I bet.

Either way, it is all semantics. There is very little chance to verify the temp up there vs the weakening point of 30 year old steel. You can believe what you want.

I go back to what I posted on the Apollo 11 hoax thread. Do you know how many people would be in on this conspiracy... and no one has let the cat outta the bag??? No one wanted to get their grill on the TV... make a load of cash... made sick by what the did... I dont buy it.

[yavoon]

I think Beerslug might have actually understated the potential heat up there. I was a wildland firefighter back in the 90s... It seems to me that a fire in timber gets to over 1000 degrees. Green trees dont have nearly the energy potential that airline fuel has... add in all the junk in the building, concentrate the fuel. That is a multi-1000 degree fire, I bet.

Either way, it is all semantics. There is very little chance to verify the temp up there vs the weakening point of 30 year old steel. You can believe what you want.

I go back to what I posted on the Apollo 11 hoax thread. Do you know how many people would be in on this conspiracy... and no one has let the cat outta the bag??? No one wanted to get their grill on the TV... make a load of cash... made sick by what the did... I dont buy it.

there's no need discussing how hot airline fuel can get. its known exactly.

also as for how many ppl need to be in on it. conspiracies are usually done by partial knowledge. in apollo's case its a fairly open program that wasn't meant to be secret. in this case its a gov't thats withholding large amts of information, and has a documented history of lying around the same idea.

[smalltowngrll]

I think Beerslug might have actually understated the potential heat up there. I was a wildland firefighter back in the 90s... It seems to me that a fire in timber gets to over 1000 degrees. Green trees dont have nearly the energy potential that airline fuel has... add in all the junk in the building, concentrate the fuel. That is a multi-1000 degree fire, I bet.

Either way, it is all semantics. There is very little chance to verify the temp up there vs the weakening point of 30 year old steel. You can believe what you want.

I go back to what I posted on the Apollo 11 hoax thread. Do you know how many people would be in on this conspiracy... and no one has let the cat outta the bag??? No one wanted to get their grill on the TV... make a load of cash... made sick by what the did... I dont buy it.

I'm with you on this.

I decided (after watching the video) to do a search online for what others were saying....I found at least 50+ (probably a whole lot more...I just got tired of looking) of different reasons (conspiracy theories, propaganda, etc) why people say the whole 9/11 thing didn't happen the way the government said it did.

All I know is this, I sat in my living room that very morning watching it happen live (as I'm sure many others did) and I saw planes crash into the buildings! I know, also, that the security video of the Pentagon DOES in fact show a plane crash into the pentagon. If anyone knows anything about surveilance video, you know that it is taken in slower frames than normal video...so, in one frame you see the plane very low to the ground, and in the next frame you see the ball of fire. If there was a bomb, there would be a hole in the ground like there was in OK! There were many eye witnesses that saw the plane crash into the pentagon...NOONE claims of the contrary. When I look at the collapse of the towers, I see people running for their lives. There is lots of video taken from close by the building when it began to crumble...noone claimed to hear the explosions of dynaminte that would be used to assist in taking down the building.

I think that we as Americans have a right to say how we feel publically, and I don't discredit those for speaking. But, we, as Americans, also have the duty to make sure we look at all sides before just believing what we are fed. We are blessed to be in a place where we have wonderful freedoms such as our freedom of speach. But, I feel that, while there may be a few more details to this tragedy that the Government has not enlightened us with, we have been given enough to make our conclusions. I do believe there will always be conspiracies out there, but I don't believe that our Government set this up! Yes, I do believe that they did not heed some of the warnings! But, in my opinion (and this is MY opinion) I feel that this is due to many false warnings previously. I am not making an excuse, but merely stating my opinion. When it comes to peoples lives, however, there is never a time to NOT take ANY type of warning seriously! We have learned our lesson in the worst way possible...with death!


:peace:

[loborugger]

Taken from Popular Mechanics....

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

[loborugger]

Of course, Popular Mechanics must be in on the conspiracy, too...

[Spider]

I am no expert , if I was Iwouldnt drive a truck ,but what about the screws(or what ever holds thedamnthing togrther ) ? how hot do they have to bebefore they give away ?andif they give away the metal has to go somewhere ,and since we have gravity on this planet.............Now the pentagon stuff I dont buy , seems like someone is pissing on my leg and telling me it is raining outside

[yavoon]

Of course, Popular Mechanics must be in on the conspiracy, too...

what u didnt watch the video? why is the most popular thing in a thread about the video is to not watch the video?

[loborugger]

what u didnt watch the video? why is the most popular thing in a thread about the video is to not watch the video?

That was a nice side step...

You say that the temp of Av gas burning is known.

I dig it up.

I go one further and find a nice little gem about the temp of Av gas burning, steel weakening, and determined temps.

And this is your response?

Nice take.

[-Slap-]

what u didnt watch the video? why is the most popular thing in a thread about the video is to not watch the video?
Too long. Prolonged exposure to the internet has degraded my attention span to the point where an hour and 20 minute investment automatically renders all conspiracy theories untenable. I prefer my paranoia in pithy chunks.

[baja]

The Bin Laden stuff and the pentagon stuff are hard to explain away.