Loose Change

[CptColumbo]

As far as the Dr. Steven Jones paper is concerned, I would encourage you to look at:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...2.html#authors

With this Eagar/Musso paper you have a engineer and a metalurgist, teaming with a physicist to explain the fire induced collapse. Having just a physicist is good, but it's like having a podiatrist performing brain surgery.

[Regnad Kcin]

So many rebuttals, and still they come.

[Gravy]

Can you show a single contemporary (ie, reported in a reputable news source at the time) account where any witness reported seeing anything but a civilian airliner hitting the Pentagon? Thanks!

One guy in the Loose Change video said it looked like a smaller commercial passenger plane, but the video doesn't say what his vantage point was or how long he had it in sight. Likewise, that video has a guy describing the plane that hit the south tower as having no windows. They don't mention that the guy was watching from Brooklyn.

[aggle-rithm]

I will come back to debate as soon as the s***storm at work dies down...

So.

Geggy.

When can we expect the debate to begin?

[Gravy]

And there was no molten metal in the basements of the WTC. there was some very hot metal, but not molten. molten would imply that its in a liquid state.

Just thought I'd clarify this a little. Some contractors did report "molten metal" in the basements, and some said "molten steel." I have no reason to doubt that there was molten metal there. What is in question is what type, or what mixture of types, it was. The metal was never tested.

I doubt if it was steel. There was steel that was red and orange pulled from the wreckage, but that's a long way from molten, in terms of temperature.

However, if we can trust satellite thermal imagery, parts of the site were hot enough to contain molten aluminum, which melts at about half the temperature of steel. Remember that the facades of the towers, plus the interior stud work and, of course, the aircraft, add up to a helluva lot of aluminum. I don't know how much aluminum was in WTC 7, in which molten metal was also found. I would assume that any similarly-constructed skyscraper would have a lot of aluminum in it.

And don't forget all that copper wiring, lead solder, etc, especially all the wiring that was already in the basements.

What I don't get is how CTists think that molten metal found two months after the collapse is indicative of a controlled demolition, no matter what materials they think were used to bring the buildings down.

[Regnad Kcin]

...FEMA's report of the collapsing of WTC1 and 2 plausible yes but..
1. neither plane hit the center of the towers, damages made to south side of WTC7 as one of you pointed out yet all towers fell almost straight down. I would have a lot of doubt about the demolition theories if they tipped over.Yes, they fell toward the ground as they collapsed, the sequence begun from the weakened top-most portions where the initial damage occurred. And as the astounding amount of material fell, quite a bit naturally accumulated beyond the footprints, damaging other buildings, not to mention leaving residue near and far.

2. Then there's the rate of fall being nearly at the speed of freefall, just doesnt make sense unless there was timed demolition.Perhaps you're new to this thread (goodness knows, it's a long one), so you may have missed the numerous times the simple explanation has been given. In short, due to structural damage by way of their initial impact, secondary explosions forces, and subsequent fires, two really, really, really heavy buildings couldn't support their own weight any longer.

3. The pulverzitation of concrete that exploded into dust and small bitsAnd so...?

4. Explosive charges shooting out of buildings at high speed and long distanceNo. No. No.

If you, however, want to maintain it's so, you need to provide proof, not your (or anyone else's) impression of what it looked like.

5. Molten metal in the rubble that burned for weeks and couldn't be put out, that lends to the demolition theory and this might be one of the most critical pieces of evidence."Molten metal?" What?!

There were subterranean fires beneath the WTC that continued to burn for days after the initial destruction. They were due to quite a few obvious reasons (do I need to list them?), and they were not put out for some time because there was kind of a big pile of debris in the way.

Where did this "molten metal" idea come from? And so what if there was some?

None of these oddities were addressed by the commission report yet the oddities of these listed above were characteristics of controlled demolition.I wish I knew if you were being serious or not.

The most plausible explanation of why these buildings were brought down was that explosives were preplanted at stragetic points...It's just sad to see someone suggest a conspiracy on the order of the largest undertaking of its kind in history is "the most plausible explanation."

So I have an idea: prove it.

You won't be able to, but I'd like to see you, or someone, try.

---

Edited to add: I see now by Gravy's post #1505 what is meant by molten metal. A perfectly easy to explain byproduct of the forces and circumstance. Hardly evidence of anything nefarious.

[WildCat]

So.

Geggy.

When can we expect the debate to begin?
I don't know, those people keep coming in and ordering more burgers... ;)

[chipmunk stew]

here is a short video clip of NYC firefighters hearing something go "boom-boom-boom"...

whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/discussion_in_firehouse.wmvHere is an article reporting that explosions could be heard...

http://newsfromrussia.com/accidents/2005/02/13/58231.html

...but this isn't from WTC, it's from the Windsor Building in Madrid, which was burning. As far as I know, no one has ever suggested that it was bombed.

[CptColumbo]

It was a big building with many different occupants, is it such a stretch to imagine that some might have something flamable in a container. There were artists who might have paint thinner, commercial painters with the same, people with fluid for their lighters, toner cartridges, alcohol stashes, ammunition for guards' guns, and simple air escaping from pockets. Many, on their own, would not necessarily be heard on the street, but there are many things that can explode or sound like an explosion.

[WildCat]

Here is an article reporting that explosions could be heard...

http://newsfromrussia.com/accidents/2005/02/13/58231.html

...but this isn't from WTC, it's from the Windsor Building in Madrid, which was burning. As far as I know, no one has ever suggested that it was bombed.
Oh, it was definitely bombed. As was this house in Australia (http://townsvillebulletin.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,18662986%255E14787,00.html) last month:
"It sounded like a bomb had exploded with the noise and the house moving.
As was this car (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060322/METRO/603220402/1003/METRO) in Michigan:

"It sounded like a bomb going off," said Maryann Vaught, a shift supervisor at the Westborn Market.
And even worse, they nuked a plant (http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1145608876106950.xml&coll=2) in Cleveland!:
"It looked like they dropped an atomic bomb."
Will these evil NWO globalists ever stop?!

[Regnad Kcin]

...The top part of each building collapsed onto the lower part of the building. Essentially, this was like dropping a 20-story building on top of another building. Before the crash, this upper structure exerted a constant downward force -- its weight -- on the superstructure below. Obviously, the lower superstructure was strong enough to support this weight. But when the columns collapsed, the upper part of the building started moving -- the downward force of gravity accelerated it. The momentum of an object -- the quantity of its motion -- is equal to its mass multiplied by its velocity. So when you increase the velocity of an object with a set mass, you increase its momentum. This increases the total force that the object can exert on another object.

To understand how this works, think of a hammer. Resting in your hand, it doesn't hurt you at all. But if you drop it on your foot, it can do some damage...A very simple and elegant illustration. Good thinking.

[tsig]

There you go! Keep introducing those unnecessary entities! You'll make a conspiracy theorist yet. ;)

(And the B2, being overburdened, was held up by a blimp! Witnesses were all silenced.)

The Spuce Goose never existed. Howard Hughs was a powerfull sycik and merely created the ilusion, that's why he went mad

[kookbreaker]

Just thought I'd clarify this a little. Some contractors did report "molten metal" in the basements, and some said "molten steel." I have no reason to doubt that there was molten metal there. What is in question is what type, or what mixture of types, it was. The metal was never tested.

I doubt if it was steel. There was steel that was red and orange pulled from the wreckage, but that's a long way from molten, in terms of temperature.


The reports from the woo sites specifically say Molten Steel.

But then, the contracter who made the comment also says they were dipped with an excavator bucket. I don't think so.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

[bob_kark]

Will these evil NWO globalists ever stop?!

Uhm, no!

[brodski]

Uhm, no!
except on the queens birthday. :p

[WildCat]

Uhm, no!
Nothing warms my heart like the killing of thousands of innocents to support our diabolical plan. After all, Hallibuton execs kid's have to eat too.:cool:

[WildCat]

except on the queens birthday. :p
She was so grateful when we got rid of that know-it-all daughter-in-law of hers.

[senorpogo]

It was a big building with many different occupants, is it such a stretch to imagine that some might have something flamable in a container. There were artists who might have paint thinner, commercial painters with the same, people with fluid for their lighters, toner cartridges, alcohol stashes, ammunition for guards' guns, and simple air escaping from pockets. Many, on their own, would not necessarily be heard on the street, but there are many things that can explode or sound like an explosion.

That's actually something I've wondered myself. What type of materials were actually stored in parts of the WTC buildings? I'd have to imagine that there would be a large variety of items that could explode or just feed the fire. I wonder if any type of manifest exists?

A second point - at this juncture, if the government were to release tapes of a plane hitting the Pentagon, would any CTs even believe it? They'd cite the long release time as proof that the administration's lights and magic guys were really digitally creating the images the whole time. Then they'd find digital artifacts and claim they were missles or squibs or orbs or fairies or some other nonsense. PLUS, they'd probably rag on the administration for creating the footage to use as an American psychological tool (patent pending) to further convince the sheep that an invasion of Iran is necessary. What rubbish.

[senorpogo]

Will these evil NWO globalists ever stop?!

Only to further confound and discredit the truthseekers.

[brodski]

That's actually something I've wondered myself. What type of materials were actually stored in parts of the WTC buildings? I'd have to imagine that there would be a large variety of items that could explode or just feed the fire. I wonder if any type of manifest exists?

You would be surprised at exactly what can become fairly dramatic explosions when subject to an intense fire.
Foodstuffs can become quite nasty where heated, a simple bag of crisps ("chips" if you will) will create a very LOUD (not powerful) explosion when they are heated to a high enough temperature, they also tend to fling burring fat in all directions. In large fires the most innocuous things can become very dangerous.
And before some CTer quotes me out of context, I am not suggesting that the twin towers where brought down by exploding crisp bags, I am just explaining how perfectly mundane items you would expect in any office building can cause loud bangs which may sound like bombs, and it's not always the obvious things either.

[Gravy]

And don't forget all that copper wiring, lead solder, etc, especially all the wiring that was already in the basements.

Correction: cppper has a much higher melting point than aluminum, 1083c vs. 660 c.

[bob_kark]

except on the queens birthday. :p

Not even then apparently! I'm still waiting for Human Resources to get back to me on that.

[brodski]

Not even then apparently! I'm still waiting for Human Resources to get back to me on that.
I'd complain to the union if I where you.

[bob_kark]

They sent the union leader to Antartica! I can never get him on the phone now. He's spending all his free time trying to make March of the Penguins 2: Revenge of the Seal.

[Gravy]

Step away from the microwave, Brodski.

[brodski]

Step away from the microwave, Brodski.:D

actually, I remember that from a course I was on which dealt with supermarket fires, and how risk assessments must look at the less than obvious hazards.

[Gravy]

Now you're giving the CTers big ideas. They've already dismissed the obvious hazards of Sept. 11. Can the "excess lunchroom microwave popcorn" argument be far behind?

[brodski]

Now you're giving the CTers big ideas. They've already dismissed the obvious hazards of Sept. 11. Can the "excess lunchroom microwave popcorn" argument be far behind?
no, the WTC was brought down by an exploding box of cereal, the "planes" we saw "hitting" the towers where actually the toys which came free inside the cereal box, all the gubbmint had to do was reverse the footage.
;)

[Regnad Kcin]

Maybe the twin towers were filled with Diet Coke, and the planes contained Mentos (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5127439443388776240&q=diet+coke+mentos&pl=true)!

[delphi_ote]

Not even then apparently! I'm still waiting for Human Resources to get back to me on that.
43, we have hundreds of thousands of employees. We also pride ourselves on being inefficient.

The only way you're going to find out is to make an operation out of it. Can I suggest you schedule it for the Queen's Birthday?

[brodski]

43, we have hundreds of thousands of employees. We also pride ourselves on being inefficient.

The only way you're going to find out is to make an operation out of it. Can I suggest you schedule it for the Queen's Birthday?
her official birthday or her real birthday?

[delphi_ote]

her official birthday or her real birthday?
Since the queen is a remote controlled drone constructed by the early Globalist leader Sir Isaac Newton, I don't think she has a "real" birthday.

[brodski]

Since the queen is a remote controlled drone constructed by the early Globalist leader Sir Isaac Newton, I don't think she has a "real" birthday.
you're almost right, she is actually a remote controlled race horse drone stolen by Newton from some visiting aliens, which is why she has two birthdays (http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4820.asp). The date of the "official" birthday changes each year, so coincide with the ancient Mayan prophecies relating to a rec of super intelligent invisible angels living in a temple made on one stone, controlled by a man who has changed the colour of nature, hence Newtons interest.

[delphi_ote]

you're almost right, she is actually a remote controlled race horse drone stolen by Newton from some visiting aliens, which is why she has two birthdays (http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4820.asp). The date of the "official" birthday changes each year, so coincide with the ancient Mayan prophecies relating to a rec of super intelligent invisible angels living in a temple made on one stone, controlled by a man who has changed the colour of nature, hence Newtons interest.
Of course. I just didn't want to state it so explicitly out here in the open.

BTW Why didn't I think of this two birthday scam when I was about 8 years old? "I want a race car for my actual birthday and a Nintendo for my official birthday!"

[brodski]

Of course. I just didn't want to state it so explicitly out here in the open.

I though a central principle of TEH GLOBALIST MO was to hide the things we want to be kept ultra seekret by making all the information easily availble to any fool with an Internet connection?


BTW Why didn't I think of this two birthday scam when I was about 8 years old? "I want a race car for my actual birthday and a Nintendo for my official birthday!"
Well, once we perfect the time machine, you can.

[delphi_ote]

I though a central principle of TEH GLOBALIST MO was to hide the things we want to be kept ultra seekret by making all the information easily availble to any fool with an Internet connection?
Yea, but you have to spread it out. Sprinkle a little bit here. A little bit there. Our central tenet is inefficiency. Do I have to write a Globalist Mission Statement?

[Pardalis]

Do I have to write a Globalist Mission Statement?

Of course not. Globalists always worked without writing anything down (to leave no trace), or even without a central administration. But they always remained extremely efficient nonetheless, throughout two centuries.

[bob_kark]

Uhm, I think you mean inefficient! Get it right Pardalis!

[bob_kark]

43, we have hundreds of thousands of employees. We also pride ourselves on being inefficient.

The only way you're going to find out is to make an operation out of it. Can I suggest you schedule it for the Queen's Birthday?

Hmmm, my mission will be to change the Human Resources title to...

Redistribution and Benefit Deployment of International Human Assests and Liabilities Department.

[Pardalis]

Uhm, I think you mean inefficient! Get it right Pardalis!

Still we kept a steady course, through generations, our agenda intact, kept leaks and dissent to an ultimate minimun (0). I call that efficient. ;)

[Pardalis]

You have to understand that the NWO is an ongoing process. Much like the Jehovah Witnesse's end of the world, it keeps being rescheduled. Our inneficiency at reachin our goal is equal to our efficiency at being secretive and ellusive.

[delphi_ote]

Hmmm, my mission will be to change the Human Resources title to...

Redistribution and Benefit Deployment of International Human Assests and Liabilities Department.
Very good, 43. Might I suggest:
Dynamic Redistribution and Benefit Deployment of International Human Assests and Liabilities Department.

And God help anyone I find using an acronymn for the new name. They'll be sockless for the rest of their life! :mad:

[bob_kark]

Hmmmm, I'm torn between dynamic and synergetic...

[brodski]

Do I have to write a Globalist Mission Statement?
No, but maybe you could establish a standing committee, to examine the possibility of creating a cross conspiracy working group to investigate the cost/ benefit ratio of a feasibility study on the advantages of producing a mission statement.

[brodski]

Hmmmm, I'm torn between dynamic and synergetic...
I think this should be required reading for all GLOBALISTS and persons of hench. especially when dealing with "phased incentivisation asymmetry" or the like.
http://www.civilservant.org.uk/howtowrite.pdf
:D

[Pardalis]

I think this should be required reading for all GLOBALISTS and persons of hench. especially when dealing with "phased incentivisation asymmetry" or the like.
http://www.civilservant.org.uk/howtowrite.pdf
:D

We seem to have known exactly what to do so far without any written documents, that's the beauty of our organisation.

Only the one dollar bill to remind us every now and again of our ultimate goal...

[brodski]

We seem to have known exactly what to do so far without any written documents, that's the beauty of our organisation.

Only the one dollar bill to remind us every now and again of our ultimate goal...
yes, but some of us are stationed in far off lands, without the benefit of dollars, all we have to look at on the back of our money is a portrait of Charles Darwin.

[senorpogo]

yes, but some of us are stationed in far off lands, without the benefit of dollars, all we have to look at on the back of our money is a portrait of Charles Darwin.

How can you make money without pyramids with eyeballs at the top?
That's what makes it valuable.

[brodski]

How can you make money without pyramids with eyeballs at the top?
That's what makes it valuable.
I know, but we do also have a portrait of a remote controlled race horse drone, that's got to be worth something, right?

[Dave_46]

However, if we can trust satellite thermal imagery, parts of the site were hot enough to contain molten aluminum, which melts at about half the temperature of steel.

If you see flames then the temperature is going to be at least 800 C. The large holes in the building mean that the fires burning in the building would be fuel limited, so any combustible material will burn freely. I seem to recall lots of flames, so no problem with molten aluminiom.

Dave

[Dave_46]

Foodstuffs can become quite nasty where heated, a simple bag of crisps ("chips" if you will) will create a very LOUD (not powerful) explosion when they are heated to a high enough temperature, they also tend to fling burring fat in all directions. In large fires the most innocuous things can become very dangerous.

I have heard that bags of crisps (multipacks) have been used to start fires. I know that colleagues of mine have used them to start experimental fires.

Dave

[WildCat]

I have heard that bags of crisps (multipacks) have been used to start fires. I know that colleagues of mine have used them to start experimental fires.

Dave
Hehe, you watch Survivor Man too? I love that show...

[delphi_ote]

Hehe, you watch Survivor Man too? I love that show...
Les is the man!

[Dave_46]

Hehe, you watch Survivor Man too? I love that show...

No - I haven't heard of it. Maybe we don't get it in England.

I do get to have fun with experimental fires (re-creating fires to try and find out what happened, fires to test building components etc) and get paid for it.

Dave

[Euromutt]

All but one of the flght 77 passengers and crew were positively identified through DNA, radiological and fingerprint analysis. Were all the forensic pathologists all lying? Many families received personal effects that were found in the wreckage. Was that all faked?

And where did the tons of airliner wreckage come from, wreckage that was there when the first responders arrived? Was all that American Airlines Boeing 757 wreckage created by magic?Isn't it obvious? The Pentagon was hit by a missile. Meanwhile, flight 77 was landed at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds and destroyed on the ground with all passengers and crew. Then, the debris, both organic and inorganic (yech) was collected, transported to DC and distributed around the impact site at the Pentagon by NWO stooges including bob_kark, Pardalis and Senorpogo.

Sure, it would have been easier to just ram the jet into the Pentagon, but that would be too obvious.

[Aepervius]

I have heard that bags of crisps (multipacks) have been used to start fires. I know that colleagues of mine have used them to start experimental fires.

Dave

Any comburant mixed up with any combustible in the good proportion & pressure can not only make fire but in some case also become explosive. Example : pour some fuel on the ground and it will burn. Compress it with air and it will explode. Pour some flour on the ground and you only wasted flour. Throw the flour in the air above an open flame... Well I hope you have a good inssurance because it burn relatively well if the flour cloud is not too dense. SAme with wood dust, or coal dust.

[brodski]

No - I haven't heard of it. Maybe we don't get it in England.

I do get to have fun with experimental fires (re-creating fires to try and find out what happened, fires to test building components etc) and get paid for it.

Dave
Cool, in a previous Job I used to get to go up to the health and Safety Laboratory in Buxton and watch as they blew stuff up. The flour tanker was the most fun.
:D

[geggy]

I recall seeing videos of a woman standing in the impact hole of one of the WTC buildings waving frantically for help. What struck me as odd was that she had a head full of hair.

When you turn on a stove at high temperature, pluck a hair from your head and place it on the steel girdle. The hair vaporizes, yet the steel girdle does not melt.

Thermites exceed to 5000 degrees and has thr ability to cut through steel like hot knife cutting through butter, which explains the molten steel found in the bottom of the rubble.

I'm really interested in hearing any of you explain how controlled demolition works. I'm not speaking of just the WTC buildings, I'm speaking in generalization of how buildings are imploded with explosives.

And when you're done, try to entertain the thought of WTC 1, 2 and 7 being brought down with explosives.

By the way, where was Bush on the morning of sept 11?

[Dave_46]

When you turn on a stove at high temperature, pluck a hair from your head and place it on the steel girdle. The hair vaporizes, yet the steel girdle does not melt.


I presume that by girdle you mean what I call a griddle, that is a cooking implement. I think that the hair would not vapourise, but decompose in the heat. The products of this decomposition will be some gases, and some solids. The solids would probably blow away, leading you to think the hair has vapourised. The hair is pretty light isn't it. With regard to the griddle not melting, why would you expect it to when the temperature is (I estimate) 200 +/- 100 C. Even aluminium griddles don't melt when used for cooking.

Dave

[brodski]

I recall seeing videos of a woman standing in the impact hole of one of the WTC buildings waving frantically for help. What struck me as odd was that she had a head full of hair.

When you turn on a stove at high temperature, pluck a hair from your head and place it on the steel girdle. The hair vaporizes, yet the steel girdle does not melt.

the WTC was a big place, is it not reasonable to assume that the woman had moves from an area which was not on fire, to an area which was no longer on fire?



Thermites exceed to 5000 degrees and has thr ability to cut through steel like hot knife cutting through butter, which explains the molten steel found in the bottom of the rubble.

There was no molten steel, there was molten metal, aluminum melts at much lower temperatures than steel.


I'm really interested in hearing any of you explain how controlled demolition works. I'm not speaking of just the WTC buildings, I'm speaking in generalization of how buildings are imploded with explosives.

And when you're done, try to entertain the thought of WTC 1, 2 and 7 being brought down with explosives.

Essential, a controlled demolition works by destroying the support framework for a building, which then collapses under its own weight, collapsing into it's own footprint, as the energy needed to move a building sideways is much less than the energy needed to destroy its supports, and gravity tends to drag things (which are not already moving) directly towards the ground. if you want real life example, image that oh, I don't know, an airliner full of jet fuel crashed into a building, weakening its supporting structures, and then started firers which finished the job.


By the way, where was Bush on the morning of sept 11?
In New York with remote controlling a plane? :rolleyes:

[geggy]

Haha oh, man. Thanks for correcting my error. I did mean to say griddle and not girdle. Today is one of those lazy sundays. But doesn't iron steel melt at 2500-2750 degrees F?

I can't believe you don't know where W. was at the time of the attacks unless you were joking that is.

Here is a full length of W.'s visit to Booker Elementary School on the morning of sept 11. He just sat there with his poker face after being told that America was under attack...

whatreallyhappened.com/bushbook.mov

But it was Marvin Bush, W.'s younger brother, who was in NYC at the time of the sept 11 attacks. He was a principal for a company called Securarcom that provided security for:
--the WTC, in which buildings 1, 2 and 7 that came down what suspiciously looked like a controlled demolition
--United Airlines which two of the company's planes that were hijacked.
--Dulles Airport in DC where one of the planes that took off from Dulles crashed into the Pentagon

Good article explaining further, which is a minor smoking gun...
anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/hj05.html

Power shut down at WTC for 30 straight hours in the weekend prior to sept 11...
69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html

WOW, lots of coindicences and those listed above were only a minor set....

[DavidJames]

WOW, lots of coindicences and those listed above were only a minor set....coindicences mean squat, got any actual evidence?

[Ramooone]

Haha oh, man. Thanks for correcting my error. I did mean to say griddle and not girdle. Today is one of those lazy sundays. But doesn't iron steel melt at 2500-2750 degrees F?

I can't believe you don't know where W. was at the time of the attacks unless you were joking that is.

Here is a full length of W.'s visit to Booker Elementary School on the morning of sept 11. He just sat there with his poker face after being told that America was under attack...

whatreallyhappened.com/bushbook.mov

But it was Marvin Bush, W.'s younger brother, who was in NYC at the time of the sept 11 attacks. He was a principal for a company called Securarcom that provided security for:
--the WTC, in which buildings 1, 2 and 7 that came down what suspiciously looked like a controlled demolition
--United Airlines which two of the company's planes that were hijacked.
--Dulles Airport in DC where one of the planes that took off from Dulles crashed into the Pentagon

Good article explaining further, which is a minor smoking gun...
anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/hj05.html

Power shut down at WTC for 30 straight hours in the weekend prior to sept 11...
69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html

WOW, lots of coindicences and those listed above were only a minor set....


I would love to see how someone can rig three skyscrapers for demolition in 30 straight hours especially without anyone knowing. Do you honestly believe with the powerdowns that there was no power whatsoever in the building??? no backup generators?? if there were powerdowns, how did the
Demo teams see what they were doing, flashlight?? candlelight??
there were banks in those buildings, im sure their security was perfectly happy with 30 hours of no video surveilance so that anyone could just rob them.

please while you're at it, point me to a video of a controlled demolition that was done from the top down!!!! jeez. if this was a controlled demolition the building would have fallen as one piece, not the top half falling through the stationary bottom half. if you want to know how a controlled demolition works go to howstuffworks.com and do a search for Controlled demolition. thats the easiest way to explain it.

[Regnad Kcin]

I'm really interested in hearing any of you explain...If you're really "really interested," please go back and read this thread.

[hellaeon]

* yawn *

the WTC's DO NOT LOOK ANYTHING LIKE A FRIGGIN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. Cheezus Crust, f*** me sideways!!!!!!
If you think its controlled. Never drive a car. Do not even ride a bike. Your a friggin hazard.
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh man. Ok.

When will you guys stop using the SAME arguements. Controlled demolition? LOOKS LIKE one??? WHAT????????????? You cannot be serious. The debree is spread out all over the place. Where is any control in this??? Get off the grass mate.

United Airlines I believe is a fairly large company. Whats the chances you will get a flight on one soon? Whats the chances of getting on a flight on an airline that has someone high up in the chain of command involved in politics.
Man if you look hard enough you'll find a link to Donald Trump probably. Hey john Howard spent a few days with Bush immediately after the event. He must be in on it too!

Im presuming the power shut down is to infer the globalists secret agents ran in, rigged up thousands of explosives in 3 buildings - two of them being the 5th and 6th largest in the world at the time.
Might I suggest this article (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/extreme_machines/1787846.html) however, be warned, it contains simple explanations of expertise in the field of demolitions which may force you to confront such acronyms like 'Occams Razor' or even *GASP* force you to listen to experts in the field. Note the building after the demoliton.

A better one is this one (http://www.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm) which can be scary when it has the nerve to suggest a controlled demolition is based around imploding something! Whoever did the WTC job was pretty sloppy in regards to this. Be careful its also delving into that nasty area - science and facts. These can be foreign to some. It also shows the effort that goes to it, the time, the skill, the knowledge. I can understand if you skip over it though. Its pretty annoying having people, *ahem* sorry - experts, actually explain away your accusations! Science is a horrible thing - its based on facts. Pesky damn facts!

You know your theory would be better if you stopped saying it was controlled. Controlled. Man.

Is it me, or do these blokes just drop in, one at a time, get shot down, then the next bloke steps up and tries the same stuff. Man its like religion bashers at the door when you give em 5 minutes of your time because your being polite. They are back in a few days trying again.

[DavidJames]

Is it me, or do these blokes just drop in, one at a time, get shot down, then the next bloke steps up and tries the same stuff. Man its like religion bashers at the door when you give em 5 minutes of your time because your being polite. They are back in a few days trying again.They all pretty much post the same stuff. They must each stumble on the loose change site (or equivilent), and them come here. They never have any new or unique arguements. They never address the official evidence directly. They just parrot the standard 911 CT crap.

Yes, then when they get tired of hearing about evidence, they leave.

[aggle-rithm]

I recall seeing videos of a woman standing in the impact hole of one of the WTC buildings waving frantically for help. What struck me as odd was that she had a head full of hair.

When you turn on a stove at high temperature, pluck a hair from your head and place it on the steel girdle. The hair vaporizes, yet the steel girdle does not melt.



I've seen that video, and for the life of me I don't recall the woman's hair resting on a steel griddle, or anything else made of steel. That's the necessary condition for your analogy to have any relevance, since steel conducts heat much better than air does.

[geggy]

Yes, power went out for 30 hours straight during a weekend prior to sept 11. DURING A WEEKEND PRIOR TO SEPT 11. NOT WEEKS, MONTHS, YEAR, BUT ONE WEEKEND BEFOREHAND. Don't be stupid.

From what I've learnt, the longest ordeal in the plannings of any building implosion projects is studying the blueprints of the building and checkpoint where the explosives should be placed in order to make it fall the way they want it to fall. They'd create models of the buildings using specific programs in the computer to decide where the best spots are for placing explosives. 30 hours sounds like a reasonable time for placing explosives inside three buildings depending how many people were involved.

If you're really "really interested," please go back and read this thread.


Oh. So you do know how controlled demolition works, yet you don't think WTC buidlings were brought down with explosives, not even a slightest bit of suspicions crossing your mind? Heh, that's crazy...or just denial.

[aggle-rithm]

From what I've learnt, the longest ordeal in the plannings of any building implosion projects is studying the blueprints of the building and checkpoint where the explosives should be placed in order to make it fall the way they want it to fall. They'd create models of the buildings using specific programs in the computer to decide where the best spots are for placing explosives. 30 hours sounds like a reasonable time for placing explosives inside three buildings depending how many people were involved.


You'd better do a bit more studying.

They also gut the building before wiring it for explosives. Why didn't anyone working there notice this?

"Hey, what happened to my desk? And where are all the walls? Oh, well, I'm sure it's nothing."



Oh. So you do know how controlled demolition works, yet you don't think WTC buidlings were brought down with explosives, not even a slightest bit of suspicions crossing your mind? Heh, that's crazy...or just denial.

Have you tried Prozac? Paxil is good, too.

[geggy]

Have you tried Prozac? Paxil is good, too.

How would you know? You take them? No surprise here. Thanks for the recommendation, though. I think I'm ok. Now get away from me...you pill poppin' sheep.

Heh.

[kookbreaker]

Yes, power went out for 30 hours straight during a weekend prior to sept 11. DURING A WEEKEND PRIOR TO SEPT 11. NOT WEEKS, MONTHS, YEAR, BUT ONE WEEKEND BEFOREHAND. Don't be stupid.


You are quite arrogant little child. There happens to be the little detail that this power outage happened in only in WTC2. You might have noticed that that both buildings went down.

Edit to add: Oh incidently, the only accountting of this 'power-down' only has one person saying it took place.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html


30 hours sounds like a reasonable time for placing explosives inside three buildings depending how many people were involved.


So a bunch of folks drive vehicles loaded with explosives, make their way past security and bomb sniffing dogs, make their way into one of the largest buildings in the World, and plant explosives hey willy-nilly, in not only WTC2, but also WTC1 (which is not powered down)? They work solid for 30 hours, nobody notices? ANd they manage to leave no scars of their work of hiding explosives?

You apparently don't know anything about demolition.

[geggy]

So a bunch of folks drive vehicles loaded with explosives, make their way past security and bomb sniffing dogs, make their way into one of the largest buildings in the World, and plant explosives hey willy-nilly, in not only WTC2, but also WTC1 (which is not powered down)? They work solid for 30 hours, nobody notices? ANd they manage to leave no scars of their work of hiding explosives?

You apparently don't know anything about demolition.

Bomb sniffing dogs were removed, I think, two weeks prior to sept 11. Look it up. There are many possible ways to bring in the equipments. Like loading up the van and driving into the basement/parking lot of the WTC one by one several times in a week and hiding the equipments in the private section of the building. There are so many different possible ways.

I remember reading bunch of sources in the public press reports relating to the numerous evacuations and power shut downs before the attack to place. I will gather them and post as soon as I find them.

[CptColumbo]

Bomb sniffing dogs were removed, I think, two weeks prior to sept 11. Look it up. There are many possible ways to bring in the equipments. Like loading up the van and driving into the basement/parking lot of the WTC one by one several times in a week and hiding the equipments in the private section of the building. There are so many different possible ways.
I think the burden of proof is on you, so you look it up, and give us the link to it.

I remember reading bunch of sources in the public press reports relating to the numerous evacuations and power shut downs before the attack to place. I will gather them and post as soon as I find them.

I look forward to reading them. Hopefully, they don't all lead back to the same source.

[kookbreaker]

Bomb sniffing dogs were removed, I think, two weeks prior to sept 11. Look it up.


And yet one of the dogs died on site. The bomb-sniffing dog removal is another CT myth. The dogs that were removed were ones that were added during a brief hightening of security.


There are many possible ways to bring in the equipments. Like loading up the van and driving into the basement/parking lot of the WTC one by one several times in a week and hiding the equipments in the private section of the building. There are so many different possible ways.


So you have to:

1) Get the explosives into the parking lot...where there is security to prevent another '93 bombing.
2) Carry the explosives to a 'private place' without anyone noticing.
3) Keep them hidden in this 'private place' for an indeterminate amount of time and hoping the explosives to not deteriorate.
4) Place the explosives during a blackout that likely did not happen, place them so that nobody notices them despite the massive amount of manual work destructive work that real demoltion projects require so that the explosives will be in place.
5) Manage to do all this placement without power tools, or limited use of them, an 18 Volt Drill driver battery isn't going to cut it.
6) Hide all the explosives and work so that nobody notices when the blackout lifts.

Yeah, right.


I remember reading bunch of sources in the public press reports relating to the numerous evacuations and power shut downs before the attack to place. I will gather them and post as soon as I find them.

Mmmmm-hmmmm.

[CurtC]

geggy, did you realize that Scott Forbes' story, about how the power was off in the top half of WTC2, is so thoroughly unbelievable that even the pro-conspiracy folks don't take it seriously? See http://911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html

[CptColumbo]

And yet one of the dogs died on site. The bomb-sniffing dog removal is another CT myth. The dogs that were removed were ones that were added during a brief hightening of security.



So you have to:

1) Get the explosives into the parking lot...where there is security to prevent another '93 bombing.
2) Carry the explosives to a 'private place' without anyone noticing.
3) Keep them hidden in this 'private place' for an indeterminate amount of time and hoping the explosives to not deteriorate.
4) Place the explosives during a blackout that likely did not happen, place them so that nobody notices them despite the massive amount of manual work destructive work that real demoltion projects require so that the explosives will be in place.
5) Manage to do all this placement without power tools, or limited use of them, an 18 Volt Drill driver battery isn't going to cut it.
6) Hide all the explosives and work so that nobody notices when the blackout lifts.

Don't forget that the actual support structure of the WTC towers is on the outside, this was done to increase floor space available. Not only would people probably notice it on the inside, but might on the outside as well.

[hellaeon]

Oh. So you do know how controlled demolition works, yet you don't think WTC buidlings were brought down with explosives, not even a slightest bit of suspicions crossing your mind? Heh, that's crazy...or just denial.

No. Again, go read the documents I posted, then read this WHOLE thread. This was NOT CONTROLLED. When in history has a 'controlled' demolition featured so much debree scattered over such a wide area - outside of the 'controlled demolition zone' ? Go back to your x-files.

[CurtC]

But it was Marvin Bush, W.'s younger brother, who was in NYC at the time of the sept 11 attacks. He was a principal for a company called Securarcom that provided security for:I don't really know where Marvin Bush was on 9/11, but I am sure that he was no longer on Securacom's board. That ended more than a year before the attacks.

You see what's going on here? You have a whole bunch of little lies, which you're attempting to show that they paint the big picture of conspiracy. How many lies do you have to add together for them to tell the truth?

[CurtC]

Don't forget that the actual support structure of the WTC towers is on the outside, this was done to increase floor space available.I believe that the major weight-bearing supports in the towers were the columns in the buildings' centers. The beams on the outside provided stiffness against the wind, plus anchor points for the floors so that they didn't have to have a mesh of columns in the work areas.

[Regnad Kcin]

...Is it me, or do these blokes just drop in, one at a time, get shot down, then the next bloke steps up and tries the same stuff. Man its like religion bashers at the door when you give em 5 minutes of your time because your being polite. They are back in a few days trying again.It's not just you. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1587425#post1587425)

I'm beginning to think there's a bunch out there who are having their fun coming here and making the skeptics dance.

[Regnad Kcin]

If you're really "really interested," please go back and read this thread.Oh. So you do know how controlled demolition works, yet you don't think WTC buidlings were brought down with explosives, not even a slightest bit of suspicions crossing your mind? Heh, that's crazy...or just denial.I'm not certain how your response follows my statement, but I'll address what you wrote anyway:

It doesn't matter whether I have the "slightest bit of suspicions [sic]" or a great heaping deal of the stuff. If one starts with suspicion then he runs the risk of becoming personally attached to those feelings. Then the search will begin to validate or support the hypothesis and ignore that which doesn't. The proper way to look at any investigation of this sort is to take the evidence first and see where it leads and perhaps concludes.

Now, if you are arguing that there was some plot or plots that took place on 9/11, that's a bit different. For that you'll have to provide proof.

Proof. Evidence. Facts.

It should be easy. Because what you seem to be suggesting would be the largest operation of its kind (both in planning and execution) in history.

[no one in particular]

They're popin' up all over the interweb too. My favorite local cycling web site (http://www.cycle-cny.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=18301#18301) has seen a long time poster suddenly start parroting the Loose Change and the other conspiracy lot. And were not even supposed to be talking about that type of thing in that forum. The title says "Random cycling talk..." I expect the administrator will shut us down that thread at any time, but I'll counter him as long as I'm allow'd.

Thanks to this and many other web sites I've been able to whack about every mole that he's caused to pop up. And, since I didn't participate in it, I hope you folks don't mind me plagiarizing your Death Star routine...

And this guy is a Cornell-educated cycling buddy of mine. We've ridden together many times and I had taken him for a right skeptical guy--I had no idea he was a conspiracy nut. Oy.

[Pardalis]

Geggy, if you're unsatified with the Bush administration, there are plenty of democratic ways to show your discontempt, rallies, protests, etc. Don't fabricate lies about conspiracies that only insult the memory of the innocent people who died that awfull day. It's wrong, it's sick. It doesn't help anyone, it doesn't accomplish anything. You can fight against what you think is wrong in the world, I encourage you to do so, as long as it is in an honest way. But fueling this 9/11 conspiracy nonsense is extremely damaging to democracy and to the security of your nation and mine.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Bomb sniffing dogs were removed, I think, two weeks prior to sept 11. Look it up. There are many possible ways to bring in the equipments. Like loading up the van and driving into the basement/parking lot of the WTC one by one several times in a week and hiding the equipments in the private section of the building. There are so many different possible ways.

I remember reading bunch of sources in the public press reports relating to the numerous evacuations and power shut downs before the attack to place. I will gather them and post as soon as I find them.

If the NWO is so powerful and insidious why are you posting on the Internet instead of heading for some remote backwoods?

Here, let me give you a refresher on how scientific process works:
* There is a theory for the cause of the collapse of the WTC towers that has received provisional agreement by the majority
* You have an alternative idea
* For your alternative idea to be considered you must
* form a falsifiable hypothesis
* test this hypothesis
* provide the results for peer review
* and show why the currently accepted theory is in error

The burden of proof is on you. Put forth your arguements in a scientific and logically valid manner or go away.

Good grief, I really expected after going on vacation for 10+ days for this thread to have fallen off the first page.

[Belz...]

Yes, power went out for 30 hours straight during a weekend prior to sept 11. DURING A WEEKEND PRIOR TO SEPT 11. NOT WEEKS, MONTHS, YEAR, BUT ONE WEEKEND BEFOREHAND. Don't be stupid.

...so ?

30 hours sounds like a reasonable time for placing explosives inside three buildings depending how many people were involved.

Sounds like ? Who cares what it SOUNDS like ?

Oh. So you do know how controlled demolition works, yet you don't think WTC buidlings were brought down with explosives, not even a slightest bit of suspicions crossing your mind? Heh, that's crazy...or just denial.

Perhaps you should listen to people with experience or expertise in that field, instead of believing your X-files fantasies.

[Belz...]

There are so many different possible ways.

Yes, and there are many different possible ways that _I_ could have been involved in that event. But mere possibility does not make it true.

You do know about evidence, don't you ?

[aggle-rithm]

How would you know? You take them? No surprise here. Thanks for the recommendation, though. I think I'm ok. Heh.


Extreme paranoia is a symptom of low seratonin in the brain. Just trying to help, man.



Now get away from me...you pill poppin' sheep.



See what I mean about paranoia? I'm nowhere near you.

[aggle-rithm]

geggy,

A while back, when you promised us a debate, I said this:


A good start would be a synopsis of how it all fits together. A timeline would be nice. When did the government decide to orchestrate the attack, as you assert they did? If the 19 hijackers weren't really involved, what role did they play in the conspiracy? How was WTC 7 demolished, if it was sturdy enough to survive major damage and fire? What difference does it make whether it was demolished or fell on its own?

You won't convince anyone by mere VOLUME of information, whether real or imaginary. Remember, we need an unbroken chain of reasoning, from beginning to end, that explains all of your claims. We will even allow you to include unnecessary entities (in violation of Occam's razor) just as long as there is evidence that they actually exist, or are at least plausible. If you can't do that, then there's no reason to take the claims seriously.



Since that time, you have offered this:

Unless the planes hit the center of the towers, the buildings would have toppled instead of falling straight down, unless they were demolished.

The buildings fell at nearly the rate of free-fall, which can only happen in a demolition.

The concrete was pulverized.

Explosive charges shot out of the buildings

There was molten metal found in the rubble

People are afraid of questioning Bush because they would be labeled unpatriotic, that is why no one has stepped forward with the truth

Many people have called 911 a PSYOP. A PsYOP would confuse people and make them unable to explain or challenge it.

"A squib is not an electric match, even though the terms are used interchangeably by the uninitiated. It is a small explosive device which has a wide range of uses generating mechanical forces as well as pyrotechnic uses. A squib can range in size from a small cap only millimeters in diameter to ones which can be 15 millimetres in diameter. The squib being an explosive device, releases a lot of energy, and can be used for shattering, triggering, propelling and cutting a wide range of pyrotechnic and non-pyrotechnic materials."

A woman stood in an impact hole, and yet her hair didn't melt.

Where was Bush on the morning of 9/11?

WTC's power was shut down for thirty hours on the weekend prior to 9/11.

Thirty hours is enough time to wire the three WTC buildings with explosives.

Bomb-sniffing dogs may have been removed from the building before this time.


Here's the problem. Even if we accept that everything on this list is true (and it most certainly is not), it still doesn't paint a coherent picture. Especially since some of these arguments aren't even arguments, but rhetorical questions. Others are claims made by persons unknown. Still others could be called arguments, but supporting what? What is the overall premise? What is the conclusion? Why are you wasting our time?

Others have urged you to go back and read the entire thread. I don't think you're ready for this yet. A course in basic logic would be an necessary first step, and would do you wonders. Then, after you have critically examined the evidence, we can begin having an honest debate.

[geggy]

But I did lay out bunch of evidence but it hasn't gotten through your head....I made it clear why I thought all three buildings were brought down with explosives and I haven't yet been convinced by most of the posters' speculations...

Here are the evidence, make sure you look through completely and use common sense:

Timeline of WTC collapsing:

cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&investigations:_a_detailed_look=wtcinvestigation

More evidence not relating to the collapsing of WTC...

Warnings before 9/11 timeline:

cooperativeresearch.org/
timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=warnings

War games excercise/NORAD standdown timeline:

cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=militaryExercises

Complete 9/11 timelines:

cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Always remember, cover up is a conspiracy...

[Regnad Kcin]

geggy,

It's apparent that you do not know what "evidence" is.

Best of luck in your travels,

RK

[Z]

But I did lay out bunch of evidence but it hasn't gotten through your head....I made it clear why I thought all three buildings were brought down with explosives and I haven't yet been convinced by most of the posters' speculations...

Here are the evidence, make sure you look through completely and use common sense:

Timeline of WTC collapsing:

cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&investigations:_a_detailed_look=wtcinvestigation

More evidence not relating to the collapsing of WTC...

Warnings before 9/11 timeline:

cooperativeresearch.org/
timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=warnings

War games excercise/NORAD standdown timeline:

cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=militaryExercises

Complete 9/11 timelines:

cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Always remember, cover up is a conspiracy...

Common sense says, never use one source for information.

And know your sources well.

So far, seems that, while their objectives look good (at a glance), their methodology is undoubtably flawed. Why, exactly, do they need over $43,000? That's a hell of a lot of money. And why are they focused on 9/11, when they're claiming to be there to prevent the fragmentation of the historical record overall?

It's a ruse, I'd say. Judging from the overall quality of the site, and, particularly, the lack of quality of their articles and research, I'd say it's bunk.

So... got any GOOD sources of information?

[CurtC]

Here are the evidence, make sure you look through completely and use common sense:

Timeline of WTC collapsing:

http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&investigations:_a_detailed_look=wtcinvestigation
That's not evidence - it's dozens of screens tall, just to get up to 1994, with lots more after that. Is there something there you want to point out specifically?

Warnings before 9/11 timeline:

http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=warningsPretty much the same here. Point to something specifically.

War games excercise/NORAD standdown timeline:

http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=militaryExercisesAll these are the same kind of thing!

Complete 9/11 timelines:

http://cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_projectWhat is your point? You can't have a discussion by simply giving someone the address of the Library of Congress!

Is there any piece of evidence that you would actually care to state explicitly and defend?

[geggy]

Heh you've got to be kidding me. Either you didn't look thoroughly at the links I've just provided or you're just...dumb...

[Belz...]

Here are the evidence, make sure you look through completely and use common sense:

Common sense is worthless. Use logic and evidence, instead.

Always remember, cover up is a conspiracy...

Not if only one person is doing it.

Not if it's legal.

Not if everybody knows about it.

[Belz...]

Heh you've got to be kidding me. Either you didn't look thoroughly at the links I've just provided or you're just...dumb...

So... let me get this straight.

You came all the way over here, expecting that people would be as gullible as you... and now you're dissapointed ? Your only defense, now, is to call people idiots because they disagree with your interpretation of the "evidence" ?

[kookbreaker]

So... let me get this straight.

You came all the way over here, expecting that people would be as gullible as you... and now you're dissapointed ? Your only defense, now, is to call people idiots because they disagree with your interpretation of the "evidence" ?

What you are seeing is a conspriacy nutter discovering that he is not as clever or intelligent as he thinks he is, and so he retreats into the warm glow of denial and insults.

Conspiracy Theories are the opium of the self-impressed.

[aggle-rithm]

Here are the evidence, make sure you look through completely and use common sense:



So... your concept of intelligent debate is to dig up a bunch of disjointed factoids and handing it over to ME to construct YOUR argument?

Are you sure you trust me to do this for you? I might not come up with the most persuasive argument from your perspective.

[kookbreaker]

IHere is a full length of W.'s visit to Booker Elementary School on the morning of sept 11. He just sat there with his poker face after being told that America was under attack...


Honestly, what did you expect him to do? Run around and scream like a little girl? Panic? Dive on the floor and let Secret Service and small children pile on top of him? There was little he could do from his executive position, he was in a secure area (leaving the area off of schdule would have put him at greater risk). He's not the first President to have an attack on America while in office, he's being taped for news broadcast and is in front of children. The event will end shortly. This is a big pile of nothing.

Tell you what, tell me what Clinton was doing and how he reacted to the 93 WTC bombing and the OK bombing.

[geggy]

Stop it guys you are freaking ME out

[CurtC]

Heh you've got to be kidding me. Either you didn't look thoroughly at the links I've just provided or you're just...dumb...To thoroughly read all the links you provided in that post would take weeks. The part I did read is just a timeline of events - I didn't yet see anything that would indicate that something other than the standard model had happened.

What specifically in those links do you think points to a conspiracy? Help us out here. Be specific.

[kookbreaker]

Heh you've got to be kidding me. Either you didn't look thoroughly at the links I've just provided or you're just...dumb...

Here are things you've called evidence:

Marvin Bush -> Debunked
30 hour power-down -> Debunked
George Bush's reaction -> Irrelevant
Bomb Sniffing Dogs Removed -> Debunked
Woman has hair -> Irrelvant and Debunked

This has been your level of evidence quality so far, so do not refer to us as dumb. Once that lump of rotting phlegm between your ears accidently gets a static charge that will let it pretend to be a single neuron you might realise how freaking stupid and disorganized your arguements and evidence are.

[kookbreaker]

Stop it guys you are freaking ME out

Intelligence and critical thinking scare you. We get it.

[geggy]

You say disjointed factoids, I say contradictions.

Yeah Turn on the oven at 500 degree F and stick your head into it and see if your hair vaporizes. Steel melts at approx. 2500-2750 degree F. Do the math. der.

I don't believe at all that you've looked into the link that I provided so I'll just copy and paste this part...

"August 27, 2003: NIST Investigators Rule Out Weak Steel as a Factor in Collapses At the end of a two-day meeting to discuss the progress of their investigation of the WTC collapses on 9/11, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigators say that early tests on steel beams recovered from the World Trade Center showed they met or were stronger than design requirements. NIST has collected 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage of the towers. Tests have found that the steel beams exceeded requirements to bear 36,000 pounds per square inch, and were often capable of bearing around 42,000 pounds per square inch. Lead investigator Shyam Sunder says that if further testing corroborates these findings, this will rule out weak steel as a factor in the collapses. [Associated Press, 9/28/2003; National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/26/2003] The final report of the NIST investigation, released in 2005, will corroborate this finding: “Overall, approximately 87 percent of all perimeter and core column steel tested exceeded the required minimum yield strengths specified in design documents. Test data for the remaining samples were below specifications, but were within the expected variability and did not affect the safety of the towers on September 11, 2001.” It also will point out: “Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 degrees C. ... Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 degrees C. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 degrees C.” [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 10/2005 ]" der.


Its quite simple and clear...you don't need to be an intellectual to figure it out.

In one of the links I provided explained the US had received multiple warnings prior to 9/11...some are very, very clear showing where AND when it was going to happen.

Wargame exercises were performed nurmerous times, with the WTC as one of the targets prior to 9/11 AND on the morning of 9/11.

Pentagon was struck 40 minutes after the first strike in NYC without any scramblings of fighter jets to protect the skies of DC, let alone an air force base locating merely 10 miles from the white house. der.

[Pardalis]

But I did lay out bunch of evidence but it hasn't gotten through your head....I made it clear why I thought all three buildings were brought down with explosives and I haven't yet been convinced by most of the posters' speculations...

Here are the evidence, make sure you look through completely and use common sense:

Timeline of WTC collapsing:

cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&investigations:_a_detailed_look=wtcinvestigation

More evidence not relating to the collapsing of WTC...

Warnings before 9/11 timeline:

cooperativeresearch.org/
timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=warnings

War games excercise/NORAD standdown timeline:

cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=militaryExercises

Complete 9/11 timelines:

cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Always remember, cover up is a conspiracy...

I quickly read the timeline, didn't read everything back to 1954, I do have a life, but so far, all that I've read confirms that the towers were hit by airline jets piloted by Al Qaeda agents and that the US intelligence agencies were grossly incompetent at handling the threat (AKA the official story). Also, it's easy for us in 2006 who know what hapenned that day to put all these warning signs together, but remember that none of these warnings point to specific targets and specific airports. Even though I don't excuse the lack of leadership and communications between the various agencies, I don't expect them to have forsight, or precognition powers.

[Pardalis]

geggy, can you quote me any place in the timeline that says with evidence that someone planted at any time explosive in all three WTC buildings?

Can you post somewhere in the timeline where the highjackers didn't board the airplaines and didn't plunge the airplains into the WTC and the pentagon?

[geggy]

Well I do have a life too. I own a tmobile sidekick with internet provider (dial up speed...ugh) and makes it easier for me to do bunch of readings anywhere at anytime.

The incompetence theory is laughable, it's impossible. There were numurous top officials who have been awarded with medals and promotions and none have been fired after sept 11. How do you explain that?

[rwguinn]

You say disjointed factoids, I say contradictions.

Yeah Turn on the oven at 500 degree F and stick your head into it and see if your hair vaporizes. Steel melts at approx. 2500-2750 degree F. Do the math. der.

I don't believe at all that you've looked into the link that I provided so I'll just copy and paste this part...

"August 27, 2003: NIST Investigators Rule Out Weak Steel as a Factor in Collapses At the end of a two-day meeting to discuss the progress of their investigation of the WTC collapses on 9/11, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigators say that early tests on steel beams recovered from the World Trade Center showed they met or were stronger than design requirements. NIST has collected 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage of the towers. Tests have found that the steel beams exceeded requirements to bear 36,000 pounds per square inch, and were often capable of bearing around 42,000 pounds per square inch. Lead investigator Shyam Sunder says that if further testing corroborates these findings, this will rule out weak steel as a factor in the collapses. [Associated Press, 9/28/2003; National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/26/2003] The final report of the NIST investigation, released in 2005, will corroborate this finding: “Overall, approximately 87 percent of all perimeter and core column steel tested exceeded the required minimum yield strengths specified in design documents. Test data for the remaining samples were below specifications, but were within the expected variability and did not affect the safety of the towers on September 11, 2001.” It also will point out: “Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 degrees C. ... Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 degrees C. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 degrees C.” [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 10/2005 ]" der.

.
So the steel met the specifications of A36 steel. Gee-something that actually performs as advertised. What's the big deal about that?
A36 loses 1/2 its strength at 500F (about 260C) and 600C is 1080F-by which time the strength is down to around 25%
That's how blacksmiths make their living...

[geggy]

geggy, can you quote me any place in the timeline that says with evidence that someone planted at any time explosive in all three WTC buildings?

Can you post somewhere in the timeline where the highjackers didn't board the airplaines and didn't plunge the airplains into the WTC and the pentagon?

Show me an evidence that fire brought down the towers.

Again, I strongly believe planes crashed into all buildings and that includes the pentagon. Reason why I believe that is by hearing several witness statements and looking at photographic evidences showing debris's from an AA77 airtliner. But I'm not sure about the hijackers, though. Different websites have shown their names were on the passenger list...some didnt show their names. Hard to tell which is which.

[Pardalis]

Show me an evidence that fire brought down the towers.

Again, I strongly believe planes crashed into all buildings and that includes the pentagon. Reason why I believe that is by hearing several witness statements and looking at photographic evidences showing debris's from an AA77 airtliner. But I'm not sure about the hijackers, though. Different websites have shown their names were on the passenger list...some didnt show their names. Hard to tell which is which.

So who piloted these planes into these buildings?

BTW, the plane crashes AND the subsequent fires brought down the towers.

[Pardalis]

So let me guet this straight geggy. According to you, there were numerous warning signs of an Al Qaeda attack that the US intelligence didn'thandle, ultimately the Al Qaeda attacks didn't occur because the highjackers didn't highjack the planes?

[kookbreaker]

Show me an evidence that fire brought down the towers.


wtc.nist.gov

http://911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/

http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/events/reports/2003-2004/fire_structures.pdf

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/worldTradeCenter.htm

[kookbreaker]

You say disjointed factoids, I say contradictions.


Only if you ignore basic metallurgy.


Yeah Turn on the oven at 500 degree F and stick your head into it and see if your hair vaporizes. Steel melts at approx. 2500-2750 degree F. Do the math. der.

Learn about what happens to steel structural strength way below the melting temperature, der.

[aggle-rithm]

You say disjointed factoids, I say contradictions.


Oh, well that's completely different! Let me rephrase:

"So... your concept of intelligent debate is to dig up a bunch of contradictions and handing it over to ME to construct YOUR argument?"

Yeah Turn on the oven at 500 degree F and stick your head into it and see if your hair vaporizes. Steel melts at approx. 2500-2750 degree F. Do the math. der.


OK:
Oven temperature = 500
Melting point of steel = 2500

Ummm....

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about when I say you must present a clear, unbroken chain of logic if you want to convince anyone.

What math am I supposed to perform?
What is the relevance of the melting point of steel?



I don't believe at all that you've looked into the link that I provided so I'll just copy and paste this part...

"August 27, 2003: NIST Investigators Rule Out Weak Steel as a Factor in Collapses At the end of a two-day meeting to discuss the progress of their investigation of the WTC collapses on 9/11, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigators say that early tests on steel beams recovered from the World Trade Center showed they met or were stronger than design requirements. NIST has collected 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage of the towers. Tests have found that the steel beams exceeded requirements to bear 36,000 pounds per square inch, and were often capable of bearing around 42,000 pounds per square inch. Lead investigator Shyam Sunder says that if further testing corroborates these findings, this will rule out weak steel as a factor in the collapses. [Associated Press, 9/28/2003; National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/26/2003] The final report of the NIST investigation, released in 2005, will corroborate this finding: “Overall, approximately 87 percent of all perimeter and core column steel tested exceeded the required minimum yield strengths specified in design documents. Test data for the remaining samples were below specifications, but were within the expected variability and did not affect the safety of the towers on September 11, 2001.” It also will point out: “Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 degrees C. ... Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 degrees C. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 degrees C.” [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 10/2005 ]" der.


Its quite simple and clear...you don't need to be an intellectual to figure it out.


Then you should have no problem putting together a coherent argument and presenting it. What are you waiting for?

Think about this: If explosives were used on the exterior column panels, don't you think the temperature would have exceeded 600 degrees?

Also, you may want to look at the engineering report as to why the towers collapsed. The exterior columns did not have to reach high temperatures for it to collapse, because it was the steel connecting the concrete floor to the supports that failed, not the supports themselves. Once the floor fell away, the supports lost their structural integrity, since the floors were designed to keep the columns rigid, at the same time the columns kept the floor in place.


In one of the links I provided explained the US had received multiple warnings prior to 9/11...some are very, very clear showing where AND when it was going to happen.


Well, I guess they didn't handle it very well, did they? Too bad.

There are numerous examples in history where a victim of an attack had ample warning, but got caught by surprise anyway. Do you think this is ALWAYS indicative of a conspiracy?


Wargame exercises were performed nurmerous times, with the WTC as one of the targets prior to 9/11 AND on the morning of 9/11.


Playing Microsoft "Flight Simulator" doesn't really qualify as a "war game".


Pentagon was struck 40 minutes after the first strike in NYC without any scramblings of fighter jets to protect the skies of DC, let alone an air force base locating merely 10 miles from the white house. der.

Was there a protocol in place to scramble fighters to protect D.C. airspace whenever a plane crashed in New York? (Not IS there, but WAS there, on 9/11/2001?)

[aggle-rithm]

Well I do have a life too. I own a tmobile sidekick with internet provider (dial up speed...ugh) and makes it easier for me to do bunch of readings anywhere at anytime.

The incompetence theory is laughable, it's impossible. There were numurous top officials who have been awarded with medals and promotions and none have been fired after sept 11. How do you explain that?

The top officials' bosses are incompetent?

Edited to add:

If you have never worked someplace where incompetent people are praised and rewarded, then you are very fortunate, indeed. Most of us aren't so lucky.

[Pardalis]

The top officials' bosses are incompetent?

Incompetence in the government? Wow, that's unheard of!

[CurtC]

Yeah Turn on the oven at 500 degree F and stick your head into it and see if your hair vaporizes. Steel melts at approx. 2500-2750 degree F. Do the math. der.First, no one claims that temperatures in the building were anywhere near the melting point of steel. Next, the lady in the video/photos was not in the middle of the fires, was she? She was standing near the edge of the building, where the aircraft had entered and swept away all the flammable materials from? After the fuel exploded, there was nothing else at that specific spot left to burn. This was also a point that looks to be upwind of the fires, since it's not obscured by smoke. There is just no reason to believe that the point where she's standing is hot enough to melt hair.

I don't believe at all that you've looked into the link that I provided so I'll just copy and paste this part...

"August 27, 2003: NIST Investigators Rule Out Weak Steel as a Factor in CollapsesSo the steel met its specifications. Is this somehow evidence in your favor? Please explain how. I honestly can't imagine why you would have posted this.

Show me an evidence that fire brought down the towers.Well, we have overwhelming evidence that the towers were struck by jet airliners with lots of fuel, that fires raged in those towers for a good while before the collapses, that the collapses seemed to start at the points where the fires were burning, and undisputable physics references that show that steel loses much of its strength at temperatures you see in office fires. There.

Now do you have any evidence that the towers fell for some other reason? Because with all of that uncontested information, that's a very reasonable explanation, so it will take really strong evidence to the contrary to dispute it.

[Pardalis]

geggy, I'm honestly trying really hard to figure out your theory. So, according to you Al Qaeda planned the 9/11 attacks, the US government knew about it (with bits and pieces), ultimately A Quaeda dropped the idea so the US gov decided to go ahead with it themselves. I'm I right so far geggy?

[Pangea]

This is my first post, and I wanted to thank you all for providing me with so many great links about 9-11 conspiracies.
I was recently in an online debate with a CTist who wanted me to provide proof that all of the theories he was posting were false (yet he failed to provide the proof that they weren't).
I stumbled upon this forum and all of the wonderful links to offer that proof, and didn't really need to look anywhere else! Of course, in true CTist fashion, it was met with "Nope. Can't be true because that's what they want you to believe." and "Yeah? Well, what about XYZ, then?"
I look forward to joining future discussions and learning a great deal.
Thanks!

[Pardalis]

Or is it that the US gov and Al Quaeda were in on it together, so that the US gov would have a reason to go to Afghanistan to beat the crap out of Al Quaeda. Boy, these Al Qaeda really are stupid.

[chipmunk stew]

I don't believe at all that you've looked into the link that I provided so I'll just copy and paste this part...

"August 27, 2003: NIST Investigators Rule Out Weak Steel as a Factor in CollapsesSo the steel met its specifications. Is this somehow evidence in your favor? Please explain how. I honestly can't imagine why you would have posted this.geggy, this is what your quote does not say:

"August 27, 2003: NIST Investigators Rule Out Weakened Steel as a Factor in Collapses"

Much as you'd like to interpret it that way.

[Pardalis]

This is my first post

I look forward to joining future discussions and learning a great deal.
Thanks!

Welcome:)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

geggy, this is what your quote does not say:

"August 27, 2003: NIST Investigators Rule Out Weakened Steel as a Factor in Collapses"

Much as you'd like to interpret it that way.

This is very critical point that deserves reiteration. NIST stating that the steel in the towers was within spec is very different from NIST stating that the steel debris did not show signs of having exceeded its spec.

[chipmunk stew]

It cracks me up that the 9/11 CTs will embrace NIST's research (when it can be taken out of context and misinterpreted to their advantage) as authoritative, but dismiss their conclusions as biased and part of a cover-up.

Cognitive dissonance at its best.

[chipmunk stew]

This is my first post, and I wanted to thank you all for providing me with so many great links about 9-11 conspiracies.
I was recently in an online debate with a CTist who wanted me to provide proof that all of the theories he was posting were false (yet he failed to provide the proof that they weren't).
I stumbled upon this forum and all of the wonderful links to offer that proof, and didn't really need to look anywhere else! Of course, in true CTist fashion, it was met with "Nope. Can't be true because that's what they want you to believe." and "Yeah? Well, what about XYZ, then?"
I look forward to joining future discussions and learning a great deal.
Thanks!Welcome, Pangea. Post early, post often. :D

[Pardalis]

Engineering reports should be read by engineers, not amateurs (including myself).

[Tirdun]

Was there a protocol in place to scramble fighters to protect D.C. airspace whenever a plane crashed in New York? (Not IS there, but WAS there, on 9/11/2001?)

No. There were intercept rules in place, rules that had never been put to the test.

Its also interesting for me to see words like "scramble" used in arguments about timeframes by people who have no idea what the word means outside the movies. I wonder if any CTer has bothered to actually look up the true launch times for an FA-18E/F or F-16C/D in full intercept mode. Do they picture hundreds or thousands of military aircraft, all over the country, sitting at the end of the runway with a pilot sitting at the stick for hours on end, waiting for the "go" signal? Do those hundreds of aircraft just sit there, idly burning through expensive J5? Are there armed sidewinder missiles sitting on their pylons and wingtips?

"There was a airforce base only 10 miles away!!!"
Yeah? And there's a fire station within 10 miles of millions of homes in America. How come so many burn down?

[Pardalis]

Again, I strongly believe planes crashed into all buildings and that includes the pentagon. Reason why I believe that is by hearing several witness statements and looking at photographic evidences showing debris's from an AA77 airtliner. But I'm not sure about the hijackers, though. Different websites have shown their names were on the passenger list...some didnt show their names. Hard to tell which is which.

This statement is really troubling. I'm anxious of having your thoughts on it geggy. So, the WTC towers were hit by airline planes, but not by the highjackers?:confused:

[aggle-rithm]

Engineering reports should be read by engineers, not amateurs (including myself).

True. He should seek out the Cliff Notes or "9/11 for Dummys".

[aggle-rithm]

No. There were intercept rules in place, rules that had never been put to the test.

Its also interesting for me to see words like "scramble" used in arguments about timeframes by people who have no idea what the word means outside the movies. I wonder if any CTer has bothered to actually look up the true launch times for an FA-18E/F or F-16C/D in full intercept mode. Do they picture hundreds or thousands of military aircraft, all over the country, sitting at the end of the runway with a pilot sitting at the stick for hours on end, waiting for the "go" signal? Do those hundreds of aircraft just sit there, idly burning through expensive J5? Are there armed sidewinder missiles sitting on their pylons and wingtips?

"There was a airforce base only 10 miles away!!!"
Yeah? And there's a fire station within 10 miles of millions of homes in America. How come so many burn down?

This is a good point, and it also applies to the frequent accusation by CT's that the fighters didn't fly fast enough. The difference in fuel consumption when travelling at top speed vs. minimum speed is very great compared to that of a car. Did the pilots really want to burn all their fuel rushing to the scene, when they don't even know what will be waiting for them there?

(This is, of course, putting aside the legal speed restrictions placed on the fighters.)

[The_Fire]

Lemme see if I can do an estimated guess on the entire "scramble a fighter squadron" thing:

1: Situation assesment: Does the situtation indicate anything else than a commercial airliner out of route? If it IS a highjacking, how will the highjackers react to the approach of a couple of fighter planes? I would say around 10-15 minutes to make sure its a "hostile" target.

2: Fueling the planes. AFAIK those things doesn't stand arround fully fueled due to the danger of explosions. Let's put that one at 20 minutes and pretend they are using a turbo-fuelline like the formula 1 fuellines. Not to mention that this also means that the fuel truck is already on site.

3: Arming the planes. Same reason as 2. Same approximate length of time.

4: Gathering the pilots. Let's exclude this and say that they are at the base. They still have to get into g-suits etc. That is NOT fast work. And it's not equiptment you stand around in for longer than you have to.
20-30 minutes.

5: Planning a flightplan to prevent the fighter planes from a: colliding with other planes b: colliding with tall buildings called "skyscrapers" (bear in mind that the passenger jets were probably in low altitude).
20-30 minutes.

6: Briefing to ensure the pilots know what they are doing and where they are going.
10-20 minutes depending on what the flightplan looks like.

7: Actually LAUNCHING the darned things. This alone will take about 15 minutes from pilot-in-cockpit to plane-in-flight due to things like taxiing the plane out on the runway etc.

Lets calculate my estimate then:
if 1,2 anbd 3 are done at the same time together with 4 an 5.
While 4 is happening, the tower is putting together a flightplan, putting it short: 20 minutes.
Briefing: 10 minutes.
Launch: 15 minutes.
Total: 45 minutes.

And then they still have to get there.....

Please feel free to correct my math if someone reading have a better understanding of these things.

While several of these things can be done simultaniously, things like the briefing takes time due to the safety of the pilots and the citizens of the city. Flying a fighter isn't like driving a car from a to b.

ETA: Sorry, discovered a mistake in the calculations. Found out that 1,2,3,4 and 5 would probably be done at the same time in an organised enviroment such as the airforce.

[Pardalis]

I don't think Superman would have got there in time:

- Hearing the pilots scream with his super hearing (1 minute)
- Finding a clever way to get out of Lois Lane's company unseen (5 to 10 min)
- Finding a phone booth or other hiding place to change (5 min)
- Change into Superman (30 sec)
- Finding the first highjacked plane (5 min)

we're already at 20 minutes.

[Regnad Kcin]

No. There were intercept rules in place, rules that had never been put to the test.

Its also interesting for me to see words like "scramble" used in arguments about timeframes by people who have no idea what the word means outside the movies. I wonder if any CTer has bothered to actually look up the true launch times for an FA-18E/F or F-16C/D in full intercept mode. Do they picture hundreds or thousands of military aircraft, all over the country, sitting at the end of the runway with a pilot sitting at the stick for hours on end, waiting for the "go" signal? Do those hundreds of aircraft just sit there, idly burning through expensive J5? Are there armed sidewinder missiles sitting on their pylons and wingtips?

"There was a airforce base only 10 miles away!!!"
Yeah? And there's a fire station within 10 miles of millions of homes in America. How come so many burn down?An excellent post.

However, you forgot to say "der."

[Z]

No. There were intercept rules in place, rules that had never been put to the test.

Its also interesting for me to see words like "scramble" used in arguments about timeframes by people who have no idea what the word means outside the movies. I wonder if any CTer has bothered to actually look up the true launch times for an FA-18E/F or F-16C/D in full intercept mode. Do they picture hundreds or thousands of military aircraft, all over the country, sitting at the end of the runway with a pilot sitting at the stick for hours on end, waiting for the "go" signal? Do those hundreds of aircraft just sit there, idly burning through expensive J5? Are there armed sidewinder missiles sitting on their pylons and wingtips?

"There was a airforce base only 10 miles away!!!"
Yeah? And there's a fire station within 10 miles of millions of homes in America. How come so many burn down?

Reminds me of the time I spent on Ft. Bragg. First deployment for our unit in wartime was one platoon at 18 hours when on alert status, the remaining unit within 24-36 hours, as Air Force timetables permitted.

18 hours. For about 20 guys and their gear. Rigs were already loaded on trains and sitting at the airfield.

While I imagine it's far faster to deploy aircraft, I still don't see an immediate response in less than two hours. Especially when the country wasn't at war.

[Z]

Lemme see if I can do an estimated guess on the entire "scramble a fighter squadron" thing:

1: Situation assesment: Does the situtation indicate anything else than a commercial airliner out of route? If it IS a highjacking, how will the highjackers react to the approach of a couple of fighter planes? I would say around 10-15 minutes to make sure its a "hostile" target.

2: Fueling the planes. AFAIK those things doesn't stand arround fully fueled due to the danger of explosions. Let's put that one at 20 minutes and pretend they are using a turbo-fuelline like the formula 1 fuellines. Not to mention that this also means that the fuel truck is already on site.

3: Arming the planes. Same reason as 2. Same approximate length of time.

4: Gathering the pilots. Let's exclude this and say that they are at the base. They still have to get into g-suits etc. That is NOT fast work. And it's not equiptment you stand around in for longer than you have to.
20-30 minutes.

5: Planning a flightplan to prevent the fighter planes from a: colliding with other planes b: colliding with tall buildings called "skyscrapers" (bear in mind that the passenger jets were probably in low altitude).
20-30 minutes.

6: Briefing to ensure the pilots know what they are doing and where they are going.
10-20 minutes depending on what the flightplan looks like.

7: Actually LAUNCHING the darned things. This alone will take about 15 minutes from pilot-in-cockpit to plane-in-flight due to things like taxiing the plane out on the runway etc.

Lets calculate my estimate then:
if 1,2 anbd 3 are done at the same time together with 4 an 5.
While 4 is happening, the tower is putting together a flightplan, putting it short: 20 minutes.
Briefing: 10 minutes.
Launch: 15 minutes.
Total: 45 minutes.

And then they still have to get there.....

Please feel free to correct my math if someone reading have a better understanding of these things.

While several of these things can be done simultaniously, things like the briefing takes time due to the safety of the pilots and the citizens of the city. Flying a fighter isn't like driving a car from a to b.

ETA: Sorry, discovered a mistake in the calculations. Found out that 1,2,3,4 and 5 would probably be done at the same time in an organised enviroment such as the airforce.

Note on 2 and 3: there's a good chance a number of craft in 'alert' status were already fueled and armed, just in case. Still, recalling personnel can take as long as half an hour, by itself.

[The_Fire]

Thank you Zaayrdragon.

[Belz...]

Yeah Turn on the oven at 500 degree F and stick your head into it and see if your hair vaporizes. Steel melts at approx. 2500-2750 degree F. Do the math. der.

Hair vapourises at 500F ?

NIST has collected 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage of the towers.

As opposed to what SOME have said.

Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 degrees C.”

Hasn't it been shown that steel is weakened at that temp ?

Its quite simple and clear...you don't need to be an intellectual to figure it out.

And yet specialists disagree with you. See a pattern ?

Pentagon was struck 40 minutes after the first strike in NYC without any scramblings of fighter jets to protect the skies of DC, let alone an air force base locating merely 10 miles from the white house. der.

As someone said before, do you know how many planes fly over DC ?

[kookbreaker]

Hasn't it been shown that steel is weakened at that temp ?


Its irrelevant. The steel NIST has collected and identified and tested for temperature exposure was only from the perimeter. The core column pieces exposed to the maximum heat were pretty much unlocatable.

NIST ran their temperture tests with intact pieces similar to those internal columns. They prettymuch agree with what the model says happened.

[geggy]

Heh, you guys crack me up...

With all the warnings the US government had received, why did they not notify the Air Force about the heightened alert in NYC, just in case they should as well be on alert? After the north tower was struck, the story broke out on television all over the world yet the Pentagon was struck 40 minutes later without any deployment of fighter jets. There were enormous evidence showing wargame exercises were being performed that morning.

You want math???

8:13 AA11 last transmission with Boston ATC.

8:13 to 8:20 AA11 goes off course and is hijacked.

8:20 AA11 transponder signal stops.

8:36 NORAD spokesman, Major Mike Snyder, confirmed that the FAA notified NORAD of AA11 hijacking.

8:38 Boston notifies NORAD that AA11 has been hijacked.

8:40 FAA notifies NORAD that AA11 has been hijacked.

8:43 FAA notifies NORAD that UA175 has been hijacked.

8:46 AA11 impacts the North Tower of the WTC between the 94th and 98th floors.

8:46 NORAD finally orders Otis to scramble two F-15's. NORAD has held on to this vital information for at least 6, 8 or 10 minutes, and probably up to 26 or 32 minutes.

8:52 Two F-15's from Otis are deployed.

9:02:54 UA175 impacts the South Tower of the WTC between the 78th and 84th floors. NORAD says the F15's from Otis are still 71 miles away. This means their average flight speed was only 23.9% of their top speed in trying to intercept UA 175. Otis is 153 miles from WTC - F15's have a top speed of 1875 MPH. Minus 71 miles from 153 miles = 82 miles covered in 11 minutes from 8:52 to 9:03
60 minutes divided by 11 minutes = 5.45 x 82 miles = 447.3 MPH divided by 1875 MPH = 23.9%.

9:30 Three F16's from Langley are airborne.

9:37 AA77 hits the Pentagon. NORAD says the F16's from Langley were still 105 miles and 12 minutes away.

9:49 It takes the F16's from Langley 19 minutes to reach Washington. This means their average flight speed was only 27.4% of their top speed in trying to protect our nations capital. Langley is 130 miles from the Pentagon
F16's have a top speed of 1500 MPH - 60 minutes divided by 19 minutes = 3.16 x 130 miles = 410.5 MPH divided by 1500 MPH = 27.4%.

Andrews Air Force Base has two fighter wings that are 10 miles from the Pentagon, yet they waited till after all of the attacks were over to finally deploy.

The US spends at least 350+ billion a year on defense system. Also air force is by far and away the most technologically advanced defense system in the world. Seems like a waste, yes?

[kookbreaker]

88:46 NORAD finally orders Otis to scramble two F-15's. NORAD has held on to this vital information for at least 6, 8 or 10 minutes, and probably up to 26 or 32 minutes.


Wow. 6 minutes. You do realise that were not talking about a hotline from FAA's proles to NORAD decision makers. NORAD also has to check what is available and may have other entanglements. There's also the little detail that HIJACKED PLANES WERE NOT USED AS WEAPONS UNTIL 9-11!

Ergo, a scrambled plane would have been to check and escort, not intercept.


8:52 Two F-15's from Otis are deployed.

9:02:54 UA175 impacts the South Tower of the WTC between the 78th and 84th floors. NORAD says the F15's from Otis are still 71 miles away. This means their average flight speed was only 23.9% of their top speed in trying to intercept UA 175. Otis is 153 miles from WTC - F15's have a top speed of 1875 MPH. Minus 71 miles from 153 miles = 82 miles covered in 11 minutes from 8:52 to 9:03
60 minutes divided by 11 minutes = 5.45 x 82 miles = 447.3 MPH divided by 1875 MPH = 23.9%.


Fighter Jets may have high speeds, but they do not have permission to use them, even in an emergency. Read what the pilots have said. They also have to account for any time in the air for escorting a traditionally hijacked plane, it would be quite a problem if the planes went up burned up all their fuel racing to meet a plane, then had to leave for lack of fuel.

This, and about a hundred other factors are things you did not consider. 911myths touches on a few of the problems

http://911myths.com/html/fighter_speeds.html



The US spends at least 350+ billion a year on defense system. Also air force is by far and away the most technologically advanced defense system in the world. Seems like a waste, yes?

No. We build a machine to fight wars, and it does so very well. This was not war. Der.

[geggy]

geggy, this is what your quote does not say:

"August 27, 2003: NIST Investigators Rule Out Weakened Steel as a Factor in Collapses"

Much as you'd like to interpret it that way.

Uh that the buildings were ridiculously overiengineered, including the 47 steel central columns in each of the towers...is that what you wanted to know?

[Pardalis]

So if I follow your train of thought geggy, the US government knew about the attack and let it happen so that they could do their own damage. The supposed controlled demolition was planned beforehand, the FBI planned their demolition in accordance with their intelligence about the Al Qaeda plot so that the demolition would happen at the same time as the plane attacks. So the Al Qaida attack was a smoke screen for the demolition of the WTC.

But if they just had let the Al Qaida attack happen without the demolition, the end result would have been the same right? Hundreds of Americans would have been killed anyway.

[geggy]

[QUOTE=geggy;1586796]June 2001 The decades-old procedure for a quick response by the nation

[Pardalis]

[QUOTE=geggy;1586796]June 2001 The decades-old procedure for a quick response by the nation

Can you post this quote in it's original context please?

[chipmunk stew]

Uh that the buildings were ridiculously overiengineered, including the 47 steel central columns in each of the towers...is that what you wanted to know?They weren't "ridiculously overengineered", they were properly engineered. The designers and builders used appropriate factors of safety in selecting their building materials. The NIST statement said merely that we can rule out corner-cutting or poor material selection in the construction of the towers to account for their collapse.

They were engineered to withstand impacts orders of magnitude smaller than a fully-loaded 767 at cruising speed.

[CurtC]

Uh that the buildings were ridiculously overiengineered, including the 47 steel central columns in each of the towers...is that what you wanted to know?I don't see how this response of yours addresses his question, at all. You posted a lengthy excerpt which made the point that the steel used in the towers was up to spec. We point out that this in no way implies that the fire explanation is lessened. You then respond that there were 47 steel columns in the towers. What the hell is your point?

[geggy]

[QUOTE=geggy;1596639]

Can you post this quote in it's original context please?

Yes...


June 2001

The decades-old procedure for a quick response by the nation’s air defense was changed. NORAD’s military commanders could no longer issue the command to launch fighter jets because approval had to be sought from the civilian Defense Secretary and PNAC-member, Donald Rumsfeld.

9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing7/for_the_record_ashley.pdf

More timeline here...

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x932617

[geggy]

I don't see how this response of yours addresses his question, at all. You posted a lengthy excerpt which made the point that the steel used in the towers was up to spec. We point out that this in no way implies that the fire explanation is lessened. You then respond that there were 47 steel columns in the towers. What the hell is your point?


Ha. I'll have to get back to you on that when I can...

[Gravy]

[QUOTE=Pardalis;1596649]

Yes...


June 2001

The decades-old procedure for a quick response by the nation’s air defense was changed. NORAD’s military commanders could no longer issue the command to launch fighter jets because approval had to be sought from the civilian Defense Secretary and PNAC-member, Donald Rumsfeld.

9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing7/for_the_record_ashley.pdf

More timeline here...

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x932617

Geggy, you need to read the whole statement about that NORAD change in policy. For all "NON-IMMEDIATE RESPONSES" they would be required to go through the SecDef. The old rules of engagement still applied after June, 2001 for any urgent situation in the air.

[rwguinn]

Ha. I'll have to get back to you on that when I can...
Translation:
"I didn't have a point, but I'll see if I can manufacture one"

[chipmunk stew]

Translation:
"I didn't have a point, but I'll see if I can manufacture one"I don't know, I guess an endless string of non sequiturs is just as good as a logically coherent theory, right?

Who needs evidence and sound reasoning when you can weave a specious tapestry of insinuations, half-truths, and outright lies?

[delphi_ote]

I don't know, I guess an endless string of non sequiturs is just as good as a logically coherent theory, right?

Who needs evidence and sound reasoning when you can weave a specious tapestry of insinuations, half-truths, and outright lies?
Hmm...
*grabs his dictionary, flips through a few pages*
conspiracy theory - n. a specious tapestry of insinuations, half-truths, and outright lies

[CptColumbo]

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion," Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York was fond of saying. "He is not entitled to his own facts."

[Belz...]

Heh, you guys crack me up...

Yeah, people usually giggle when exposed to things they don't understand.

With all the warnings the US government had received, why did they not notify the Air Force about the heightened alert in NYC, just in case they should as well be on alert?

Haven't been listening, have you ?

You want math???

8:13 AA11 last transmission with Boston ATC.

8:13 to 8:20 AA11 goes off course and is hijacked.

That's not maths. Those are times.

[Belz...]

Uh that the buildings were ridiculously overiengineered, including the 47 steel central columns in each of the towers...is that what you wanted to know?

You have any evidence for that ? Since when do people over-engineer something ? And second, is that like over-assuming ?

[Belz...]

More timeline here...

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x932617

That's your problem, giggle. You have timelines, and nothing else, and you expect us to draw YOUR conclusion based on that. Der.

[aggle-rithm]

Ha. I'll have to get back to you on that when I can...

Conspiracy theorist's getting to the point is like Ross and Racheal getting together on "Friends". You're always anticipating it, but in the back of your mind you KNOW it's never going to happen.

I think there's many reasons for this. Part of the fun, for them, is that the riddle is never quite solved. Also:

1. It doesn't require any thinkin' and math and stuff.
2. They don't have to defend their point. Any argument can be dismissed by saying, "But look at all the EVIDENCE!"
3. Intellectual cowardice. They can always counter with, "I never SAID that!" because they never say anything of substance.
4. There IS no logical point that can be derived from their "evidence".

[aggle-rithm]

You have any evidence for that ? Since when do people over-engineer something ? And second, is that like over-assuming ?

Over-engineering occurs AFTER a disaster occurs. For instance, I bet the new WTC is over-engineered.

The walkway that collapsed in the Hyatt twenty-odd years ago was re-built with huge columns that could support twenty times the maximum required weight.

But the old WTC? Not a chance.

[chipmunk stew]

(Happy birthday, aggle-rithm!)

[geggy]

The "old" WTC 1 and 2 was built in the late 60's/early 70's so it's hardly "old". WTC7 was built in 1985 so that is hardly "old".

Chimpmunk reminded me about this thread in that other thread. So chimpmunk would you kindly copy and paste in this thread the brief summary of what I've posted in that thread.

[geggy]

Denial: 1. A refusal to comply with or satisfy a request. 2. a. A refusal to grant the truth of a statement or allegation; a contradiction. b. Law The opposing by a defendant of an allegation of the plaintiff. 3. a. A refusal to accept or believe something, such as a doctrine or belief. b. Psychology An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings. 4. The act of disowning or disavowing; repudiation. 5. Abstinence; self-denial.

[chipmunk stew]

The "old" WTC 1 and 2 was built in the late 60's/early 70's so it's hardly "old". WTC7 was built in 1985 so that is hardly "old".

Chimpmunk reminded me about this thread in that other thread. So chimpmunk would you kindly copy and paste in this thread the brief summary of what I've posted in that thread.What, this?:
The towers were ridiculously over engineered, a staggering 47 central steel core partly supported the towers. So the towers had 47 central steel core that the only way the floors would pancake on one and other is if thousand of joints were broken. And what would be the best way to sheer the joints? By using explosives.

or this?:
Hey stupid[folks]...read this brief, yet excellent timeline of the rise of the neocons...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x932617 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x932617[/quote)
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=25239004&postID=114595373546579771&isPopup=false

I thought you were going to get back to us with your point. Instead we get another non sequitur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)) and a definition of denial?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Denial: 1. A refusal to comply with or satisfy a request. 2. a. A refusal to grant the truth of a statement or allegation; a contradiction. b. Law The opposing by a defendant of an allegation of the plaintiff. 3. a. A refusal to accept or believe something, such as a doctrine or belief. b. Psychology An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings. 4. The act of disowning or disavowing; repudiation. 5. Abstinence; self-denial.

Loopy : Subspecies of Flame Warrior:

Loopy's messages are incomprehensible to all but himself. Loopy is easily aroused and exuberant in battle and fearlessly flings himself at any Warrior - even Kung-Fu Master. Loopy's main weapons consist of a disarming array of nonsequiturs, tautologies, and bizarre metaphors, which can often gain him an advantage in the initial stages of an attack. Combatants very quickly realize, however, that Loopy is a certifiable nut case and generally avoid further engagement. Jerk and Evil Clown revel in egging Loopy on for their own amusement. CAUTION: Loopy cannot be defeated with conventional weapons - any response to his attacks will provoke a fusillade of incoherent messages, so Loopy is best left undisturbed.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/loopy.htm

[geggy]

Yes! That's it. I will explain in broader spectrum of why I think explosives were planted inside the buildings before the attacks took place.

Here is why I have a problem with the official explanation of why the buildings collapsed as it is filled with contradiction...('cuse my sloppy english, I'm eating on a break, thinking and explaining all at the same time ha)

FEMA stated that fire weakened the structure in the area of the impact hole therefore the heavy portion of the building above the impact hole gave away and acted as a hammer to push down the floors causing it to pancake on top of one and other. The reason there was visible puff of smoke shooting out of buildings and the pulverizition of concrete was because air was pulled in and shot back out as it was collapsing (snickering).

Ok now let me start from the top. As the top portion of the building gave away, there were far too great volume of dust already spewing forth out of the impact hole of the building. While the top part was falling, it was already breaking into pieces, therefore the weight wasn't heavy enough for the top portion to act as a hammer. Each and every floors were pulverizing into dust and small bits, the only logical explanation for the was because there was a great deal of energtic supersonic waves in which high explosives have the ability to produce. The reason you see puff of smokes ejecting at accelerating speed, the reason there were witnesses who heard something that was going "pop pop pop", was because they were most likely explosive charges, which has the ability to reach the temperature as high as 5000 degree F, exploding, breaking the central steel core into pieces to "weaken the steel columns structure of the building". The buildings came down in a free fall manner in only 10-13 seconds, with every 10 floors falling every second. If the pancaking of the floors was true, then each floor that pancaked on the top of the floor below would've slowed down during the process of the collapsing. After the complete collapse, the billowing of the dust was too great and moving at high speed, covering most part of manhattan. The explanation of this has to be because of the high percentage of the concrete, abestos, office supplies, etc, etc in the building were transformed into nothing but dust. The north tower collapsed for the same reason as I explained above. The twoers were built to withstand high winds, earthquakes because it was "ridiculously over engineered."

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Yes! That's it. I will explain in broader spectrum of why I think explosives were planted inside the buildings before the attacks took place.

Here is why I have a problem with the official explanation of why the buildings collapsed as it is filled with contradiction...('cuse my sloppy english, I'm eating on a break, thinking and explaining all at the same time ha)

FEMA stated that fire weakened the structure in the area of the impact hole therefore the heavy portion of the building above the impact hole gave away and acted as a hammer to push down the floors causing it to pancake on top of one and other. The reason there was visible puff of smoke shooting out of buildings and the pulverizition of concrete was because air was pulled in and shot back out as it was collapsing (snickering).

Ok now let me start from the top. As the top portion of the building gave away, there were far too great volume of dust already spewing forth out of the impact hole of the building. While the top part was falling, it was already breaking into pieces, therefore the weight wasn't heavy enough for the top portion to act as a hammer. Each and every floors were pulverizing into dust and small bits, the only logical explanation for the was because there was a great deal of energtic supersonic waves in which high explosives have the ability to produce. The reason you see puff of smokes ejecting at accelerating speed, the reason there were witnesses who heard something that was going "pop pop pop", was because they were most likely explosive charges, which has the ability to reach the temperature as high as 5000 degree F, exploding, breaking the central steel core into pieces to "weaken the steel columns structure of the building". The buildings came down in a free fall manner in only 10-13 seconds, with every 10 floors falling every second. If the pancaking of the floors was true, then each floor that pancaked on the top of the floor below would've slowed down during the process of the collapsing. After the complete collapse, the billowing of the dust was too great and moving at high speed, covering most part of manhattan. The explanation of this has to be because of the high percentage of the concrete, abestos, office supplies, etc, etc in the building were transformed into nothing but dust. The north tower collapsed for the same reason as I explained above. The twoers were built to withstand high winds, earthquakes because it was "ridiculously over engineered."

That is nothing but conjecture. If you want to take that hypothesis and examine it you need to:
* Predict what the expected volume and mass of ejected debris should be for the given collapse
* Make calculated estimates of the actual volume and mass of ejected debris
* Compare the two
* If there are differences, revisit both steps to check for missing data or bad calculations
* Make calculated estimates of volume and mass of ejected debris for your hypothetical explosives
* Compare this with the calculated estimates from step 2 above

For the pancaking section of your hypothesis
* Calculate the amount of energy needed to collapse the floors below the point of breakage
* Calculate the amount of energy available from the floors above the breakage, taking in to account the volume and mass of the ejected debris calculated above
* If the amount of energy is insufficient begin looking for _all possible_ reasons the collapse may have happened

For your explosives
* Determine what data would lend credence to the idea
* Determine what data would falsify the idea
* Look at the available data and see under which category it falls

And for all of the above; provide your information/calculations to everyone for review.

etc

[geggy]

*bangs head on keyboard*

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

*bangs head on keyboard*

What's wrong geggy? Can't handle it when people ask for more than conjecture and supposition before accepting your viewpoints?

[Rolfe]

There's a smilie for that, you know.

:hb:Show me an evidence that fire brought down the towers.This documentary (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecentertrans.shtml). A very interesting watch, if you missed it. I presume you're familiar with the transcript? So please explain in detail what's wrong with the explanations. Leaving out your own personal hunches.

Rolfe.

[sophia8]

Ok now let me start from the top. As the top portion of the building gave away, there were far too great volume of dust already spewing forth out of the impact hole of the building. While the top part was falling, it was already breaking into pieces, therefore the weight wasn't heavy enough for the top portion to act as a hammer. Geggy - please use a bit of logic here. The top part would weighed exactly the same whether it was in one piece or a million pieces, and the impact would have been exactly the same.
Sand is millions of tiny pieces of rock, but a pound of sand weighs exactly the same a a pound of rock, and would have the same inpact if dropped on your foot.

As for your belief that the could only have been bought down by a controlled demolition, you've clearly never seen a CD being prepared. There was a CD of a tower block in my home town a few years ago, and the demolition firm allowed the local news cameras in to record everything being made ready. The block was about thirty stories high and right in the middle of town. Houses were all around and a rather expensive office block was alongside. So the block had to be brought down exactly right.
The CD crew didn't go in until the block was stripped back to concrete and brick inside. Then they drilled very large holes in each of the support columns on every single floor; I dunno what kind of drills they used, but they certainly weren't Black&Deckers.
The explosives got packed into the holes, then all the explosive packs were wired together in a very precise sequence. Once that was finished the crew then tested every single bit of wiring and equipment; everything was tested and checked and double-checked and triple-checked and quadruple-checked - over and over again until the crew were satisfied that nothing could go wrong and that the building would fall the way they wanted it to.
All that drilling and packing and checking - for a 30-floor block - took a large demolition crew a full five days. And they were working quite fast, as the building had serious structural flaws and had to be bought down quickly.

And you believe that a tiny demolition crew managed to get inside the WTC, wire up all the top floors with explosives, get all the wiring right, get all the detonators right, get the ignition sequence right, all within an unproven 30-hour blackout, with nobody noticing anything at all? And it all worked perfectly well, even with a jet plane ploughing into the building, wrecking all the wiring and setting off the detonators wrong?

Geggy - you have an organ called a brain. Use it.

[Z]

By the way, there is part here that makes no sense:


While the top part was falling, it was already breaking into pieces, therefore the weight wasn't heavy enough for the top portion to act as a hammer.

OK, you've got (let's say) a 10-ton weight hanging above your head. It starts to fall, but as it does, breaks into 2000 pieces. Each piece weighs 10 pounds each. Now, assuming that the weight lands on your head, how much weight will hit you?

10 tons.

The total weight doesn't lessen because of breaking up.

I'd suggest you try thinking about the stuff you're posting.

ETA: Sophia beat me to it :)

[chipmunk stew]

*bangs head on keyboard*geggy, You're relying on a "common sense" explanation.

The problem is, there's no frame of reference for jumbo jets crashing full speed into skyscrapers or 110-story collapsing structures with unique construction--there's no "common sense" to be had in this case.

The only reliable tool for analyzing such a complex and unprecedented event is tedious, methodical, scientific investigation.

If you've reached a conclusion based solely on videos and photographs of such an event, you've probably reached the wrong one.

[geggy]

No, because of the conjunctures I've made, no one has yet calculated the possibility of the explosives being used to bring down the towers.

[Ramooone]

The twoers were built to withstand high winds, earthquakes because it was "ridiculously over engineered."

and the titanic was unsinkable, whats your point?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No, because of the conjunctures I've made, no one has yet calculated the possibility of the explosives being used to bring down the towers.

Ah, so you're frustrated that when you throw out some half-baked idea that we aren't running off to do the legwork for you, eh? Cry more.

[brodski]

No, because of the conjunctures I've made, no one has yet calculated the possibility of the explosives being used to bring down the towers.
see how it works is, you make the claim, you try and provide the evidence to support it, otherwise all you have wild speculation.
The "official" story is pretty well supported by the evidence, but even if you could poke enough holes in the explanation which is accepted by every expert who has looked at the evidence, that would not be enough to support your "theory", it's not an either or situation, even if the accepted expiation of why the towers fell were to be completely debunked, that in itself would provide zero evidence of a controlled demolition.
please provide any positive evidence for your position, we have provided a lot of evidence for ours.

[Hellbound]

*sigh*

CONVENTIONAL EXPLOSIVES WILL NOT GENERATE TEMPERATURES OF 5000 DEGREES, NOT FOR ANYTHING MORE THAN A VERY MINIMAL AMOUNT OF TIME. EXPLOSIVES WOULD BE HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO PRODUCE ANY SORT OF MELTED METAL. EXPLOSIVES WORK WITH BLAST FORCE AND CONCUSSION, NOT HEAT. THE EXPLOSIVES THEORY WOULD HAVE A HARDER TIME EXPLAINING THE MELTED METAL THAN FIRE, AND WOULD STILL HAVE TO RELY ON POST-COLLAPSE FIRE FOR AN EXPLANATION.

LEARN something before you open your mouth and spew your ignorance, you dim wit. Don't come on an Internet board and give your uninformed and ignorant conclusion on a subject you obviously know nothing about to those who do have experience in the field, some of whom can be regarded as experts.

If you had bothered to do any research on explosives outside of the latest Hollywood action flick, you'd realize how little you know.

[Skeptic]

No, because of the conjunctures I've made, no one has yet calculated the possibility of the explosives being used to bring down the towers.

Gee, that might have something to do with the fact that there isn't the slightest tiniest weeniest bit of evidence that they were.

You might as well "demand" that people show you an invisible pink unicorn (who voted Republican and wanted to help G. W. Bush's poll numbers) pushed down the towers by pissing on them.

Can you prove it's IMPOSSIBLE? No? Well then, it must have happened that way.

[brodski]

Gee, that might have something to do with the fact that there isn't the slightest tiniest weeniest bit of evidence that they were.

You might as well "demand" that people show you an invisible pink unicorn (who voted Republican and wanted to help G. W. Bush's poll numbers) pushed down the towers by pissing on them.

Can you prove it's IMPOSSIBLE? No? Well then, it must have happened that way.
Watch it Skeptic, I have it on very good authority that the IPU is a registered Democrat, she will not be slandered like that. ;)

[delphi_ote]

No, because of the conjunctures I've made, no one has yet calculated the possibility of the explosives being used to bring down the towers.
Calculated? You cant be serious!

[Hellbound]

Possibility that explosives brought down the towers: A calculation.

1) Probability of dozens of tons of explosives being placed in secret within the WTC: .000000000000000000000000001%
2) Probability of none of the hundreds (if not thousands) of people necessary to pull fo the scam talking: .00000000000000001%
3) Probability of explosives leaving no detectible residue or debris from timers and detonators: .00000000000000000000000000000001%
4) Probability of explosive remaining intact and able to be detonated after a plane slams into the building: 10%
5) Probability of the explosives going off and producing almost no visible evidence: .00000000001%

So, you multiply that together, and the probability of explosives being used to bring down the WTC towers is about the same as the probability that I am actually the ultimate force in the Universe.

You may call me "Master".

[aggle-rithm]

No, because of the conjunctures I've made, no one has yet calculated the possibility of the explosives being used to bring down the towers.

I think you mean "probability". And there are too many unkown initial conditions to calculate the probability. I would expect that it would be very close to zero, especially since we have a much more likely explanation already, one that any five-year old can easily understand:

Airplanes flew into the towers. They caught fire. They fell down.

This theory has the advantage of being plausible in that every detail can be explained by scientific means. It is also supported by a HUGE amount of evidence, each piece of evidence relevant and of high quality. One doesn't have to make wildly improbable assumptions in order to believe it.

Can your theory say the same?

(If you reply with a non-sequiter, I will just assume you didn't take your medication today and let it go at that. )

[JPK]

While the top part was falling, it was already breaking into pieces, therefore the weight wasn't heavy enough for the top portion to act as a hammer. Each and every floors were pulverizing into dust and small bits, the only logical explanation for the was because there was a great deal of energtic supersonic waves in which high explosives have the ability to produce.
Good afternoon geggy.
If a herring and a half costs a penny and a half, how much does a pound of butter weigh?

JPK

[Hellbound]

Good afternoon geggy.
If a herring and a half costs a penny and a half, how much does a pound of butter weigh?

JPK

16 ounces. Which makes it 33% heavier than a pound of gold.

[delphi_ote]

You may call me "Master".
I'M the master globalist around here! I'll have none of this. Take that back or I'll drive you into your parents basement like I have all the Loosers!

And I'll deprive you of your socks... 43? 1? You know what to do.

[brodski]

I'M the master globalist around here! I'll have none of this. Take that back or I'll drive you into your parents basement like I have all the Loosers!

And I'll deprive you of your socks... 43? 1? You know what to do.
i thought that Manny was the master conspirator, but you where No.1 ?

[delphi_ote]

i thought that Manny was the master conspirator, but you where No.1 ?
I'm the master globalist. The difference should be obvious. The number 1 Globalist Minion is Belz. He's a master of stealth grocery store shelf reorganizing, which is why he's on the team.

[Hellbound]

delphi:

You know I'm just implementing section 43, paragraph IV, substatement A of the fourth edition of the second printing of the New Revised Globalist Strategy for Dissention and Confusion, Part X. It's the one written on a grain of rice carried by a sparrow in northern Iowa. After all, we don't want the CTers to knwo who the real master globalist is, do we?

[brodski]

delphi:

You know I'm just implementing section 43, paragraph IV, substatement A of the fourth edition of the second printing of the New Revised Globalist Strategy for Dissention and Confusion, Part X. It's the one written on a grain of rice carried by a sparrow in northern Iowa. After all, we don't want the CTers to knwo who the real master globalist is, do we?
I hope that you'll be filing for forms Aii-c through Avii-n. We have to add this extra paper work for you, you where acting a little too efficiently for our liking.

[Hellbound]

brodski:

I'll be happy to fill out the forms. You'll need to send them to my secretary. Just fill out form 10a-Request for Delivery, 37-8R Explanation of Delivery Methods, and 899B Request for Delivery Schedule. My secretary will then give you her signed copy of form 56AZ Acknowledgment of Delivery request, after calling a meeting of our local globalist chapter heads to schedule a meeting of regional chapter heads to discuss the validity of the proposed delivery.

After that, it's just a matter of filling out the paperwork, and you'll be able to send me those forms.

[brodski]

brodski:

I'll be happy to fill out the forms. You'll need to send them to my secretary. Just fill out form 10a-Request for Delivery, 37-8R Explanation of Delivery Methods, and 899B Request for Delivery Schedule. My secretary will then give you her signed copy of form 56AZ Acknowledgment of Delivery request, after calling a meeting of our local globalist chapter heads to schedule a meeting of regional chapter heads to discuss the validity of the proposed delivery.

After that, it's just a matter of filling out the paperwork, and you'll be able to send me those forms.
I'd be happy to fill out the required forms, however you need to request them in the proper manner, start with form Aix-ab notification of intent to request security clearence for receipt of application forms required for authorization to view procedure for applying for official paperwork.
We can go from there. :p

[geggy]

*sigh*

CONVENTIONAL EXPLOSIVES WILL NOT GENERATE TEMPERATURES OF 5000 DEGREES, NOT FOR ANYTHING MORE THAN A VERY MINIMAL AMOUNT OF TIME. EXPLOSIVES WOULD BE HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO PRODUCE ANY SORT OF MELTED METAL. EXPLOSIVES WORK WITH BLAST FORCE AND CONCUSSION, NOT HEAT. THE EXPLOSIVES THEORY WOULD HAVE A HARDER TIME EXPLAINING THE MELTED METAL THAN FIRE, AND WOULD STILL HAVE TO RELY ON POST-COLLAPSE FIRE FOR AN EXPLANATION.

LEARN something before you open your mouth and spew your ignorance, you dim wit. Don't come on an Internet board and give your uninformed and ignorant conclusion on a subject you obviously know nothing about to those who do have experience in the field, some of whom can be regarded as experts.

If you had bothered to do any research on explosives outside of the latest Hollywood action flick, you'd realize how little you know.

Haha. It depends on what type of explosives we're talking about here. Since the towers had massive steel columns, an explosive that contained higher and more powerful powdered compounds were neccessary to cut through the steel. Thermite, when ignited, can reach up to 5000 degrees F, or maybe less, just hot enough to blast through multiple steel colums, which it's melting point is 2500-2750 degrees F. I recall these types of explosives are used to blast metallic weaponary machines such as tanks, planes, etc.

[delphi_ote]

Haha. It depends on what type of explosives we're talking about here. Since the towers had massive steel columns, an explosive that contained higher and more powerful powdered compounds were neccessary to cut through the steel. Thermite, when ignited, can reach up to 5000 degrees F, or maybe less, just hot enough to blast through multiple steel colums, which it's melting point is 2500-2750 degrees F. I recall these types of explosives are used to blast metallic weaponary machines such as tanks, planes, etc.
Round and around we go. I'll save you some time, Huntsman.
*sigh*

THERMITE CHARGES WOULD NOT PRODUCE AUDIBLE EXPLOSIONS, NO MATTER HOW BIG THEY WERE.

Thermite is not an explosive.

So the sound of explosions you claim to hear is directly contradictory to the thermite idea.

[Belz...]

Ok now let me start from the top. As the top portion of the building gave away, there were far too great volume of dust already spewing forth out of the impact hole of the building. While the top part was falling, it was already breaking into pieces, therefore the weight wasn't heavy enough for the top portion to act as a hammer. Each and every floors were pulverizing into dust and small bits, the only logical explanation for the was because there was a great deal of energtic supersonic waves in which high explosives have the ability to produce.

How would that account for anything ? Perhaps you know, but explosives used in demolition make a lot of noise. Do you suggest that someone cast a "silence" spell of some sort ?

The reason you see puff of smokes ejecting at accelerating speed,

Accelerating puffs of smoke. Yeah. Right. Sure.

the reason there were witnesses who heard something that was going "pop pop pop", was because they were most likely explosive charges,

Explosive charges don't go "pop", firecrackers do.

which has the ability to reach the temperature as high as 5000 degree F, exploding,

Maybe someone can correct me, but I thought explosives used concussion to deal damage, not heat.

The buildings came down in a free fall manner in only 10-13 seconds, with every 10 floors falling every second. If the pancaking of the floors was true, then each floor that pancaked on the top of the floor below would've slowed down during the process of the collapsing.

Perhaps you're unaware of the sheer mass that was coming down.

The twoers were built to withstand high winds, earthquakes because it was "ridiculously over engineered."

Your words, of course.

[NobbyNobbs]

Ok now let me start from the top. As the top portion of the building gave away, there were far too great volume of dust already spewing forth out of the impact hole of the building.

Says who? Can you site any other circumstance where an airplane was slammed into a building and the dust that poured forth was measured? Who's to say how much is too much? Certainly not you, I'm wiling to bet.

While the top part was falling, it was already breaking into pieces, therefore the weight wasn't heavy enough for the top portion to act as a hammer.

This has been handled. Now will you admit it's a mistaken conjecture, or will you ignore the rebuttal and come up with something else?

Each and every floors were pulverizing into dust and small bits, the only logical explanation for the was because there was a great deal of energtic supersonic waves in which high explosives have the ability to produce.

Careful with your hyperbole. The <b>only</b> logical explanation? Don't you suppose that 20 stories of building coming down could also create quite an impression wave of force?

The reason you see puff of smokes ejecting at accelerating speed, the reason there were witnesses who heard something that was going "pop pop pop", was because they were most likely explosive charges, which has the ability to reach the temperature as high as 5000 degree F, exploding, breaking the central steel core into pieces to "weaken the steel columns structure of the building".

As far as the puffs of smoke are concerned, fill a ziplock bag with flour, poke a small hole near the bottom, and drop it on the floor. Use your observational skills to determine if explosives were necessary to propel the flour out the hole.

I can not verify this, but perhaps a firefighter out there can. Don't windows explode outward in a fire, often with a loud popping noise? Couldn't this account for the multiple "explosions" heard? Considering the number of windows in the WTC, isn't this very likely, more so than actual explosions?

And I don't recall anyone at any time claiming that a) the temperature reached 5000C or that b) explosives can cause those temperatures.

The buildings came down in a free fall manner in only 10-13 seconds, with every 10 floors falling every second.

"In a free-fall manner"? You mean, they fell, like, downward?


If the pancaking of the floors was true, then each floor that pancaked on the top of the floor below would've slowed down during the process of the collapsing.

I thought it had been shown, earlier in this thread, that in true free-fall the top floor would have hit the ground in a little over 9 seconds. So unless you disagree with Sir Isaac Newton, the pancaking did indeed slow the collapse.

After the complete collapse, the billowing of the dust was too great and moving at high speed, covering most part of manhattan. The explanation of this has to be because of the high percentage of the concrete, abestos, office supplies, etc, etc in the building were transformed into nothing but dust.

How does this advance a conspiracy theory?

The north tower collapsed for the same reason as I explained above. The twoers were built to withstand high winds, earthquakes because it was "ridiculously over engineered."

This is called "adequately engineered". "Ridiculously engineered" would be if the buildings were able to withstand a direct hit from a nuclear bomb.

[Belz...]

No, because of the conjunctures I've made, no one has yet calculated the possibility of the explosives being used to bring down the towers.

How does this help your point ?

[Belz...]

I'M the master globalist around here! I'll have none of this. Take that back or I'll drive you into your parents basement like I have all the Loosers!

And I'll deprive you of your socks... 43? 1? You know what to do.

Rodger that.

[WildCat]

i thought that Manny was the master conspirator, but you where No.1 ?
Ahem...

[brodski]

Ahem...
sorry, um I mean, I refer my honorable friend to the answer Huntsman gave a moment ago...

[geggy]

No but an explosive device to release thermite can make popping sounds not a boooming sounds.

[Hellbound]

Haha. It depends on what type of explosives we're talking about here. Since the towers had massive steel columns, an explosive that contained higher and more powerful powdered compounds were neccessary to cut through the steel. Thermite, when ignited, can reach up to 5000 degrees F, or maybe less, just hot enough to blast through multiple steel colums, which it's melting point is 2500-2750 degrees F. I recall these types of explosives are used to blast metallic weaponary machines such as tanks, planes, etc.

THERMITE IS NOT AN EXPLOSIVE, YOU ABSOLUTE IDIOT!!!!! THAT TAKES ABOUT FIVE MINUTES TO VERIFY, YOU BUFOOON!!!!

How many times do you have to be told before you wake up and smell yourself? It's worse than talking to my four-year old, he usually remembers the second time I tell him something.

Sheesh.

[Manny]

i thought that Manny was the master conspirator, but you where No.1 ?Ahem...
I am not the master conspirator at all. In fact, I'm nobody. Ignore me. I totally don't count in this whole so-called "globalist" thing at all. Just a guy. Yep, a nobody.

[Hellbound]

Just saw your last bit of dirvel.

And explosive could not be used to releas thermite. You have absolutely no knowledge of what you are spouting. An explosive device would scatter the thermite over a wide area, completely nullifying it's effects. It would no longer be concentrated enough to melt through steel. Napalm is commonly scattered with small charges, but it's not any hotter than the jet fuel fire. If you want to argue napalm, then you admit that the fires were hot enough to drop the buildings. White Pospherous is, too, but again, it's not any hotter than normal petroleum-based fires (not to any appreciable degree).

Thermite is not scattered by explosives. Period. Not in any way that is even remotely effective. You are a willfully-ignorant moron, and you should really gain some basic knowledge of the subject matter, before you decide to argue with someone who has set, used, held, made, and studied thermite, C-4, Cb, TNT, and other less traditional explosives and compounds.

[kookbreaker]

No but an explosive device to release thermite can make popping sounds not a boooming sounds.

So kindly tell us: What is an explosive device to release thermite? What does it do, how does it release thermite, and why is it not an incredibly dumb thing to say?

[Hellbound]

I swear I'm about to pop a blood vessel. It's like someone spending a week watching "House" and then thinking they can perform surgery.
:hb:

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I swear I'm about to pop a blood vessel. It's like someone spending a week watching "House" and then thinking they can perform surgery.
:hb:

Exactly. It needs to be at least 3 episodes.

[kookbreaker]

No but an explosive device to release thermite can make popping sounds not a boooming sounds.

A good thing to look up right now would be the explosive charge used on the MOVE roof bunker in Philadlephia, 1985.

You might learn something. But I doubt it.

[delphi_ote]

... someone who has set, used, held, made, and studied thermite, C-4, Cb, TNT, and other less traditional explosives and compounds.
I love this forum.

[Manny]

I love this forum.No kidding. Contrast, at the Loosers site, a guy was IP banned for even asking if there were any demolition experts on the forum (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2808).

[chipmunk stew]

I love this forum.I was thinking the same thing. On any given subject, we have some sharp guy or gal who's dug into the nitty-gritty and come up with the kind of arcane knowledge that only comes with lots of first-hand experience.

I absolutely love it! :yahoo

[Nyarlathotep]

Reading this thread is like watching an exercise in "post-hoc Hypotheses"

"An explosion brought down the WTC"

"Explosives wouldn't have produced the high tempes you are going on about"

"Thermite could have"

"Thermite's not an explosive"

"It could have been thermite propelled by explosives"

"Doing that would scatter the thermite into uselessness"

etc.

Geggy is a typical CTer. Most CTers can't accept the possibility he is wrong so he has to add layers upon layers upon layers of complexity to his ideas whenever they get shot down, in hopes of keeping them afloat. This continues until the conspiracy theory is so complex that it is ridiculous, but since they are so convinced that they have THE TRUTH, that they don't see how ridiculous thier ideas are.

[Gravy]

...and other less traditional explosives and compounds.
...DO tell, Huntsman. This is getting fun!

[brodski]

I am not the master conspirator at all. In fact, I'm nobody. Ignore me. I totally don't count in this whole so-called "globalist" thing at all. Just a guy. Yep, a nobody.
Ah HA, only a true GLOBALIST would deny being a GLOBALIST. t look slike Delphi_OTE is just a patsy... :p
(sorry delphi) :boxedin:

[Hellbound]

delphi and chipmunk:

I want to be clear, I'm not an expert, but I have had experience with many of these compunds. I was trained as a Combat Engineer in the military. I've taken training from the U.S. Military on Improvised Munitions (which included Thermite, and various other explosives, incendiaries, and propellants that can be created in the safety and comfort of your own home), and I spent a year in Iraq with a Combat Engineering unit. Our main mission there was to blow things up (adandoned/dangerous buildings, Iraqi ammunition, vehicles, berms, IEDs, and other items). I have a copy of the Army's "Engineer's Bible" at home. That's the field manual that covers engineering operations, and includes sections about incendiaries and explosives. It also includes things such as the formulas to determine how much explosive you need to , for example, cut a steel beam or blow through a concrete wall. And I'm sorry, but a small hole blown in a 1 ft thick unreinforced concrete wall requires over a pound of C-4, assuming a best case scenario (shaped charges on both sides timed to detonate simultaneously) and stil lwould not result in much pulverized concrete. The amount that would have to be wired into the WTC if you assume explosives caused the pulverization would be staggering. I get the mental image of everyone going into work the next morning, and no one noticing that the floor was a foot higher due to the C-4 stuffed under the carpets :D

A little basic demolitions knowledge shows much of these arguments for the ignorance they are. The "Thermite scattered by explosives" idea is a perfect example. Thermite is a mix of two powders, that will combine in an exothermic chemical reaction once they get started (by heat). They don't work if they're scattered, because the powders seperate (different weights) and the small reactions that do occur don't spread enough heat to ignite other particles (it's too dispersed). A basic knowledge of what Thermite is and how it works, something that might take thirty minutes to an hour of research, at most, would put paid to the idea.

It shows how little research goes into CTer theories, and frankly it also shows how little they care about what really happened (despite thier mewling noises to the contrary).

[Hellbound]

Gravy:

Mostly I was referring to my training in improvised munitions. Urea nitrate, Hellofite, AN-AL, ammonium nitrate-deisel fuel, bathtub napalm (I have over 50 recipes), thermite, impact-ignition systems, improvised hand grenades made from cardboard, a nail, and a shotgun shell, improvised rocket propellent (yes, you can hand-make a bazooka), and similar things.

And no, I won't share any details with anyone on recipes or methods. It's easy enough to find the info if you really want to, so you don't need to get it from me :)

I've also dealt with white posperous ammunition and artillery rounds, beehive rounds (anti-personnel rounds fired from tanks or artillery that act like an air-burst shotgun shell, firing needles), anti-tank rounds and sabots, and other ammunition.

In addition, I've recieved training on the effects of nuclear explosives (estimating blast radius and flash radius, as well as "safe" distances), chemical and biological weaponry (primarily signs and symptoms, treatments, "safe" exposure levels, detection, decontamination, and delivery/dispersal methods), fuel-air explosives (the poor-man's nuke) and napalm and similar incendiaries.

None of this was in-depth training, none equal to waht an expert in any particular area would have, but I have a good grounding and knowledge of the basics in all these areas.

[delphi_ote]

I want to be clear, I'm not an expert, but I have had experience with many of these compunds.
Practical experience is still really important, bro. I'm glad you're around.

[delphi_ote]

Ah HA, only a true GLOBALIST would deny being a GLOBALIST. t look slike Delphi_OTE is just a patsy... :p
(sorry delphi) :boxedin:
Or would a true GLOBALIST say openly admit they were a GLOBALIST to make you think they were a mere patsy?

[Hellbound]

Or would they say it, so you'd think they were a patsy, then realize they were pulling a double-scam, then think that you'd be even more clever than that, then realize that you were really clever and were actually the head globalist?

[brodski]

Or would a true GLOBALIST say openly admit they were a GLOBALIST to make you think they were a mere patsy?
here is a really scary thought, what if there are no globalists? :jaw-dropp

[Hellbound]

here is a really scary thought, what if there are no globalists? :jaw-dropp

Yeah, right. Next you'll be telling us that Mornington Crescent isn't a real game...

[Doubt]

THERMITE IS NOT AN EXPLOSIVE, YOU ABSOLUTE IDIOT!!!!! THAT TAKES ABOUT FIVE MINUTES TO VERIFY, YOU BUFOOON!!!!

How many times do you have to be told before you wake up and smell yourself? It's worse than talking to my four-year old, he usually remembers the second time I tell him something.

Sheesh.

I can back up Huntsman on what he is saying here. Also a former combat engineer but with less improvised munitions training. We are having a similar discussion over at skepticforum with somebody who is not part of the loose screws group. Similar results too. Except you don't get to call people names there.

Here is a couple of links relative how controlled demoltion is really done. Quite a bit different than what the loose screw folks are making up out of thin air.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion2.htm

http://www.implosionworld.com/dyk3.html

Implosion world mentions what kind of explosives are really used. NO THERMITE. I would challange the loose screws folks to find one case where a controlled demoltion used thermite.

[brodski]

Yeah, right. Next you'll be telling us that Mornington Crescent isn't a real game...
well, its only a real game if you use the pre Vienna rules. Allowing the blocking of an opponents sub-diagonals whilst in nip took all the challenge out of it for me, but the the wanted to make it more TV friendly, what can you do?

[geggy]

But is it possible to use thermite compunds in explosive devices?

How do you explain the molten steel that was glowing orange and burned as long as 5 days at the rubble area of where the three buildings stood?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

But is it possible to use thermite compunds in explosive devices?

If I am understanding Huntsman, et al, correctly, no.


How do you explain the molten steel that was glowing orange and burned as long as 5 days at the rubble area of where the three buildings stood?
Consider this simple analogy; you build a campfire at night at your campsite. You are ready to turn in so you bury it under loose dirt. The next morning you uncover the coals and continue your fire. In this case, the loose dirt covering the fire/coals was a skyscraper's worse of concrete and metal.

[Doubt]

But is it possible to use thermite compunds in explosive devices?

How do you explain the molten steel that was glowing orange and burned as long as 5 days at the rubble area of where the three buildings stood?

No it is not possible for reasons already explained. Try reading what Huntsman has been telling you.

Thermite won't contribute to the explosive force and the explosive force will not spread the thermite in a useful way.

Now here is a mind blower for you. Think of a way to attach thermite to a vertical column so that it lasts long enough to melt the beam but does not destroy the means of attachment along with it, resulting in the thermite falling from the beam or an uneven and uncontrolled melting.

ETA: Also, molten metal days later does not indicate thermite. If it was really there, it tells you nothing about how it happened. Thermite would not be so slow acting as to still be a heat source 5 days later.

When was the natural gas turned off to the rubble?

[brodski]

But is it possible to use thermite compunds in explosive devices?
you could put thermite next to an explosive device, but t would render the thermite useless for melting steel. Thermite works by burning through steel, it need so be in contact with it for a while, spreading thermite over a wide area very quickly would make it much less effective than just placing it in holes drilled into the steel, if you believe that the towers where brought down by thermite, there would be no need for explosions, in fact the explosions would hinder the process rather than help.


How do you explain the molten steel that was glowing orange and burned as long as 5 days at the rubble area of where the three buildings stood?
There was no "molten" steel, there was molten aluminum, a BIG difference.
Underground fires can smolder for days, and can reach quite high temperatures. There is no mystery here.

[Dave_46]

How do you explain the molten steel that was glowing orange

Glowing orange is not hot enough to be molten.

Dave

[Ramooone]

heres a good video of a thermite reaction.

guzer.com/videos/thermite_car.php

[Pardalis]

This is all very interesting, I'm not sure I understand everything about explosives and thermites but I'll leave this debate to you guys who know what you're talking about. I'm way out of my league here and I trust you.

What I'm really interested in, geggy, is the possible motives you think the US government had to do such a thing.

What I think your problem is, is that you believe the US gov was in on 9/11, and willing to say anything to proove it. The theory that the US gov knew of the impending attack and didn't do anything to prevent it is not entirely impossible, I'll give you that. As a good skeptic, I consider it is one of many possibilities. I don't personnally believe any of it, but who knows. But you are so adamant at prooving this point you try to fabricate false evidence, this is dishonest and unscientific.

So let us know what you think is the motive behind 9/11.

[Regnad Kcin]

A reminder for our new friend:

Questions are not evidence.

[Belz...]

No but an explosive device to release thermite can make popping sounds not a boooming sounds.

Which brings my next question.

If the EEeeevil government meant to destroy these buildings, why didn't they simply use aircraft ? Or why didn't they simply use explosive ? And in the latter case, why didn't they simply plant a single, large bomb in the lower floor so the thing would topple to its side and REeeaallly look like a terrorist bombing ?

In other words, why in the blue HELL would someone do it this way ?

[Belz...]

I swear I'm about to pop a blood vessel. It's like someone spending a week watching "House" and then thinking they can perform surgery.
:hb:

Well, he DID cut up that fat lady pretty bad...

... wait a minute. You're talking about the series, right ? Woah!

[senorpogo]

Which brings my next question.

If the EEeeevil government meant to destroy these buildings, why didn't they simply use aircraft ? Or why didn't they simply use explosive ? And in the latter case, why didn't they simply plant a single, large bomb in the lower floor so the thing would topple to its side and REeeaallly look like a terrorist bombing ?

In other words, why in the blue HELL would someone do it this way ?

Cause globalists got style.

[Belz...]

Gravy:

Mostly I was referring to my training in improvised munitions. Urea nitrate, Hellofite, AN-AL, ammonium nitrate-deisel fuel, bathtub napalm (I have over 50 recipes), thermite, impact-ignition systems, improvised hand grenades made from cardboard, a nail, and a shotgun shell, improvised rocket propellent (yes, you can hand-make a bazooka), and similar things.

Don't we just all love it when someone actually KNOWS what he's talking about ??

Great posts, HuntsMAN.

[Pardalis]

Oh, and please geggy, base your arguments on real facts and events that actually DID happen...

(...) the deep story that frames much of our history - to see if I can grasp the overall story that includes 9-11, our imperialism, our invasions of Iraq and Iran (???), the theft of trillions of dollars from the tax base to transfer to the top tenth of a percent or so of our population, the rise in repressive laws, loss of civil liberties, increase in the state power of Christian fundamentalism, and its accompanying marginalization of women that always accompanies fascisms and fundamentalisms.

[Belz...]

But is it possible to use thermite compunds in explosive devices?

Its also possible that my blinking too much on 9/11 caused the collapse. I mean, chaos theory and all. Why are you speculating, anyway ? Do you HAVe any actual, hard FACTS ? Or are you just trolling ?

[Belz...]

Cause globalists got style.

We do, indeed.

Number 1 out.

[Rolfe]

Aw, c'mon Geggie tell me what's wrong with the film I used to make up my mind what caused the buildings to fall (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecentertrans.shtml)?

Seems like a pretty good explanation to me. So what about it do you not understand? Why do you think these people are all engaged in a cover-up? And please leave out your own personal hunches, because my personal hunches agree with the scenario in this transcript, so I believe that cancels out.

I believe the graphics that went with the transcript are also available on the Internet somewhere, if someone can post a link.

By the way, note this little remark (regarding the striking of the south tower).For seven to ten seconds there was this enormous sway in the building and it was all one way and I just felt in my heart that oh my gosh, we're going over.If the tower had been going to topple, that's when it would have happened. When the enormous horizontal force of the plane hit. But the structure withstood the force, swayed back and forward a few times, but didn't topple. Due to tolerances designed to withstand earthquakes I believe, which I understand can produce significant horizontal force. After that point, what was going to cause it to topple? Nothing.

Well, not quite. Because the south tower was hit to one side, the part above the strike did indeed topple sideways when the collapse started. However it was such a small percentage of the entire height that this didn't go much beyond the footprint area, and as the pancaking was triggered the bulk of the tower went straight down. You can see this clearly on the videos.

In contrast the north tower, hit in the central column, did go straight down. Again you can see it on the videos. And none of this, as explained on that transcript, is in the slightest bit surprising.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Just thinking. Hunches.

I knew what had happened for several hours before I saw a thing. I was at work, and I heard people talking, but I was more concerned with the fact that my printer wasn't working and I needed to print a document. Then my colleague, who had been to collect his car at a garage where there was a TV screen in the waiting room, told me what was going on. At that stage it was "one of the towers has fallen".

The Internet had seized up, so we hunted up a radio, and at that point heard that the second tower had fallen. I still had no visual reference for what these towers were. I had never registered their existence. Nevertheless, I don't think I had any vision of towers falling sideways. When I finally got home and turned on the TV, my main shock was "what, bloody enormous office-block skyscrapers!" - but not the manner of the collapse. Given that the towers stood for many many minutes past the time of the application of the horizontal force, it seemed quite intuitive to me that there wouldn't be a massive sideways movement. When they fell, nobody was pushing them over. The structures failed relatively near the top, then the floors below that pancaked. Intuitive, gut reaction says this is plausible.

I think the Loosers have been watching too much Hanna-Barbera.

Rolfe.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Just thinking. Hunches.

I knew what had happened for several hours before I saw a thing. I was at work, and I heard people talking, but I was more concerned with the fact that my printer wasn't working and I needed to print a document. Then my colleague, who had been to collect his car at a garage where there was a TV screen in the waiting room, told me what was going on. At that stage it was "one of the towers has fallen".

The Internet had seized up, so we hunted up a radio, and at that point heard that the second tower had fallen. I still had no visual reference for what these towers were. I had never registered their existence. Nevertheless, I don't think I had any vision of towers falling sideways. When I finally got home and turned on the TV, my main shock was "what, bloody enormous office-block skyscrapers!" - but not the manner of the collapse. Given that the towers stood for many many minutes past the time of the application of the horizontal force, it seemed quite intuitive to me that there wouldn't be a massive sideways movement. When they fell, nobody was pushing them over. The structures failed relatively near the top, then the floors below that pancaked. Intuitive, gut reaction says this is plausible.

I think the Loosers have been watching too much Hanna-Barbera.

Rolfe.

I think they keep expecting it to have fallen like a tower of wooden blocks, or like a tree that, after being cut, slips off the base of the truck, falls 2-3 feet straight down, then topples over sideways.

[Mr. Skinny]

(snip)
EXPLOSIVES WOULD BE HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO PRODUCE ANY SORT OF MELTED METAL. EXPLOSIVES WORK WITH BLAST FORCE AND CONCUSSION, NOT HEAT.
If I remember my Strength of Materials courses from (many) years ago, I think explosives primarily cause metals to fail due to shear forces, rather than tension, compression, or torsion failure (though there can be combinations).

Like you, I'd expect to see heat damage where the supposed explosives were set, rather than a lot of melting with resultant slag/dripping. I'd also guess that the steel would show a rather ragged edge at the failure, kinda like if you cut the steel with an other-worldly huge pair of serrated scissors. In fact, it should look a lot like the damage done from the aircraft crashing through the side of the building, come to think of it.

Just the musings of an older mechanical engr. type.

Not really professing any real expertise here. Differing thoughts welcome.

[Rolfe]

I think they keep expecting it to have fallen like a tower of wooden blocks, or like a tree that, after being cut, slips off the base of the truck, falls 2-3 feet straight down, then topples over sideways.Well, maybe, if they had been severed near the base, they would at least have started to topple, before disintegrating on the way down I assume. Indeed, the upper portion of the south tower did indeed start to do exactly that.

What I noticed at the time was how difficult it was to appreciate how high up both towers were actually hit. There was no clear view of the entire height of the things, because the bottom half or so was obscured by the surrounding buildings which were themselves skyscrapers, leading to the optical illusion that they'd been hit almost amidships. Several commentators presented graphics that fostered this misimpression. It was only those who carefully illustrated the entire height of the towers and then plotted the impacts in the correct positions who gave the right image. And both impacts were very high, in the top 10% of the structures. [ETA: Oops, that's not right regarding the south tower - still, both were hit much closer to the top than the bottom, which was my point.] This was where the damage was done.

Why were they going to topple over, again?

Rolfe.

[geggy]

Oh, and please geggy, base your arguments on real facts and events that actually DID happen...

I posted a link of the rise of the neocons several times in this thread. I thought it was very well laid out with solid proof that these guys are bunch o' sicko's...I'll copy and paste the entire thing cuz I doubt any of you really clicked on the link...

Edited for breach of Rule 4.

[geggy]

Theft of trillions of dollars...?

Testimony before the House Appropriations Committee: Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Budget Request

As Given by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Hugh Shelton, and Comptroller Dov Zakheim, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC, Monday, July 16, 2001.
Source: http://www.dod.gov/speeches/2001/s20010716-secdef2.html

SEC. RUMSFELD: Mr. Congressman, thank you very much. Your question is, of course, right at the heart of an enormously important issue for the Department of Defense. We have a panel in the Quadrennial Defense Review on this subject. We have met with it twice in the last two weeks. We're obviously going to have to meet with it again. It is a big, broad, complicated subject.

As you know, the Department of Defense really is not in charge of its civilian workforce, in a certain sense. It's the OPM, or Office of Personnel management, I guess. There are all kinds of long- standing rules and regulations about what you can do and what you can't do. I know Dr. Zakheim's been trying to hire CPAs because the financial systems of the department are so snarled up that we can't account for some $2.6 trillion in transactions that exist, if that's believable. And yet we're told that we can't hire CPAs to help untangle it in many respects.

Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with CNN Moneyline
Source: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/t09232001_t0910cnn.html
Monday, September 10, 2001

Rumsfeld: Well, it takes some time. And, indeed, as you know, sometimes you need to invest some money upfront to make savings. For example, we're going to have to revamp our financial system so that we can actually understand what's taking place. At the present time, the financial systems aren't capable of tracking some 2.6 trillion dollars worth of transactions.

Then 9/11 happened and this was never discussed again. Interesting timing..

[Ramooone]

once again, thats NOT evidence!!!!!!

Evidence would be something that PROVES that the buildings were taken down by controlled demolition.

[Rolfe]

Hey, I just heard the undoubted solution, on my radio playing in the background.

The attacks were orchestrated by Bush, in order to force the UK and the rest of the world to adopt the US system of date recording.

(I still keep wondering what the hell happened on 9th November, and have to keep referring to 11th September to remind myself.)

As the comedian said, the London bombers made a pretty crucial error....

Rolfe.

[Nyarlathotep]

Geggy,

All the allegations in the world of political malfeasance on the part of the Bush Administration does not amount to an iota of evidence that the buildings were taken down by explosives planted on the inside.

[senorpogo]

Geggy can't be for real.

He's just having a laugh by making the skeptics here jump through hoops to counter the tens-of-thousands of pieces of so-called evidence. He has to know that all of that rubbish proves absolutely nothing.

[Rolfe]

Any plausible villainy that can be pinned on Bush, I'm listening. The thing is - plausible. Puh-leas.

Couple of weeks ago I decided I'd better go back to the gym and get some value for my subscription. Somewhere in the middle of my laughable fitness assessment, I confessed to the trainer why I'd stopped going. On the evening of 11th September 2001, with all the television channels showing the same thing, I decided I'd better get down the gym regardless. To sit on that exercise bike, watching the towers fall again and again of four different TV screens in front of me. Yes, it spooked me, but four-and-a-half years is a bit excessive.

Then the trainer said, but have you seen the conspiracy theories? They're just jawdropping. (I'd been working through this thread at the time.) He then had to be told why I collapsed over the handlebars of the exercise bike, completely overcome by giggles.

My new excuse is a twisted ankle, but hopefully that won't last as long. Oh wait, I shouldn't have fallen down the stairs like that, how do I explain the torsion force on the ankle, and most telling of all, nothing on the tray I was carrying and nothing I hit at the bottom broke! Obviously a conspiracy. I couldn't have fallen. I must be imagining that pain in my ankle....

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Aw, c'mon Geggie tell me what's wrong with this explanation of the collapse of the towers (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecentertrans.shtml)? It's no longer than Loose Change to watch, and the link goes to an accurate transcript, go on now, tell me how these people are all wrong and deliberately covering up.

Rolfe.

[Pardalis]

geggy, I'm still waiting for your evidence that the US was behind the 9/11 attacks...

Geeeeze

(I did read the entire post you made BTW)

[Pardalis]

All you posted here are possible motives to attack Iraq.

YES, the US wanted to invade Iraq for the past 15 years, YES the US have invested interest in Iraq's oil, YES the US used 9/11 as a reason to go to Iraq... We all know that, that's no secret! I know it's wrong, history will judge accordingly.

I see here nothing that proves the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated or enhanced, or specifically kown by the bush Administration.

The US gov (sorry for my lack of synonyms) knew about an impending attack on the US, and that Bin Laden wanted to use airliners as a weapon, that's true. But do you know how many airports there are in the USA? How many possible targets for an attack? How many days there are in a year when an attack could occur?

Them knowing of a very probable attack doesn't imply that they were in on it.