Physicist addresses 9/11 questions

[Modelexis]

Here is his initial article:

http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/old%20physics%2010/chapters%20%28old%29/chapters2003/appendix-sept.11.htm

One thing to note in his article, he estimates the fuel weight at impact to be "The airplanes probably contained 60 tons of fuel each, maybe more."

Wiki suggests the following:
Flight 175 crashed into the southern facade of Tower 2 of the World Trade Center (south tower) at 9:03:04, traveling at approximately 545 mph and impacting between floors 77 and 85 with approximately 10,000 gallons of jet fuel.

This suggests only about 34.2 tons, half of his estimate.



I thought I would post some responses to questions I had back in 2009 about what happened on 9/11 and I wanted to share the answers provided by Richard Muller, a physicist who works at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Muller is married to architect Rosemary Muller.

Muller is a member of the JASON Defense Advisory Group which brings together prominent scientists as consultants for the United States Department of Defense.

as per wiki (just to give a context to the answers he gives and his bias that may or may not be present)

These are my questions followed by his answers...
Enjoy, discuss in a reasonable and mature manner.

I think they are interesting explanations and being that I'm not a world famous physicist, I cannot really refute any of these explanations.



> You suggest that the buildings would need explosives (tnt) to
> collapse in the way they did, but you say that jet fuel is a good
> substitute for these explosives.

No. Explosives are not needed. Only heat. Explosives are actually
very ineffective, unless they are used as shaped charge.



> My first question relating to this is the fact that WTC building 7
> was never hit with a plane nor did it come in contact with any jet
> fuel.

No jet fuel? Not all the jet fuel had burned, and it crashed to the
ground in the collapse. There must have been plenty of jet fuel at
building 7.



> I want to believe your logic and I don't have the intellect to
> challenge your theories, but the fires didn't burn evenly on the
> buildings and my basic logic would say that a building with uneven
> fires would fall over in the direction of the weakness rather than
> in the direction of least resistance (straight down).

The fires don't have to burn evenly. Once a few columns have
weakened, the weight is all left on the other columns, and they
collapse from the weight, not the heat.




> To my understanding "the same energy cannot be used twice" and so i
> would imagine the collapse would lose energy each floor it impacted
> and pulverized.

No, it gains energy from the fall. There is a lot of potential energy
supplied by gravity.
>
> Another important note is that the frame of the building gets
> thicker towards the lower part, and my theory based on that fact is
> that the building is stronger as you get lower to the base. That
> combined with the theory that because the lower floors and base were
> not damaged by plane imact they should be in fairly good shape and
> it wouldn't make sense for them to suddenly lose all strength.

They have a pile driver hitting them, like a hammer. All the top of
the building is crashing down. The lower columns are made to support
all that weight when it is static, but not when it is moving from its
falling. It is just like a hammer.





> Also, do you have a theory about why molten metal was found at the
> base of towers 1, 2 and building 7 with large testimony from several
> sources, including satellite imagery.http://www.disclose.tv/files/photos/5c8e07660e3000fL.jpg
>
> Could there be an explanation for this?

The jet fuel continued to burn along with the contents of the
building. Fires actually get hotter when they are denied sufficient
oxygen.

When they say molten metal was found, they don't mean that it was
still molten. They mean that it looked as if it had melted. That
probably took place after the collapse.

Hope that helps.


Richard Muller

[CUG]

> To my understanding "the same energy cannot be used twice" and so i
> would imagine the collapse would lose energy each floor it impacted
> and pulverized.

And these, dear nation, are the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. :facepalm:

Good post :thumbsup:

[Antonito]

Gravity is a pretty obscure concept

[msommers]

I would have loved to see his face when he first was told the questions.

[black13]

So just cause there was jet fuel outside the building on the ground makes a building 7 collapse?!

[CUG]

Originally posted by black13
So just cause there was jet fuel outside the building on the ground makes a building 7 collapse?! No, George Bush did that, the jet fuel was a minor detail.

[Jay911]

I used to get really upset at the imbeciles that insist that something other than what is obvious, actually happened. Felt that their idiotic conspiracy theories trampled on the memories of those who died and implied that my fellow emergency responders were complicit in the half-baked ideas they were dreaming up as having happened.

Nowadays, looking at claims like "the collapse should get weaker as it goes on" or "the building fell faster than gravity" etc., my thoughts are that this is proof that you should stay in school and learn about how the laws of physics work, so you don't look like a moron to the world.

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by Jay911
I used to get really upset at the imbeciles that insist that something other than what is obvious, actually happened. Felt that their idiotic conspiracy theories trampled on the memories of those who died and implied that my fellow emergency responders were complicit in the half-baked ideas they were dreaming up as having happened.

Nowadays, looking at claims like "the collapse should get weaker as it goes on" or "the building fell faster than gravity" etc., my thoughts are that this is proof that you should stay in school and learn about how the laws of physics work, so you don't look like a moron to the world.

I feel much the same way, I posed these questions almost two years ago and since have done some more fact finding and the truth is that opposing the vast majority of the scientific community you really have no chance, and you just look quite crazy.

You say phrases like "the obvious" in your post, but what happened that day and the physics behind it is everything but obvious. It has never happened before in history and will never happen again.

I don't think it helps anyone for an ordinary person to challenge physicists explanations but I think it's worth while to see what their explanations really are.


Originally posted by msommers
I would have loved to see his face when he first was told the questions.

The questions were actually my own, I emailed him almost two years ago when I was just sort of learning about these things.

Who knew you could email someone like this and get a response.

[ALBERTA_IS]

I personally spent years researching 9/11. If you think that those buildings came down from an airplane you have now idea how physics work.

Google Scholars for 9/11 truth and read eveything they have found. Watch their lectures. And read the list of members. People with a lot more knowledge and education thatn you or I have. Then decide for yourself.

Look at pictures of the Pentagon, specifically the outside. Where is the impact from the wings and tail? Or any evidence of a commercial air plane Then google plane crashes. See what a plane looks like when it its a mountain at 600 MPH.

Think whatever you want but make an educated decision.

Here are a few quick facts:

The impact of planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes alleged to have hit were similar to those they were designed to withstand, and the buildings continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.

Most of the jet fuel, principally kerosene, burned up in those fireballs in the first fifteen seconds or so. Below the 96th floor in the North Tower and the 80th in the South, those buildings were stone cold steel, unaffected by any fires at all other than some very modest office fires that burned around 500 degrees F, which functioned as a massive heat sink dissipating the heat from building up on the steel.
The melting point of steel at 2,800 degrees F is about 1,000 degrees higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800 degrees under optimal conditions; but the NIST examined 236 samples of steel and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500 degrees F and the others not above 1200.

Underwriters Laboratory certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000 degrees F for three or four hours without any significant effects, where these fires burned neither long enough or hot enough—at an average temperature of about 500 degrees for about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North—to weaken, much less melt.

If the steel had melted or weakened, then the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some degree of asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition that was observed. Which means the NIST cannot even explain the initiation of any “collapse” sequence.

The top 30 floors of the South Tower pivoted and began to fall to the side, when the floors beneath gave way. So it was not even in the position to exert downward pressure on the lower 80 floors. A high-school physics teacher, Charles Boldwyn, moreover, has calculated that, if you take the top 16 floors of the North Tower as one unit of downward force, there were 199 units of upward force to counteract it.

William Rodriguez, who was the senior custodian in the North Tower and the last man to leave the building, has reported massive explosions in the sub-basements that effected extensive destruction, including the demolition of a fifty-ton hydraulic press and the ripping of the skin off a fellow worker, where they filled with water that drained the sprinkler system.

Rodriguez observed that the explosion occurred prior to reverberations from upper floors, a claim that has now been substantiated in a new study by Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross, “Seismic Proof: 9/11 Was an Inside Job,” demonstrating that these explosions actually took place as much as 14 and 17 seconds before the presumptive airplane impacts.

Heavy-steel-construction buildings like the Twin Towers are not generally capable of “pancake collapse,” which normally occurs only with concrete structures of “lift slab” construction and could not occur in redundant welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, floor by floor, as Charles Pegelow, a structural engineer, has observed.

The demolition of the two towers in about 10 seconds apiece is very close to the speed of free fall with only air resistance, which Judy Wood, Ph.D., formerly a professor of mechanical engineering, has observed is an astounding result that would be impossible without extremely powerful sources of energy. If they were collapsing, they would have had to fall through their points of greatest resistance.


Indeed, the towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where their floors do not move, a phenomenon Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the buildings, the government’s account cannot possibly explain. There were no pancakes.

WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to “pull it,” displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions: a complete, abrupt and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, yielding a stack of pancakes about 5 floors high.

Had the Twin Towers collapsed like WTC-7, there would have been two stacks of "pancakes" equal to about 12% the height of the buildings or around 15 floors high. But they were actually reduced to below ground level. Since there were no "pancakes", there cannot have been any "pancake collapse" of either building, where the buildings were destoryed by different modes of demolition.
The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44-feet above the ground; the debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Not even the engines were recovered, which means that the official account is not true.

The Pentagon’s own videotapes do not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O’Reilly admitted when one was shown on “The O’Reilly Factor”; at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and easily visible; it was not, which means that the video evidence also contradicts the official account.
The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory—flying at high speed barely above ground level—physically impossible, because a Boeing 757 flying over 500 mph could not have come closer than about 60 feet of the ground, which means that the official account is not even aerodynamically possible.

Data from a flight recorder provided to Pilots for 9/11 Truth by the National Transportation Safety Board corresponds to a plane with a different approach and altitude, which would have precluded its hitting lampposts or even the building itself, which means that, if this data corresponds to a Boeing 757, it would have flown over the Pentagon rather than hit it.

If Flight 93 crashed into an abandoned mine shaft, as the government maintains, then they should have brought out the heavy equipment and the bright lights and dug and dug, 24/7, in the hope that, by some miracle, someone might possibly have survived. But nothing like that was done. Even the singed trees and shrubs were trimmed, apparently to make it impossible to subject them to chemical analysis.

There is more, especially about the alleged hijackers, including that they were not competent to fly these planes and their names are not on any original, authenticated passenger manifest. Several have turned up alive and well and living in the Middle East. The government has not even produced their tickets as evidence that they were even aboard the aircraft they are alleged to have hijacked. Did Osama call from a cave in Afghanistan and charge them to his MasterCard?

President Bush recently acknowledged that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. The Senate Intelligence Committee has reported that Saddam was not in cahoots with Al Qaeda. And the FBI has acknowledged that it has “no hard evidence” to tie Osama to 9/11. If Saddam did not do it and Osama did not do it, then who is responsible for the death of 3,000 citizens that day?

We believe that it is the highest form of respect to those who died on 9/11 and their survivors to establish how and why they died, which our own government manifestly has not done. With the American media under the thumb of a corrupt administration, we cannot count on the press to perform its investigative function. But we can do our best to expose falsehoods and reveal truths about 9/11.



James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
Founder
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
email: [email protected] e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
http://www.911Scholars.org

< Prev Next >

[Mibz]

Unless I misread, that guy's got a PhD in Philosophy. That's about as useful to this argument as a PhD in Sandwich Artistry.

[ALBERTA_IS]

Originally posted by Mibz
Unless I misread, that guy's got a PhD in Philosophy. That's about as useful to this argument as a PhD in Sandwich Artistry.

Correct. He is who wrote the article. Here is a list of members. A variety of all kinds of fields.

http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=35

[codetrap]

I always loved reading about the debunking of all this 911 conspiracy crap. Exposing peoples stupidity is always entertaining.

[95teetee]

Originally posted by ALBERTA_IS
I personally spent years researching 9/11. If you think that those buildings came down from an airplane you have now idea how physics work.

and if you believe the U.S. government was behind (or in any way involved in) the 9/11 attacks then you have no idea how human beings work.

I mean honestly, can someone actually believe that? Especially with the fact that people have an inherent fault that makes the idea even more ridiculous- they talk.
Someone would say something, somewhere. And then when "the truth" comes out, the people behind it pass Adolf Hitler on the list of most despicable human beings in history.


Oh yeah, that's worth the risk to accomplish what it did (whatever that's supposed to be):nut:

edit- not to mention the fact that someone from outside the U.S. would have exposed the U.S. involvement by now...like on 9/12.

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by 95teetee
and if you believe the U.S. government was behind (or in any way involved in) the 9/11 attacks then you have no idea how human beings work.

gulf of tonkin.
The government's track record on telling the truth is not good, so I can understand why some people would be skeptical of an incident that paves the way for a war.

If you think the government cares about the lives of it citizens, you have no idea how government works.
If you might recall, the way the government responded to 3000 deaths of its own citizens is by shipping more citizens overseas to die by the thousands, and to standby while many died in hurricanes and the aftermath at home. Or to not give proper aid to the heros of 9/11 and their proceeding health problems.

[BigMass]

I'm not going to suggest 9/11 was an inside job but that was some ignorant shit right there. Just off the top of my head I can debunk some of the stuff that was said. There was NO Jet Fuel anywhere near building 7. Building 7 was further away than other buildings that didn’t even collapse. Note… buildings 5 AND 6 did not collapse.

No jet fuel? Not all the jet fuel had burned, and it crashed to the
ground in the collapse. There must have been plenty of jet fuel at
building 7.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/august2006/230806wtcplan.jpg


When they say molten metal was found, they don't mean that it was
still molten. They mean that it looked as if it had melted. That
probably took place after the collapse.
Eye witness accounts of molten metal running down in liquid form… “It may have looked like it had melted? WTF lol”
cCdRA09pztM

[BigMass]

Originally posted by Modelexis


gulf of tonkin.
The government's track record on telling the truth is not good, so I can understand why some people would be skeptical of an incident that paves the way for a war.

If you think the government cares about the lives of it citizens, you have no idea how government works.
If you might recall, the way the government responded to 3000 deaths of its own citizens is by shipping more citizens overseas to die by the thousands, and to standby while many died in hurricanes and the aftermath at home. Or to not give proper aid to the heros of 9/11 and their proceeding health problems.

and lets not forget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
which thankfully was never implemented. But they did plan for it.
Northwoods, was a false-flag operation plan that originated within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other operatives to commit genuine acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere. These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support for a war against that nation

[01RedDX]

.

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
Or maybe, just maybe, a few Arabs hated America enough to fly some hijacked planes into those buildings.

I think you are probably correct, I wouldn't refute this claim, I think it is accurate.
At the same time, I don't rail against those who wish to ask questions like, why did the buildings fall, and why did the building that wasn't hit by a plane fall? It's just odd to see something like that happen without reference to any event past or present that acted in that manner.

Right now it seems like it is simply a lack of expertise in the field of physics that gives people what seems is an anomaly, but I cannot blame them for asking questions.

[JAYMEZ]

I remember since day one seeing this.

CwjmqkjwnvQ

I believe this was done by the US Govt... 9/11 gave the US alot of control in the world , and they basically got to attack whoever they wanted.

I dunno , some things are just to fishy to be true.


How about this one.

972ETepp4GI

A building on fire does NOT collapse perfectly.

Now some people might bitch that its disrespectful because people died, and thats understandable , but I know if I had a loved one die , I would want to know the truth on who actually did it.

My Brother in laws US office was in the twin tower buildings , and no one from his company (in the UK) believes what the Gov't is saying. (They lost a few people in the twin towers)



Nice Airplane smashing into the pentagon as well.

NeLcE0sht-M


Anyways , I wont believe the US govt on what actually happened. IT is complete shit that so many people died because of this.

[ALBERTA_IS]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
Or maybe, just maybe, a few Arabs hated America enough to fly some hijacked planes into those buildings.

Of course. That doesn't explain buildings coming down like a controlled demolition now does it?

[Myrrinda]

I never understood how tower 7 collapsed. If anything, you would expect tower 3, which was basically beside both towers 1 and 2, to have been affected more than any of the other 5 towers. There is no way jet fuel could have reached tower 7, and not any of the other towers.

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by ALBERTA_IS

The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory—flying at high speed barely above ground level—physically impossible, because a Boeing 757 flying over 500 mph could not have come closer than about 60 feet of the ground, which means that the official account is not even aerodynamically possible.



Explain how it's impossible for a large aircraft to travel into the ground at high speed?

Big jets do low, low flybys at incredible speeds all the time.

[CUG]

Originally posted by ALBERTA_IS
I personally spent years researching 9/11. If you think that those buildings came down from an airplane you have now idea how physics work.


NO You studied third party information that was already in place and established by conspiracy theorists, and unless you were involved in the investigation to begin with: collecting raw data at the scene of the incident and being privy to legitimate and qualified findings, I believe there's a high likelihood that what your time studying would have been better spent in the trades.


Originally posted by ALBERTA_IS


Of course. That doesn't explain buildings coming down like a controlled demolition now does it?
Actually, it quite DOES explain what you perceive the buildings fall characteristics to be. The construction of the buildings floor system explains and refutes pretty much everything people like you claim. :rofl:

[luxor]

Originally posted by ALBERTA_IS

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
Founder
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
email: [email protected] e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
http://www.911Scholars.org


Ph.D in Philosophy? Really? Stop posting useless propaganda. His "work" hold no merit. He googled everything for all that we know. Philosophy cannot be mixed with science. Simply put he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. Thanks for coming out.

:facepalm:

[Scope951]

regardless of what happened in New York.

There is no way people can disagree that there is a HUGE disconnect with what actually flew into the pentagon and what they claim crashed into it.

I am for one with theorists for once as the US has been hella shady as of late.

[01RedDX]

.

[pyroza]

http://debunking911.com/

Just gonna leave this link here...

[ALBERTA_IS]

Originally posted by CUG


NO You studied third party information that was already in place and established by conspiracy theorists, and unless you were involved in the investigation to begin with: collecting raw data at the scene of the incident and being privy to legitimate and qualified findings, I believe there's a high likelihood that what your time studying would have been better spent in the trades.


Actually, it quite DOES explain what you perceive the buildings fall characteristics to be. The construction of the buildings floor system explains and refutes pretty much everything people like you claim. :rofl:

Your opinion. The construction of the buildings floor systems explains and refutes pretty much everything people like me claim? Please explain. Placing your gay little told you so emoticon does nothing :rofl: for me. Explain it to me in real world talk.

You correct. It is third party information I am making my opinion on. What is yours? Opinions are interpretations and that is why this thread was started. It was for discussion. Thanks.

[ALBERTA_IS]

Originally posted by luxor


Ph.D in Philosophy? Really? Stop posting useless propaganda. His &quot;work&quot; hold no merit. He googled everything for all that we know. Philosophy cannot be mixed with science. Simply put he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. Thanks for coming out.

:facepalm:

He wrote the article and founded the organization. Check the member list. But thank you for coming out. No big internet I showed you. Thanks again.

[CUG]

Originally posted by ALBERTA_IS

You correct. It is third party information I am making my opinion on. What is yours? Opinions are interpretations and that is why this thread was started. It was for discussion. Thanks. So then you retract your comment stating that you've "personally spent years researching 9/11" right? If your opinion is merely an interpretation and your research has concluded as nothing more than opinion (a belief or judgment which is not based on proof or certainty) , it might be safe to say you didn't really do much legitimate research on the matter at all? Which University commissioned the study? What were your findings? Are your findings peer reviewed?

I quit engaging in these discussions a long time ago. Regardless, I base zero of my knowledge of 9/11 on a Mike Moore movie. Watching a Mike Moore movie and frothing from the mouth at pseudo-science youtube videos for hours on end is not legitimate "research" of any kind.

There exists very simple explanations for the collapse of the buildings: everything from the floors construction, to the temperatures occurring at the impact areas, all the way to the "molten metal". I find the nature of the content in those reviews to be much more credible, much clearer and concise than anything else.

Whether or not I'm going spend time digging that information up for you, is an entirely different story.

Take note that I'm not even disposing of the idea that it may have been an inside job, merely the statement that "the way the building collapsed means it was Americans and not the Arabs, so now I feel bad for the persecuted Arab countries". That is foully disgusting logic.

[Modelexis]

I think anyone that takes a position in the debate should read the site posted above in its entirety (http://debunking911.com/)

For me personally, I think what I'm sort of waiting for is some real world experiment that can demonstrate what happened in a way that I can visualize and relate the same sort of physics that came to cause these collapses.

I don't have a physics background, so for me, a visual aid, something I can compare this to in real life would really help me understand.

So if anyone has a link to any video of a real life experiment demonstrating in relation to what physics were involved in these events I think that would help me the most in understanding the collapsing.

It's very frightening to see how fragile these buildings are and how easily they can just completely evaporate, you would think a major fire coupled with maybe an earthquake would have much of the same effect.

[BigMass]

Originally posted by CUG

Take note that I'm not even disposing of the idea that it may have been an inside job, merely the statement that &quot;the way the building collapsed means it was Americans and not the Arabs, so now I feel bad for the persecuted Arab countries&quot;. That is foully disgusting logic.

The buildings collapse is just a small fraction of the 911 story. How the buildings came down almost takes away from the other aspects of what happened. There is so much uncertainty because there is so much circumstantial evidence surrounding the event. CIA / ISI connections, John O’Neill, Sibel Edmonds, prior knowledge of the attacks, taped conversation, Saudi hijackers trained on US bases, reaction to the attacks with pre-planned operations against Iraq (which had nothing to do with 911 and was actually anti-Al-Qaida) , rallying support from neo-con groups like PNAC, CFR (Rebuilding America’s Defenses) and the Trilateral Commission for a new “pearl harbor like event” to move forward their agenda of centralized control, Operation Northwoods… I mean I can go on forever and that’s just off the top of my head. There are interests and organizations involved far smarter and more capable than any single person can comprehend. You see “Arabs flying planes into buildings”, while the real story involves an insane amount of detail that will never be fully discovered. Smart people ask question while the ignorant think they know all the answers.

And PS fuck Michael Moore. He has nothing to do with the subject. He makes shitty documentaries on hot button issues to make a cheap buck. Nothing more, nothing less. Let him go.

[Khyron]

Originally posted by ALBERTA_IS
The impact of planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes alleged to have hit were similar to those they were designed to withstand, and the buildings continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.

You stupid troll. I don't even want to read past your first paragraph. You can continue to believe whatever you want but obviously you don't read anything counter... or based in reality.

The buildings were designed to withstand an impact from an airplane... IN 1965! The planes they planned against were nothing near the mass of a 747 full to the gills of jet fuel. If you're going to quote a guy, at least quote the entire context (but of course, taking bits and pieces is how conspiracy whackjobs work)

[JAYMEZ]

No one watched my movies :cry: ..

Anyways guys, you dont need to attack each others characters , just the facts.

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by Khyron

The buildings were designed to withstand an impact from an airplane... IN 1965! The planes they planned against were nothing near the mass of a 747 full to the gills of jet fuel. If you're going to quote a guy, at least quote the entire context (but of course, taking bits and pieces is how conspiracy whackjobs work)

The buildings were designed to take a hit from a 707-320, which can actually be heavier than the 767-200 that hit it.

Not that the 767 was anywhere near max weight with 80 odd people on board and a 2,500 mile trip to the west coast. Their tanks were probably less than half full.

[CUG]

Originally posted by JAYMEZ
I remember since day one seeing this.

1.) I believe this was done by the US Govt... 9/11 gave the US alot of control in the world , and they basically got to attack whoever they wanted.

I dunno , some things are just to fishy to be true.



2.) A building on fire does NOT collapse perfectly.

3.) Now some people might bitch that its disrespectful because people died, and thats understandable , but I know if I had a loved one die , I would want to know the truth on who actually did it.

1- If that is the case, we could all safely say it backfired. We're 10 years post-facto, and I doubt the US has been in this kind of trouble EVER. We could as easily say that the Arabs brained up the outcome that did occur.

2- How is it supposed to fall? On top of that, how do we know that suicide bombers didn't plant the devices if there were devices to begin with?

3- Personally I don't see questioning it as an insult to those who perished in the attacks either. I think scrutiny should in most cases be devoid of emotion, however.

[nich148_9]

http://www.scottkessel.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/not_this_shit_again.jpg

http://debunking911.com/
http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#g/u

Education is fun.

[CUG]

Originally posted by nich148_9

http://debunking911.com/
http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#g/u

Education is fun. The biggest crime here is that the ones responsible are being sympathized with by people on our own free soil. :facepalm:

[JAYMEZ]

[B]
1- If that is the case, we could all safely say it backfired. We're 10 years post-facto, and I doubt the US has been in this kind of trouble EVER. We could as easily say that the Arabs brained up the outcome that did occur.

Never thought of it that way. It could be true that terrorists put explosions in the building. Ive never looked at it that way.

But then I am drawn to a BBC news report that I saw.. The news reporter is saying that building 7 has fallen.. But if you look behind her.. the building is still there?

6mxFRigYD3s

Well from the 9/11 .. US pretty much slapped the UN in the face and attacked two main resource rich countries , which most likely brought alot of work for US Contractors. It wouldn't be the first time a super power in history made an attack for a resource another country possessed. (England was pretty bad for this back in the days.


2- How is it supposed to fall? On top of that, how do we know that suicide bombers didn't plant the devices if there were devices to begin with?

I have been looking at how buildings fall from Controlled Explosions..

Example:
pzI6dmy-o9A

And a building falling from a fire.. I know its not always the case , but I would think that it would collapse and be messy and partially fall in areas..(From Fire)

1h9TOFP7ViY

The building 7 one was absolutely perfect!

3- Personally I don't see questioning it as an insult to those who perished in the attacks either. I think scrutiny should in most cases be devoid of emotion, however.

I agree. But for some reason , I dont want to trust the politicians and what they say :banghead:

[CUG]

I've seen those, vids in the past suggesting prior knowledge, and I've always attributed that to a phenomenon called "confabulation" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation)


This is from that debunking911 link, it's a professor of civil engineering at BYU:
After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU
Supporting video:
kSq663m0G8
It shows the logistics of the collapse.


From "the man" Bin Laden himself:
I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.
(http://debunking911.com/osama.htm)

[JAYMEZ]

Originally posted by CUG
I've seen those, vids in the past suggesting prior knowledge, and I've always attributed that to a phenomenon called &quot;confabulation&quot; (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation)


This is from that debunking911 link, it's a professor of civil engineering at BYU:
After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his &quot;Conspiracy Theory&quot; relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU
Supporting video:
kSq663m0G8
It shows the logistics of the collapse.


From &quot;the man&quot; Bin Laden himself:
I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.
(http://debunking911.com/osama.htm)


I agree with the planes destroyed the twin towers.. I am more talking about Building 7 down the street on its weird collapsing .. It doesn't even look like its on fire.

Also the pentagon being hit by a plane is just iffy.

[broken_legs]

Just wanted to add one thing to the debate.

It's really easy to pull off the demolition of these buildings without including thousands of people that know about it.

Sheesh - hasnt anyone heard of tying up loose ends???

Hire an assassin, then kill the assassin? The only person left who knows is you.

If anyone was actually diabolical enough to kill 3000 innocents, im sure they wouldnt think twice about killing a few more people in setting up the ruse.

This is far fetched, but just for hypothetical:


5 people with executive access to the US gov't conspire to blow up the buildings.

They hire a group of contractors to run the cords for the explosives months or years before the actual attack. These people don't know its det cord, and have no suspicions and just lay out the cords thinking its part of a new building monitoring system or something. - Even though these people have no suspicions of any wrong doing, they are all dead weeks or months after the job is over by car accidents and heart attacks....

How many people know about the conspiracy? 5

Several months later terrorists/operatives or whomever on the CIA payroll come in and lay the explosives (they know they are putting in explosives and are aware what they are doing is wrong) After they are finished they are all killed by other CIA operatives who are told they were high value terrorists or enemies of the state.

How many people know about the conspiracy? 5

To be extra sure, executive orders come in again and the agents that disposed of the people who did the original killings are also killed again by unrelated CIA agents acting on false intelligence killing without question.

How many people know about the conspiracy? 5

Months later, plan is executed by the 5 people and all loose ends are already tied up.

Just as an example... Anything is possible in a government where people will blindly do things without asking questions because it is their job. Imagine being able to pass orders to have people killed or to disappear and having an army of people and technology that im sure we dont even know about to do this.


Just like the arguments for the conspiracy, saying that everyone would know is not a good argument against the conspiracy.

just sayin...

[CUG]

Originally posted by JAYMEZ



I agree with the planes destroyed the twin towers.. I am more talking about Building 7 down the street on its weird collapsing .. It doesn't even look like its on fire.

Also the pentagon being hit by a plane is just iffy. I read in the mess that it was struck by bigger mass debris from the larger buildings and that is what compromised the structure on one side to the top.

I'm balls deep in a philosophy paper right now, I'll find the Pentagon crap I saw in a bit and post it.

[creeper]

Originally posted by CUG
I read in the mess that it was struck by bigger mass debris from the larger buildings and that is what compromised the structure on one side to the top.

I'm balls deep in a philosophy paper right now, I'll find the Pentagon crap I saw in a bit and post it.



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/September_17_2001.jpg/750px-September_17_2001.jpg

couple of those buildings managed to remain standing, despite the world trade centre falling on top of them ..... not so lucky for building 7

[creeper]

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/docs/wtc5_fire_floors.jpg

Building 5 also fared pretty good, not collapsing even with the massive multi-story fires that burned for hours, and being pounded by debris due to its immediate proximity to towers 1 & 2.

[CUG]

Originally posted by creeper


couple of those buildings managed to remain standing, despite the world trade centre falling on top of them ..... not so lucky for building 7 I hope we haven't stopped considering the billions of variables that were possible during an event like this.

Say George W or radical islam pulled the trigger on building 7, what for? The more important of the 3 buildings had already collapsed and created the necessary contempt for muslims and grounds for another crusade which in turn created support for islam worldwide.

[Jay911]

Originally posted by Scope951
There is no way people can disagree that there is a HUGE disconnect with what actually flew into the pentagon and what they claim crashed into it.

So I guess the firefighters on duty at the fire station that services the Pentagon heliport are liars then, are they?


From the Arlington Fire Journal
Fort Myer firefighter Alan Wallace, a veteran federal firefighter, was tending to the foam rig on the Pentagon fire station ramp, when he heard the Boeing 757’s screaming engines – and looked to the sky. American Airlines Fight 77 to Los Angeles, with 64 souls aboard, had been hijacked from Washington-Dulles International Airport. "Runnnnn!"’ Wallace yelled to a buddy, firefighter Mark Skipper.

The plane was 200 yards away - and 25 feet off the ground.

"There was no time to look back, barely time to scramble"’ for Wallace and the others, The Washington Post said. "He made it about 30 feet, heard a terrible roar, felt the heat, and dove underneath a van, skinning his stomach as he slid across the blacktop, sailing across it as though he were riding a luge."

"A few seconds later he was sliding back out to check on his friend and then race back to the fire truck," the Post said. "He jumped in threw it into gear, but the accelerator was dead. The entire back of the truck was destroyed, the cab on fire."

Further direct eyewitness accounts from these firefighters as published in Firehouse Magazine (an internationally-recognized trade publication) in 2001 attest to the fact that it was an airplane. It clipped light standards on the road outside the Pentagon as it came in, causing damage to a taxicab, and the fireball from the plane's explosion destroyed all the vehicles - people's personal vehicles as well - at the fire station, and caved in the roof of the truck bays.

I'm not even going to bother trying to wrestle with quoting some of the other BS that people posted, but I will try to answer it. I know it's pointless, since people are way too set in their minds that this movie-script conspiracy plot has to be the right answer (and, arguing about it goes against what I said earlier about not getting riled up about you crackpots), but I have to make these points, if for no other reason than to defend the good names of my fellow emergency responders who are being trampled on by the tinfoil-hat crowd.

First of all: Throw out any examples of "controlled demolition" or "collapse by fire" you have lined up about Building 7. Building 7 was a situation we have never before seen in human history and hopefully we will never see again. Why? A 47 story office block was completely, fully involved in fire, with no fire suppression activity underway. Never before has a structure of such size been allowed to burn unchecked for so long. Even if debris from the original plane crashes didn't strike the structure (and it did, but gathering the material to prove it is more work than I'm prepared to do at 6:45 in the morning - look at the early photos with gashes in the front face from debris from the towers), no building is designed to withstand being on fire for that long with no firefighting actions undertaken. Buildings are designed so that the columns that hold it up share their load with the other columns around it, along its entire length and width. The loss of a load-bearing column increases the weight that the surrounding columns must bear, dramatically. Ultimately you will get to a point where the remaining columns cannot bear the weight of the building, and it all comes down. To someone who understands building construction, this is plain as day. Firefighters take courses in building construction (not in how to construct buildings, but in how buildings are constructed) to understand this kind of thing. A former fire officer Frank Brannigan made his living out of teaching "Building Construction for the Firefighter", so much that even now after his passing, his course is mandatory in the international certification of a professional firefighter.

As for the claim that whatever news channel (BBC?) reported the demise of building 7 early.. the fire officials that hadn't been killed by the towers' collapse recognized the situation building 7 was in and wrote it off. They decided not to fight any fire in the confirmed-unoccupied building (NYC Emergency Operations Centre was in there prior to the towers' collapse, and evacuated when it became untenable due to the fire), and specialists used transits (surveying equipment) to keep an eye on the building from afar. FDNY knew the building would eventually fall down, and that was probably released to the media in a briefing before it did.

One more point I remembered that I wanted to make. People are taking the claims that "explosions" were heard at the scene as well as "molten metal" as gospel. These are people who are untrained and hear a loud bang or see something that they think looks like molten metal. We hear people saying they heard an "explosion" all the time - be it a power transformer on a pole going bad, a car backfiring, or someone slamming a door really hard. We also get people saying that an earthquake or tornado "sounded like a freight train". To follow the logic of the conspiracy theorists, that means there is actually a freight train inside every tornado.

I could say more to refute any of the conspiracy theories, but I need to get off to work, and just don't have the energy or interest to sit here picking everything else apart. What I will say is: All this can be summed up in a very simple psychological point. The average human mind - as in, all the people who fight for "truth" aka conspiracy theories - doesn't want to believe that something as simple as an asshole with an agenda and a tiny knife can cause this kind of damage and destruction. It (the human mind) needs to believe that there is some grander reason than what actually happened, for this to take place. It gives some people comfort to be able to convince themselves that there had to be more to this than a couple of planes crashing in the middle of a dense urban area.

[revelations]

Originally posted by ALBERTA_IS

The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44-feet above the ground; the debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Not even the engines were recovered, which means that the official account is not true.

The Pentagon’s own videotapes do not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O’Reilly admitted when one was shown on “The O’Reilly Factor”; at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and easily visible; it was not, which means that the video evidence also contradicts the official account.
The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory—flying at high speed barely above ground level—physically impossible, because a Boeing 757 flying over 500 mph could not have come closer than about 60 feet of the ground, which means that the official account is not even aerodynamically possible.


While I believe its important to ask questions, and that there is way more to the official story......this guy has no credibility to stand on.

- A B757 has no aerodynamic restriction regarding minimum AGL. It can pancake with the best of them.

- Hot section turbine engine parts were recovered from the crash scene from the Pentagon. These were far larger than what would be used in a cruise missile. I know this because I am a former Jet engine mechanic.

(these were seen in many photos - you just have to know what to look for)

- Security camera footage is very poor quality. You cant take too much from those.

[codetrap]

There's no point in arguing with conspiracy theorists, mostly likely they're simply wired wrong. Thanks to the internet, they've graduated from the isolated guy down the street that collects bottle caps and comic books to the exclusion of all else, to having an audience they can spew their garbage at.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/08/the-psychology-of-conspiracy-theories/

[creeper]

Originally posted by CUG

Say George W or radical islam pulled the trigger on building 7, what for?

Lots of different banks had space rented in building 7, as well as the SEC, so if you're on board with the whole Silverstein/financial angle to the WTC story, then that would fit, destroy records of sensitive investigations ..... etc.

[Jay911]

The people who go on about how there isn't a hole big enough to fit an airliner in, at the Pentagon, make me laugh.

A jet with the structural rigidity slightly higher than a beer can, hits a hardened military structure, and you expect what, a Wile E. Coyote-style silhouette blasted through the walls?

Get real.

[creeper]

Originally posted by Jay911


Building 7 was a situation we have never before seen in human history and hopefully we will never see again. Why? A 47 story office block was completely, fully involved in fire, with no fire suppression activity underway. Never before has a structure of such size been allowed to burn unchecked for so long.

I've seen this used as an example before:

A fire broke out in the Windsor Tower in Madrid which spread to all 32 floors and burned for 24 hours, and remained standing.


http://wtcbuilding7.com/gallery/1/spain_fire6.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/TorreWindsor1.JPG/342px-TorreWindsor1.JPG

whereas building 7 had what doesn't appear to be nearly as destructive:
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/7-fire.jpg

but on the de-bunking sites I've read through most point to the unusual structural design of WTC 7, and a combo of fire/damage from debris.


One interesting thing I read and haven't found a de-bunk for is that some of the hijackers names don't appear on passenger manifests. Such as:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Mohamed_Atta.jpg

[CapnCrunch]

Originally posted by Jay911
The people who go on about how there isn't a hole big enough to fit an airliner in, at the Pentagon, make me laugh.

A jet with the structural rigidity slightly higher than a beer can, hits a hardened military structure, and you expect what, a Wile E. Coyote-style silhouette blasted through the walls?

Get real.

:rofl:

[Modelexis]

Physics nerds discussing the topic:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=79062

Haven't read it all, but looks very interesting.

[corsvette]

I'm not on board with the conspiracy theorists, but the whole event is seedy imo, it seems no two answers are the same from any of these "experts" just way to much speculation on all accounts. We will never know the absolute truth.

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by Jay911
The people who go on about how there isn't a hole big enough to fit an airliner in, at the Pentagon, make me laugh.

A jet with the structural rigidity slightly higher than a beer can, hits a hardened military structure, and you expect what, a Wile E. Coyote-style silhouette blasted through the walls?

Get real.

Exactly.

Airliners are hollow tubes, full of nothing. The ONLY solid components on a modern airliner are the engines.

[clem24]

Originally posted by Jay911
A jet with the structural rigidity slightly higher than a beer can, hits a hardened military structure, and you expect what, a Wile E. Coyote-style silhouette blasted through the walls?

I shouldn't laugh but this brought a nice grin to my face. ;)

[Freeskier]

Originally posted by creeper

One interesting thing I read and haven't found a de-bunk for is that some of the hijackers names don't appear on passenger manifests. Such as:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Mohamed_Atta.jpg

u mean they exploited mistakes in the airport security to acheive their goals?! omfgnowai!

I hate how the people suggesting these theories just expect us to believe these "facts" that they blurt out with no backup or even pictures.

"The impact point was too small for a jet liner"

Was it? Can you show me where this came from? Where any of your facts came from? Were they just made up? Why should I believe the conspiracy theorists over anyone else.

[01RedDX]

.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by broken_legs
Just wanted to add one thing to the debate.

It's really easy to pull off the demolition of these buildings without including thousands of people that know about it.

...

They hire a group of contractors to run the cords for the explosives months or years before the actual attack. These people don't know its det cord, and have no suspicions and just lay out the cords thinking its part of a new building monitoring system or something. - Even though these people have no suspicions of any wrong doing, they are all dead weeks or months after the job is over by car accidents and heart attacks....

How many people know about the conspiracy? 5

..
just sayin...

Really? Do you think that maybe those teams of contractors might notice the det cord exploding when they cut it with standard wire cutters? Or perhaps if they dropped a box and it exploded? Or maybe when buddy was working in the wiring cabinet and lit up a smoke?

Yeah.. sorry man. There's no way anyone is pulling thousands of feet of det cord through a tower thinking it's CAT6 or something like that.

[Guillermo]

i can't believe so many of you just blindly believe in physics... you do know it's just a bunch of theories, right?

[Freeskier]

Hmmm should i bite??


Sure.

These "theories" we've blindly followed consist of our entire understanding of the physical universe. This isn't the reformation where scientific knowledge is actively repressed. In today's word, scientific publication and advancement requires peer review and is closely scrutinized immediately following publication. So of course those of us with a shred of scientific knowledge or training believe that these theories are the best we are capable of at the moment.

We also are compelled to question scientific "facts" on insanely technical issues from doctors of philosophy.

[BigMass]

Like I said bombs in the buildings is such a boring topic. Lets talk about how originally the Bush administration resisted creating a 9/11 commission, then gives in but appoints Henry (I didn’t bomb Cambodia / Assassinate heads of states / War Criminal / CFR Member) Kissinger as the head of the commission, then gives into pressure and changes him out, but refuses to let Condoleezza Rice testify, then Bush refuses to testify under oath and alone and insisted on testifying with Cheney at the same time.

Well I guess Cheney did have to make sure Shrub got his story straight… :rolleyes:
BUXglJU2w6U

But wait there’s more. Lets not forget how the former head of the FBI counterterrorism unit John O’Neill who was consistently stonewalled in his hunt for Osama Bin Laden by his own government, then fired, then hired as head of security at the WTC just 2 weeks prior to 9/11 then died in the attacks.

How about the Hijackers all being Saudi yet the US carries out a pre-planned operation against Iraq which had zero involvement in the attacks on 9/11

How about the paper trail tracking funding from the ISI to Al-Qaida? The CIA works hand in hand with the ISI since the Soviet/Afghan war. Or CIA Creating Al-Qaida for Saudis to bankroll Osama bin Laden through the House of Saud during the war.

How does all that and more tie in to the 9/11 attacks. What doesn’t the government want people to know? You think you have all the answers? What your explanation? Arabs hate our freedom and want to blow our shit up… If that’s really what you think you need your head examined to make sure there’s still a brain up there.

So fuck bombs in the buildings. The real truth behind 9/11 lies in the past 50 years of history. I’d love to inject truth serum into Zbigniew Brzezinski and ask him about 9/11. How can people look at 9/11, US foreign policy in the middle east all throughout the cold war and not have questions? How is that even possible?

[RecoilS14]

BigMass: Great post.

[Freeskier]

See now bigmass' post is the one that's a lot harder to explain away. I think all the conspiracy about the attack itself is total horseshit, but the aftermath and the US's response is something else entirely

[01RedDX]

.

[CUG]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
BigMass saved the thread.

Analysing every little nuance of how the buildings came down is completely trivial when the real issue is the government's response. It's all but proven that they had prior knowledge of the attacks, possibly down to the date/time/flight number, and still chose to let it happen. Doesn't that seem a lot worse than some retarded &quot;controlled demolition&quot; conspiracy?

This is why I hate most truthers, for stealing attention away from the real issues. Word. There's much more suspicion in that than the physics of the catalyst event. One theory that crossed my mind is that the flubbering fuckups at the white house was a situation like this:

-The US knew who did it
-The US wanted to use as much leverage from it as possible.
-I don't doubt the middle eastern terrorists involvement in it even in the slightest, I just believe Bush wanted to capitalize on it as much as possible and needed the right players in place to make that happen.
-I believe Condo's testimony would have exposed the unessential invasion of Iraq and the premises for doing so.

To deny Bin Laden's involvement is pretty silly, I believe ALL parties involved should be hanged, be it Al Queda/Bin Laden and anyone else who played a role in it, not just Bush if he's found to be responsible.

[nich148_9]

Originally posted by Guillermo
i can't believe so many of you just blindly believe in physics... you do know it's just a bunch of theories, right?


Don't feed the troll. :guns: :guns:

[creeper]

Originally posted by Freeskier
See now bigmass' post is the one that's a lot harder to explain away. I think all the conspiracy about the attack itself is total horseshit, but the aftermath and the US's response is something else entirely

This is my perspective on the whole thing. I'm not a conspiracy theorist about the actual planes/towers/collapse ..... but there are some serious red flags about the event as a whole. The behind the scenes stuff .... such as the NORAD drills and all that.

[creeper]

Originally posted by Freeskier


u mean they exploited mistakes in the airport security to acheive their goals?! omfgnowai!


Not sure what you mean. The "hijackers" were traveling with legitimate tickets and real passports. Not sure how else you would imagine they could have boarded the plane in the first place. In fact, the official story goes so far as to claim that Al Suqami's passport was found intact and undamaged in the ruins of the WTC. Interesting to think that a paper passport could have survived the initial crash and explosion of the airplane, and then the collapse of the tower. Even stranger, considering the black box from that same flight was never recovered.

[911fever]

Originally posted by codetrap
There's no point in arguing with conspiracy theorists, mostly likely they're simply wired wrong. Thanks to the internet, they've graduated from the isolated guy down the street that collects bottle caps and comic books to the exclusion of all else, to having an audience they can spew their garbage at.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/08/the-psychology-of-conspiracy-theories/

no kidding.
Only the internet drags up this kind of crap.


Originally posted by 01RedDX


:werd:

and when confronted with any kind of logic, the idiots just dismiss it before spewing out some other inane bullshit.

How about the phone calls and messages from the passengers saying goodbye to their families?

&quot;Uuggh... ever heard of voice synthesizers?&quot;


:facepalm: shut up FFS

hahaha :rofl: true
why cant conspiracy theorists explain this?

[creeper]

Originally posted by 911fever


no kidding.
Only the internet drags up this kind of crap.



hahaha :rofl: true
why cant conspiracy theorists explain this?

There are plenty of issues surrounding the calls. Most of the calls have never been released. Also, there are the questions surrounding the likely-hood that calls would even connect from airplanes, let alone stay connected for 20+ minutes as claimed.

[Guillermo]

Originally posted by nich148_9



Don't feed the troll. :guns: :guns:

i'm not a troll, i'm being serious! gravity is just as absurd as evolution and climate change!

keep in mind that science is an industry, and scientists have major incentive (funding = personal profit) to pull the wool over our eyes and make us believe things that aren't true.

most beyonders clearly agree with me, just look in the climategate thread and you'll see what i mean. luckily, some beyonders are going through the leaked climategate data, and will expose these dirty scientists for what they really are - dishonest crooks!



:whipped:

[nich148_9]

Originally posted by Guillermo


i'm not a troll, i'm being serious! gravity is just as absurd as evolution and climate change!



You're so lucky there's no way to stab people through the internet.

[Freeskier]

Ha, that made me lol! :rofl: :rofl:

[RecoilS14]

Originally posted by Guillermo


i'm not a troll, i'm being serious! gravity is just as absurd as evolution and climate change!

keep in mind that science is an industry, and scientists have major incentive (funding = personal profit) to pull the wool over our eyes and make us believe things that aren't true.

most beyonders clearly agree with me, just look in the climategate thread and you'll see what i mean. luckily, some beyonders are going through the leaked climategate data, and will expose these dirty scientists for what they really are - dishonest crooks!



:whipped:

Wow....Just wow.

Please don't reproduce.:facepalm:

[Guillermo]

I'm surprised I don't have more support here. where's the rest of the anti-science crowd that was so outspoken in the climate change thread? you guys are still analyzing that leaked climategate data, right? and you're still gonna prove - once and for all - that science is nothing but a vast conspiracy to make profits for the scientists, right? right? right??? :thumbsup:

[msommers]

LOL I see what you're getting at but scientists are still human. Endorsing tobacco comes to mind.

But all in all, I think a lot of true scientists will beat someone into the ground about why they're wrong instead of proving what's right hahaha.

[CUG]

Guillermo, the physics doesn't support the theorists.

[Guillermo]

one day, what goes up, just might keep going up!!!!










:rofl:

[89s1]

The twin towers were giant white elephants, over 35% vacancy rates in each tower, full of asbestos, which Silverstein had just been given a ludicrous estimate to have all removed and all of a sudden he wished they were gone. Silverstien hung out with bush, they shared the same circles of friends.

As the world grows and big cities get even bigger, we need to know the limits of modern day controlled demolition, what a way to test, two 110 story buildings at the same time, and a 47 in on top of it. Then be able to start a war and blame it all on Al-Qaeda (a group of "terrorists" trained by the cai back in the day.)

I don't doubt for a second that all 3 of those buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.

[911fever]

Originally posted by 89s1
The twin towers were giant white elephants, over 35% vacancy rates in each tower, full of asbestos, which Silverstein had just been given a ludicrous estimate to have all removed and all of a sudden he wished they were gone. Silverstien hung out with bush, they shared the same circles of friends.

As the world grows and big cities get even bigger, we need to know the limits of modern day controlled demolition, what a way to test, two 110 story buildings at the same time, and a 47 in on top of it. Then be able to start a war and blame it all on Al-Qaeda (a group of &quot;terrorists&quot; trained by the cai back in the day.)

I don't doubt for a second that all 3 of those buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.

:facepalm: :facepalm:

[ALBERTA_IS]

I think we should all agree that we all have our opinions and can support several different scenario's. We will never know the entire truth behind 9/11. The facts are that there is a lot of holes in the information the public has received. Futhermore I want to let some of you know that I am not supporting terorists or saying that the people were not actually killed. What I think is that America got caught with their pants down and innocent people lost their lives. We are all looking at the same information and interpreting it differently. Antone who starts name calling just shows their level of intellect.

:)